What if Russia joins the EU? Lets say during the Yeltsin years. How would that change Russia - Western relations? How about Russia itself? Could Russia even stay in the EU long considering its elections are basically elaborate theater show?
WI: Russia in the EU?
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
I forget where I heard it, but I seem to recall hearing somewhere that "Russia and the EU have the same interests and different values, while the US and EU have differing interests and comprable values".
If that's true, you'd probably ""just"" need US goals to more obviously conflict with the interests of Europe (perhaps something like the USA actively and intentionally destabilizing the middle east) to get the EU to start viewing the eastern bear as an alternative partner.
If that's true, you'd probably ""just"" need US goals to more obviously conflict with the interests of Europe (perhaps something like the USA actively and intentionally destabilizing the middle east) to get the EU to start viewing the eastern bear as an alternative partner.
Ian_W
Banned
People underestimate just how small Russia's GDP is.
In terms of GDP, it's about the size of Italy, and they are having great difficulty expanding their economy beyond anything beyond raw materials.
Now, people claim the Russian economy is bigger due to PPP, but that just means stuff is cheaper in Russia ... which means if you're in the EU there is going to be a massive haemorraging of skilled workers to the richer parts of the EU.
Yeah, so it's basically like adding 2-3 more Polands.
In terms of GDP, it's about the size of Italy, and they are having great difficulty expanding their economy beyond anything beyond raw materials.
Now, people claim the Russian economy is bigger due to PPP, but that just means stuff is cheaper in Russia ... which means if you're in the EU there is going to be a massive haemorraging of skilled workers to the richer parts of the EU.
Yeah, so it's basically like adding 2-3 more Polands.
Skallagrim
Banned
There are some pretty obvious issues. First of all: Eastern European countries only applied for membership in the mid-'90s, and only met the set requirements (on paper; often not in practical reality, but this was glossed over a bit) later on, and joined in 2004. If Russia -- their former oppressor -- is joining the club, they may well decide to withdraw their applications en masse, telling the (very newly created) EU "it's going to be us or Russia; you choose". Whereupon the EU will ditch Russia.
If Russia is to be brought into the fold, the POD almost by definition has to be a somewhat better Yeltsin-era transition policy. Particularly, the terrible voucher scheme (that basically sold Russia to the oligarchs wholesale) needs to be averted. Things are still going to be rough, but that takes the edge off a bit. Second point has to be that Yeltsin (who presumably has some better advisors in this ATL) realises that European financial support can make the big difference. He has to realise this in 1991 already, and open talks with what is then still the EEC. His offer needs to be to join the EEC and NATO (also an idea floated in the '90s in OTL) in the hopes of receiving European development aid. In the spirit of a "New Era" that was dominant then, just after the fall of the USSR, such an idea might have a chance.
The thing is, Russia has a big population and the Eastern European candidates want toavoid renewed Russian hegemony at all costs. So even if talks on this proposal are begun, it almost certainly butterflies or alters the Maastricht Treaty. That is: Russia can only join the EU if it's a different EU to begin with. Basically, the EU will have to be far more of a loose and decentral alliance, and all "federalising" ambitions will have to be thrown out before the EU is even created. Potentially, an OTL-like compact can be formed in Western Europe -- an "Inner Union" of sorts -- with most future members only joining a much looser "Outer Union" (at least initially). This would allow the requirements for that Outer Union to be less stringent, which meas all the countries that joined in 2004 in OTL, plus Russia, can instead join in 1999. Presumably, Russia would at this time also join NATO.
This would offer some fascinating benefits compared to OTL. For starters, as I mentioned, some applicants for EU membership in OTL "cooked the books" a bit to make it seem like they were fiscally ready to join, whereas they actually weren't fully ready. That kind of subterfuge isn't required in this ATL, which means new members get sufficient time (as Outer Union members) to gradually get their affairs in order. They can then join the Inner Union later on, when they're ready. Only Inner Union members join the common currency, of course. This would solve a lot of OTL issues! Russia, meanwhile, would benefit greatly. Relations with Europe would be normalised, and the divide between the authoritarian past and the democratic future would be far more clear. With NATO membership, the old East-West rivalry is definitively ended. With better privatisation methods, less corruption and European financial aid, Russia is much better off in 1999. Yeltsin leaves office a hero; Putin is never elected. Russia evolves into the full democracy it deserves to be.
And of course... the distinction between an Inner Union and an Outer Union pre-emtively solves the OTL Brexit debacle. The UK might decide never to join the Inner Union in the '90s, or if it does and comes to regret it, it can devolve itself to Outer Union status.
