What if after the fall of the Soviet Union there is no eastward expansion of NATO apart from the reunified Germany. How does it affect Russia's relations with the West, and what about the foreign policy orientation of Eastern European contries in this situation? Is NATO still used for actions in Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan?
WI No Post-Cold War NATO Expansion
- Thread starter Dr. Luny
- Start date
THat's a really good question.
Comes down to whether you believe that Russia's backsliding on democracy and friendly relations with the West was caused more by internal processes or by precieved threats from NATO expansion.
IMO? Russia still goes "bad", Eastern Europe feels somewhat miffed that they are being used as a buffer zone, NATO stills gets used in former Yugoslovia (why wouldn't it?) and Afganistan.
Hell, Afganistan is more likely NATO as there is no NATO expansion to make the hardliners nervous.
THe opposing view is that a less threatening NATO reduces Russian paranoria with postive results for Russia.
Comes down to whether you believe that Russia's backsliding on democracy and friendly relations with the West was caused more by internal processes or by precieved threats from NATO expansion.
IMO? Russia still goes "bad", Eastern Europe feels somewhat miffed that they are being used as a buffer zone, NATO stills gets used in former Yugoslovia (why wouldn't it?) and Afganistan.
Hell, Afganistan is more likely NATO as there is no NATO expansion to make the hardliners nervous.
THe opposing view is that a less threatening NATO reduces Russian paranoria with postive results for Russia.
Orville_third
Banned
I think Russia will be nicer to us-somewhat. NATO might be used by Clinton to go into Yugoslavia, which may upset the Russians. The US may recognize Kosovo and not South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but the US may take a more jaundiced view of Georgia. Russia also won't like us invading Iraq, if we do.
This also means the US could reduce its debt by a few billion dollars- thoguh if the US goes into Iraq, there may be fewer troops from places besides the US, UK and Australia.
This also means the US could reduce its debt by a few billion dollars- thoguh if the US goes into Iraq, there may be fewer troops from places besides the US, UK and Australia.
Why? Saddam was a big buyer of weapons, admittedly, but with the end of communism the Russians don't really have much need of a "client state" in Iraq. Besides if the US is in and out quickly, any replacement goverment will still be a good costumer (all that soviet equipment will still need spares and replacements.)
Why would less NATO expansion lead to fewer troops from the UK and Austrialia?
HJ Tulp
Donor
Besides the UK and Australia. Don't expect any Poles, Slovaks or Hungarians in the Sandbox.
The window to renegotiate european disarmament treaties and perhaps even a non nuclear central and central-eastern european zone would have been open for a while longer.
The EU would have been a bit more consolidated and perhaps it would be boasting a few more european brigades ready for rapid deployment. Also EU foreign policy wouldn't have been broken up as easily by the US during the running up to the second gulf war.
The Russians wouldn't have such a handy excuse to continue upgrading their ICBMs with MIRVs.
The EU would have been a bit more consolidated and perhaps it would be boasting a few more european brigades ready for rapid deployment. Also EU foreign policy wouldn't have been broken up as easily by the US during the running up to the second gulf war.
The Russians wouldn't have such a handy excuse to continue upgrading their ICBMs with MIRVs.