Imagine that if the civil war/collapse ended as well as tremendous economic impacts, will there be implications or effects for the rest of the EU whereas the expansion will be more likely to be delayed up until the late 1990s or into the early 2000s?
My prediction is the European Union might delay the set date for the introduction of the Euro since the global economy was affected by a civil war in Russia and the United Kingdom might or might not adopt the Euro currency.
It is a bit back and forth. On one hand, then a lot of Eastern European countries will be even more determined to join EU, Nashist / Soviet Russia will be way of an unpredictable threat, OTOH, the global depression will be mean that a) they will significantly poorer (and by extension more lawless/corrupt) and EU will have significantly less resources to throw at them. Even without Eastern expansion, the depression will cause increased tensions either within the EU or within the net contributor countries (Germany, UK, France, Benelux) and might lead to an earlier Brexit.
OTOH, the disruption of the world economy at the very least would make those pushing for a more state-centered economy stronger in their arguments by wrapping their arguments in the banner of "economic stability" with the Second Great Depression and all that.
In which case the second great depression would be prolonged, just as the
New Deal prolonged the effects of the first Great Depression.
In general thought, war times in the 1990s would likely promote a "rally round the flag"-effect and consensus economic policies. For instance, the Eastern European tradition of "always electing the opposition" might be stopped and in Western & Southern Europe, there might be less political change during the 90s.
Anyways, looking forward to which way, Sorairo will take this. If his last (and great) story is anything to go by, a few choice mushroom clouds are coming up.