All in all, this scenario requires a POD beyond "they just decide to do it", and it wouldn't be easy to achieve, but it would probably result in a timeline that I'd much prefer to OTL...
If Russia is to be brought into the fold, the POD almost by definition has to be a somewhat better Yeltsin-era transition policy. Particularly, the terrible voucher scheme (that basically sold Russia to the oligarchs wholesale) needs to be averted. Things are still going to be rough, but that takes the edge off a bit. Second point has to be that Yeltsin (who presumably has some better advisors in this ATL) realises that European financial support can make the big difference. He has to realise this in 1991 already, and open talks with what is then still the EEC. His offer needs to be to join the EEC and NATO (also an idea floated in the '90s in OTL) in the hopes of receiving European development aid. In the spirit of a "New Era" that was dominant then, just after the fall of the USSR, such an idea might have a chance.
The thing is, Russia has a big population and the Eastern European candidates want toavoid renewed Russian hegemony at all costs. So even if talks on this proposal are begun, it almost certainly butterflies or alters the Maastricht Treaty. That is: Russia can only join the EU if it's a different EU to begin with. Basically, the EU will have to be far more of a loose and decentral alliance, and all "federalising" ambitions will have to be thrown out before the EU is even created. Potentially, an OTL-like compact can be formed in Western Europe -- an "Inner Union" of sorts -- with most future members only joining a much looser "Outer Union" (at least initially). This would allow the requirements for that Outer Union to be less stringent, which meas all the countries that joined in 2004 in OTL, plus Russia, can instead join in 1999. Presumably, Russia would at this time also join NATO.
This would offer some fascinating benefits compared to OTL. For starters, as I mentioned, some applicants for EU membership in OTL "cooked the books" a bit to make it seem like they were fiscally ready to join, whereas they actually weren't fully ready. That kind of subterfuge isn't required in this ATL, which means new members get sufficient time (as Outer Union members) to gradually get their affairs in order. They can then join the Inner Union later on, when they're ready. Only Inner Union members join the common currency, of course. This would solve a lot of OTL issues! Russia, meanwhile, would benefit greatly. Relations with Europe would be normalised, and the divide between the authoritarian past and the democratic future would be far more clear. With NATO membership, the old East-West rivalry is definitively ended. With better privatisation methods, less corruption and European financial aid, Russia is much better off in 1999. Yeltsin leaves office a hero; Putin is never elected. Russia evolves into the full democracy it deserves to be.
And of course... the distinction between an Inner Union and an Outer Union pre-emtively solves the OTL Brexit debacle. The UK might decide never to join the Inner Union in the '90s, or if it does and comes to regret it, it can devolve itself to Outer Union status.
All in all, this scenario requires a POD beyond "they just decide to do it", and it wouldn't be easy to achieve, but it would probably result in a timeline that I'd much prefer to OTL...
GDP doesn't tell the whole story for any country and especially not Russia. Russian military, foreign intelligence, cybersecurity and the specialization of their economy in oil and gas gives them outsized power compared to nominal GDP numbers. Russian angel investing and venture capital has also been very shrewd in their investments in the West.
The latest remotely plausible point of divergence I can see for a state calling itself "Russia" joining a supranational European entity would be a Soviet loss during World War II. The USSR cedes all of their territory west of the Urals to Germany. Generalplan Ost is implemented, but to cut down on occupation costs, Berlin eventually decides to carve out some very nominally independent ethnic Russian state (a de facto reservation or bantustan, really) from some unattractive chunk of the newly-conquered land. That is, something similar to the Lokot Autonomy on a somewhat larger scale. Anyway, some Nazis intended to create a German-dominated pan-European institution, so if that happens and the rump Russian puppet state is added... well, yeah.
The point here is that, as others have pointed out, even in a timeline where Russia became significantly more liberal and democratic by 2019, the country would never be allowed into anything like the European Union with anything approaching its current borders, as it would demographically overwhelm the rest of the continent. As it stands, the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, and other major nationalities roughly cancel each other out. You really would need to devise a scenario where the country undergoes extreme balkanization.
The point here is that, as others have pointed out, even in a timeline where Russia became significantly more liberal and democratic by 2019, the country would never be allowed into anything like the European Union with anything approaching its current borders, as it would demographically overwhelm the rest of the continent. As it stands, the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, and other major nationalities roughly cancel each other out. You really would need to devise a scenario where the country undergoes extreme balkanization.
What?
