What if James Baker was Veep or SecState for Bush 43 and US invited Russia into NATO?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
James Baker, who was the lawyer for Bush v. Gore but not hired into a role of any authority for the George W. Bush administration, advocated for at least a conditional,but still genuine offer of Russian membership in NATO in 1993 and 2002. What if he was in the administration and had the opportunity to pursue the idea.

Here is an abstract of his 2002 article on the subject:

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
The Washington Quarterly 25.1 (2002) 95-103


[Access article in PDF]
Russia in NATO?
James A. Baker III
In 1993 I proposed that NATO draw up a clear road map for expanding the alliance eastward to include not only the states of Central and Eastern Europe but also a democratic Russia. "Otherwise, the most successful alliance in history is destined to follow the threat that created it into the dustbin of history." 1 The alliance did, of course, expand eastward and survive. Today, following the admission of Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, nine other countries either have asked for membership consideration or have signaled an interest. By engaging in air missions and peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, NATO has enlarged its military mission to include out-of-area operations in a region whose troubles did not directly threaten the members' security, but did threaten European stability. Now, with the invocation of the North Atlantic Treaty's mutual defense obligations under Article 5 in response to the September terrorist attacks on the United States, the alliance is serving a more important role in Western security than at any other time since the end of the Cold War.

Russia, however, still waits outside the door. The idea that Russia could even be eligible for membership has been met with opposition and indifference, mainly because Russia has never been ripe for membership--because it has embraced democracy and free markets only rhetorically, without creating the institutions or exercising the political will necessary to commit itself fully. Accordingly, unwilling to consider marriage, the West has offered cohabitation arrangements--first the Partnership for Peace, then the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council--that have served useful functions without offering a satisfactory long-term solution. Then in 1997, over strong [End Page 95] Russian objections, NATO admitted three former allies of the Soviet Union, without making it clear that Russia, too, would be eligible for membership if it embraced democracy and free markets. Meanwhile, Russia's historic distrust of NATO and of the United States, which had dampened at the beginning of the 1990s, flared back alive when NATO, a defensive alliance, took up arms in an offensive action against Russia's Slavic kinsmen and political allies in the 1999 Kosovo conflict. When the fighting ended, 96 percent of Russians either agreed or totally agreed with the proposition that "NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia is a crime against humanity," and 77 percent either agreed or totally agreed that "[t]here is nothing stopping NATO from getting involved in Russia as it did in Yugoslavia." 2 Those propositions are wrong, of course, but the poll results demonstrated the depth of Russian public antipathy toward the intervention. As the old millennium ended and the new one began, the never-strong possibility of Russian membership in NATO appeared to be dead.

Times have changed. Both Russia and the United States have new presidents. Russian president Vladimir Putin revived the NATO issue in a news conference in July, shortly before he met with President George W. Bush. "Putin challenged the Western alliance to either enroll Russia or disband, calling NATO a Cold War relic that will only continue to sow the seeds of suspicion in Europe as long as it excludes its onetime archenemy." 3 Bush also reportedly had "asked advisers ... about the wisdom of such an approach." The September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States are almost certain to accelerate discussion of the issue.

How Can Russia Join NATO?
The affirmative case for Russian eligibility for NATO membership is fairly straightforward and easy to make. The alliance has at least two implicit and at least five explicit criteria for admission. The first implicit requirement is that the candidate be a member of the Atlantic community--that is to say, the West. The second is that the candidate share important security concerns with the other members. Russia surely qualifies on both counts. Since the end of the Cold War, it has repeatedly declared its identification and wish to align with the West, a region that, for NATO's purposes, already extends eastward to Greece and Turkey. As...
 
The Supreme Cynic in me has me thinking that it'd mean Russia would use the opportunity to undermine NATO. Since

With regards to Democracy, when Putin steps down for Medvedev he might not come back. It was during Medvedev's Presidency that Putin decided to return to the office and face the Americans.

A Russia already in NATO will have a different perspective on the color revolutions. They could be less hostile.

We'd probably avoid the Georgian War here.

Is the US assisting Russia in its caucasian conflict?

Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus might join NATO as well.

Does NATO membership come with increased access to western/IMF loans and liberalization of trade and migration?


Russia was already something of a military partner with the US during the War in Afghanistan. There were to routes into the country: The Pakistani one and the Russian-Central Asian one. Russia was assisting the US in getting troops and supplies to Afghanistan. I wonder if Russia would involve itself in the war.

Would Russia be one of the countries invited to invade Iraq? Would the Russians invade Iraq?


NATO is now on the Chinese Border. Expect paranoia on Beijing's part.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Supreme Cynic in me has me thinking that it'd mean Russia would use the opportunity to undermine NATO.

Interesting. I honestly don't know if Russia would accept the offer in the first place. It would be interesting to see the tactics the Russians would use within NATO alliance structures to undermine from within if it chose to do so.

We'd probably avoid the Georgian War here.

I would hope so. I would think the Georgians would not dare make that unilateral move into south Ossetia, and Russia and Georgia may have a less zero sum view of their border situation by 2008 in any case.

Is the US assisting Russia in its caucasian conflict?

Russia could appeal to NATO and the others for solidarity, but the US would not be obligated to participate in the Chechnya fighting. The US did not directly participate in the fight against the IRA in the UK or ETA in Spain. In a common political alliance there would be a somewhat different mood and political winds though, causing efforts to to try to agree on who should be designated a terrorist, less talk in the west about the Chechnya war being a false flag op, less sympathy for the Chechens just because they happen to be fighting the Russians, etc.

Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus might join NATO as well.

Georgia and Ukraine would be rushing to try to. Kazakhstan and especially Belarus are trickier unless the alliance is really completely waiving away the requirement for entrants to be democratic.



Does NATO membership come with increased access to western/IMF loans and liberalization of trade and migration?

I think the first part on loans is likely. But loans will still have conditions. Some liberalization of trade, certainly an end to Jackson-Vanik amendment and poultry import restrictions would have to be part of any deal. Free migration - no guarantee of such, Turkey has not gotten that.

Would Russia be one of the countries invited to invade Iraq? Would the Russians invade Iraq?

I don't see Russia overflowing with such gratitude that they want to invade. They along with France and Germany would likely object as much as they did in OTL.

NATO is now on the Chinese Border. Expect paranoia on Beijing's part.

Yes - the NATO zone external boundary is now the Chinese border. Of course, US trading relations with China, and preoccupation with Middle East wars means there's probably no rush for US forces to base in the Soviet Far East. And Soviet trade relations and desire not to antagonize China may mean they are not eager to ask for US or other western forces to base there.

Chinese panic will probably be less about literal military encirclement and more about worries that Russia may not be a reliable weapons supplier or that the secrets of Russian provided weapons in Chinese stocks could be made known to the US in the event of Sino-US war.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Any other perspectives on this? Particularly European or Russian? How would existing NATO allies have reacted to the US putting this on the agenda? Would there even be a chance for Russia to say yes?
 
Have Bush the Elder win his second term, thus we see this coupled with the proposed "Second Marshall Plan".

Russia avoids the worst of the 90s, and its economy and democracy getting a much firmer foundation, as does the whole of Eastern Europe.

By 2000, NATO includes every country in Europe but the neutrals and Belarus. There is considerable debate if Japan, South Korea and other Pacific allies.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I read that Nixon advised (HW) Bush to give aid to Russia, and Bush turned down the idea. I wonder what Dukakis would do if he had won in 1988.

Problem at the time - The US was in a recession, alongside a wave of white collar downsizing. And, the 1980s had left the country with an unprecedented deficit, and how to fix it was becoming a major political issue, one of several legs that Ross Perot ended up standing on. And, despite the geopolitical gratification for that moment, there was a feeling that Germany and Japan had done better from the Cold War. Paul Tsongas slogan 1992 - "the Cold War is over. Japan won." Add all those up, and "second Marshall Plan" doesn't looks like it balances the equation.
 
Have Bush the Elder win his second term, thus we see this coupled with the proposed "Second Marshall Plan".

Russia avoids the worst of the 90s, and its economy and democracy getting a much firmer foundation, as does the whole of Eastern Europe.

By 2000, NATO includes every country in Europe but the neutrals and Belarus. There is considerable debate if Japan, South Korea and other Pacific allies.
I fervently believe Russia would have been better off with a Communist victory in 1996. They would have taken the blame for the 1998 financial crisis (which was in the works anyways because of the '97 Asian crash and the fixation on keeping a strong ruble, which the Communists were even worse on).

The liberals would not have been discredited as much, and Yeltsin would have been replaced in his faction by actual political liberals who believed in political freedoms rather than the siloviki who glommed onto him after the Apartment Bombings.

Yeltsin weakened and strangled the development of democratic institutions in his actions in 1996 (even Medvedev admits the election was rigged), which he started off by doing in 1993 in his confrontation with the Supreme Soviet and the lunacy in Grozny.

Zyuganov would have tried to prop up the collapsing nationalized industries and would have failed, and he would have been utterly discredited by the 1998 crisis. In 2000, its very possible that he gets beaten by Boris Nemtsov, unless he decides to get chesty over Kosovo and Chechnya and gets the militarist boost in the election.

A Marshall Plan for Russia would have had diminishing returns because of the institutional corruption in both the state, the state owned enterprises, and the private sector. Human misery might have been clamped down upon a bit, but honestly, you want to avoid Russia's 90s human disaster? Send Gorbachev money in 1986 for his anti-alcoholism crusade. Without action on that front, you are fiddling at the margins and are too late.