Russia: 144 million (which included many minorities)
EU: 512 million (148 million of whom are either French or German citizens)
Yeah, europe's totally overwhelmed... Also, the Russian population won't be represented by a single party, like every other EU state it'd have a number of parties affiliated with pan-european coalition blocks.
Overwhelmed in the sense that Russia has a much larger population than any other country in Europe. To put things in perspective, Germany's population is not that much bigger than that of any other country on the continent, but the difference is just big enough that some joke about the European Union being a covert vehicle for German domination. Now, imagine if Germany's population was nearly twice the size of the next most populous member state.
Last edited:
France and Germany combined have a larger population than Russia, it's really not a hard circle to square. Additionally, the backwardness of the Russian economy means Russia would be unlikely to become as economically/diplomatically dominant as Germany presently is.
If Russia joined, we probably have several million more Russians moving to Western Europe than the OTL which might help the demographic discrepancies in the long run, but “don’t worry about how many Russians there are, a few million will move here to even out our populations” doesn’t sound like much of a selling point to the electorates of Western Europe.
If Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Armenia join that will reduce Russia’s share of the population. Same thing with Turkey, but that might be too far.
If Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Armenia join that will reduce Russia’s share of the population. Same thing with Turkey, but that might be too far.
In 2012 it as 2 Italys, but there was no year with -50 % GDP growth. It's just currency valuation that goes up and down. Being inside the EU does wonders for your currency, as do the development funds. Plus to qualify for EU membership countries need to enact certain reforms which have a positive impact on these things as well.
So Russia in EU would not be Italy or 3 Polands but pretty much another France, or 1.5 Germanys if it had joined in like 2005, that's 15 more years for reforms to work their magic.
Ramontxo
Donor
And then when being in the largest trade group of the world works its magic and reforms and laws enacted during this period helps the country in cuestion a new generation would press for a Union Exit. And when confronted with reality the whole situation could become very nasty...
Sicarius Sanguinius
Banned
European Russia could be a apart of the EU but only European. Russia. I think even then it could be very close. It would still have huge landmass and population. China would have to annex all of Russian territory to the Ural Mountains, which they do have plans to do in the future. (See map)
I hope they wait till after I'm gone before trying that. The resulting war would not be good for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, but would stop global warming for years.
AussieHawker
Banned
There is plenty of non-European continental territory, in the EU. And no China doesn't realistically plan on annexing Siberia. Both because there is no need, and because annexing in the modern era is bad news. Let alone trying to annex land from a nuclear power.
Sicarius Sanguinius
Banned
Tell that Tibet because they would strongly disagree. The Chinese built railroads through Tibet for Chinese workers to follow. (People said that was impossible) Chinese workers now outnumber Tibetans. Thus the Chinese government have a firm grip on them. Long term the Silk Road initiative aim is to send railway lines through Russia in which the Chinese government is hoping Chinese workers will follow creating Chinese communities, then towns and then cities. The Chinese have such a large population they are able to drive their population where there GDP growth goes. In the case of Tibet they completely changed Tibet demographics. I’m not talking 20 years or even 50; more like 100 or 125 years.
The question is why not. Its best to start now than in 50 years. It’s an insane plan but they are definitely laying the foundation for it. Russia in Asia is only a middle power at best, even though they have nuclear weapons. It’s more of a gangster on the world stage more than anything. What are nuclear weapons going to do when the Russians have Chinese cities in there own backyard. Going to nuke them are you?
In geopolitics it’s all about mega cities, geography, rivers, mountains, the shapes of landscapes, industrial resources, ports, fertile land, economics, trade and much more.
I could perhaps see the EU and Russia cutting a deal in which Kaliningrad is part of the customs union and free movement of people but Russia-proper isn't. It'd be sort of like what was proposed with regards to Brexit and northern Ireland.
-----
In 1992 Tatarstan had voted for independence (as had Bashkortostan I believe). If Russia had just let these little landlocked Turkic Republics go, and they lost the north Caucasus Republics, that's around 14.5 million fewer people. Russia today, including Crimea, has 146 million. Russia here is around 130 million. If Chuvashia and Tuva aren't part of Russia, then it is 128 million.
-----
In 1992 Tatarstan had voted for independence (as had Bashkortostan I believe). If Russia had just let these little landlocked Turkic Republics go, and they lost the north Caucasus Republics, that's around 14.5 million fewer people. Russia today, including Crimea, has 146 million. Russia here is around 130 million. If Chuvashia and Tuva aren't part of Russia, then it is 128 million.