Consider this: as of 2017, Russia had a lower male life expectancy than North Korea, and the effects are almost entirely due to alcohol as to why it is so much lower than peer nations. This problem in the 90s became ingrained in the expectation for men; in the 80s, it was a reflection of a variety of factors leading to the problem getting worse (the conscript army had horrible problems with it, as did workers in state oil fields and coal plants), and it could have been stopped. Gorbachev had minor amounts of success in the prohibition efforts, but the educational and workplace related efforts fell completely flat.
 
Last edited:
Why did people want Russia to join NATO? NATO was a military alliance aganist Russia. Did they want to turn it into a club of powerful nations? Or a future military allaince from China? Or just bring Russia closer to the West?
 
I fervently believe Russia would have been better off with a Communist victory in 1996. They would have taken the blame for the 1998 financial crisis (which was in the works anyways because of the '97 Asian crash and the fixation on keeping a strong ruble, which the Communists were even worse on).

The liberals would not have been discredited as much, and Yeltsin would have been replaced in his faction by actual political liberals who believed in political freedoms rather than the siloviki who glommed onto him after the Apartment Bombings.

Yeltsin weakened and strangled the development of democratic institutions in his actions in 1996 (even Medvedev admits the election was rigged), which he started off by doing in 1993 in his confrontation with the Supreme Soviet and the lunacy in Grozny.

Zyuganov would have tried to prop up the collapsing nationalized industries and would have failed, and he would have been utterly discredited by the 1998 crisis. In 2000, its very possible that he gets beaten by Boris Nemtsov, unless he decides to get chesty over Kosovo and Chechnya and gets the militarist boost in the election.

A Marshall Plan for Russia would have had diminishing returns because of the institutional corruption in both the state, the state owned enterprises, and the private sector. Human misery might have been clamped down upon a bit, but honestly, you want to avoid Russia's 90s human disaster? Send Gorbachev money in 1986 for his anti-alcoholism crusade. Without action on that front, you are fiddling at the margins and are too late.

Consider this: as of 2017, Russia had a lower male life expectancy than North Korea, and the effects are almost entirely due to alcohol as to why it is so much lower than peer nations. This problem in the 90s became ingrained in the expectation for men; in the 80s, it was a reflection of a variety of factors leading to the problem getting worse (the conscript army had horrible problems with it, as did workers in state oil fields and coal plants), and it could have been stopped. Gorbachev had minor amounts of success in the prohibition efforts, but the educational and workplace related efforts fell completely flat.

This, of course, is assuming that Zyuganov allows elections after taking power.
 
Why did people want Russia to join NATO? NATO was a military alliance aganist Russia. Did they want to turn it into a club of powerful nations? Or a future military allaince from China? Or just bring Russia closer to the West?

Maybe expand it's purpose into a general mutual defence/peace keeping pact.

Oddly it might help if International terrorism becomes a much earlier threat.
 
I fervently believe Russia would have been better off with a Communist victory in 1996. They would have taken the blame for the 1998 financial crisis (which was in the works anyways because of the '97 Asian crash and the fixation on keeping a strong ruble, which the Communists were even worse on).

The liberals would not have been discredited as much, and Yeltsin would have been replaced in his faction by actual political liberals who believed in political freedoms rather than the siloviki who glommed onto him after the Apartment Bombings.

Yeltsin weakened and strangled the development of democratic institutions in his actions in 1996 (even Medvedev admits the election was rigged), which he started off by doing in 1993 in his confrontation with the Supreme Soviet and the lunacy in Grozny.

Zyuganov would have tried to prop up the collapsing nationalized industries and would have failed, and he would have been utterly discredited by the 1998 crisis. In 2000, its very possible that he gets beaten by Boris Nemtsov, unless he decides to get chesty over Kosovo and Chechnya and gets the militarist boost in the election.

A Marshall Plan for Russia would have had diminishing returns because of the institutional corruption in both the state, the state owned enterprises, and the private sector. Human misery might have been clamped down upon a bit, but honestly, you want to avoid Russia's 90s human disaster? Send Gorbachev money in 1986 for his anti-alcoholism crusade. Without action on that front, you are fiddling at the margins and are too late.

Consider this: as of 2017, Russia had a lower male life expectancy than North Korea, and the effects are almost entirely due to alcohol as to why it is so much lower than peer nations. This problem in the 90s became ingrained in the expectation for men; in the 80s, it was a reflection of a variety of factors leading to the problem getting worse (the conscript army had horrible problems with it, as did workers in state oil fields and coal plants), and it could have been stopped. Gorbachev had minor amounts of success in the prohibition efforts, but the educational and workplace related efforts fell completely flat.
It would be hilarious if MADD lobbied for Congress and Reagan to send Gorbachav money for his anti-alcoholism efforts.
 
Top