Ukraine,Belarus join NATO in 1990s along with Georgia,Finland

octoberman

Banned
Under the rule of Boris Yeltsin Russia was so weak that it was defeated the small region of chechenia despite itself being the largest country in the World and it so weak that he had to bring his military into the legislature to put down dissent. In this period Russia failed to stop accession of former members of the eastern bloc to NATO. Yet Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia did not because they were unstable and not demcratic to vote in favor of ascension. Finland did not join either because of it's isolationism. So what if Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia managed to stabilize, democratize and joined NATO while Finland joined them ?

how would Russia react to this ?

what would be it's ramifications in the EU ?
 

Lalli

octoberman said:
Finland did not join either because of it's isolationism.
Click to expand...

Finland isolated? First time when I heard that country which wants to remain out of military alliances is called as isolationist. Is Switzeland isolated too? Finland wasn't something else than isolationist. Finland joined soon after fall of Soviet Union to EU and it was even during Cold War very active on international stages. Finland didn't wanted join in OTL before 2022 because it felt that needless and didn't want annoy Russia.

Changing that in FInland you should change something in Russia. Perhaps October Crisis goes wrong and Yeltsin is either ousted or killed and National Salvation Front, combined by ultra-nationalists and communists, take power. This would get Finland feel itself safeless.
 

CaptainCalvert

Very late 1990s might just work. Earlier, newly independent countries are more likely to be thinking about their new found status rather than looking at joining up to a big organisation. Post Bosnian war and pre Gulf War 2 there's a chance to see joining as a net benefit. After Gulf War 2, there might be more reluctance with USA and Britain setting a questionable example of leadership.

It's still a bit hard to see NATO accepting Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus that early even if they did apply. There would have been a perception that they were still close to Russia, and the geographical position would make membership provocative.
 
Last edited:

Geekhis Khan

It's worth remembering that you don't just get to join NATO, there are membership criteria.


To writ:

We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements:

--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.
Click to expand...

None of these States save Finland has met these base criteria even today due to ongoing issues with corruption, imperfect democratic or fully autocratic institutions, and a reliance on Russian military kit, nor do some of them meet the requirement that they must not be in any ongoing conflicts or territorial disputes (Russia's "frozen conflicts").

The great central irony of the Ukraine War is that, if Russia's goal truly was to prevent The Ukraine from joining NATO, it was pointless because Ukraine was nowhere near meeting the NATO membership criteria and even struggling to meet EU membership criteria, and Russia could have accomplished that no-NATO goal by literally doing nothing. #EnoughSaidAboutThat #NotPoliticalChat

So for the OP, while Finland is a possibility, we'd need the former ASSRs to enact much stronger and more focused political and economic reforms far earlier, and with a lot of luck, and with a US and EU not afraid of openly antagonizing Russia even as they become increasingly dependent upon Russian fossil fuels. Perhaps had Yeltsin fallen to a Putinesque figure far earlier and that leader started openly and aggressively antagonizing their neighbors before the Red Army is up to actually enforcing things or launching frozen conflicts this could be a possibility.
 
West234

West234

For Belarus you definitely have to get rid of Lukashenko somehow first in that case it might be possible to get them into NATO especially with the threat of a Russian intervention breathing down there necks.
 

Geekhis Khan

Kaiser of Brazil said:
Well, I guess that didn't stop Turkey from joining.
Click to expand...
True, but Turkey is too absolutely strategically critical to ignore, even today. NATO still turns a blind eye to a lot of what goes down in Turkey that sometimes runs counter to NATO strategic interests since they control passage to the Black sea. Sure, claiming Crimea would be devastating for Russia, but much more openly provocative, increasing the risk. Not saying that they couldn't bend or ignore the rules for others, just a whole different calculus applies.
 

YYJ

Geekhis Khan said:
NATO still turns a blind eye to a lot of what goes down in Turkey that sometimes runs counter to NATO strategic interests
Click to expand...
Like shelling US troops.
www.marinecorpstimes.com

US troops believe Turkey deliberately fired artillery at an American commando outpost in Syria

No U.S. troops were injured in the strike, but U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces said American commandos temporarily withdrew from their observation post on Mishtanur hill near Kobani and returned on Saturday.
www.marinecorpstimes.com www.marinecorpstimes.com
 
West234

West234

Whiteshore said:
Or the literal Estado Novo over in Portugal (which was a founding NATO member).
Click to expand...
Estado Novo is kind of a weird case they still had fairly warm relations with the allies despite the nearly fascist dictatorship. I think it’s just because they were on there side in the Second World War in comparison to Spain who leaned towards the Nazis.
 

Nelson Mikeson

Kaiser of Brazil said:
Well, I guess that didn't stop Turkey from joining.
Click to expand...

Geekhis Khan said:
True, but Turkey is too absolutely strategically critical to ignore, even today. NATO still turns a blind eye to a lot of what goes down in Turkey that sometimes runs counter to NATO strategic interests since they control passage to the Black sea. Sure, claiming Crimea would be devastating for Russia, but much more openly provocative, increasing the risk. Not saying that they couldn't bend or ignore the rules for others, just a whole different calculus applies.
Click to expand...

YYJ said:
I think things were a bit different in 1949.
Click to expand...

Whiteshore said:
Or the literal Estado Novo over in Portugal (which was a founding NATO member).
Click to expand...



Yeah, in 1949 NATO was more of an anti-Soviet alliance than anything, which while generally supporting democratic governments, had no problem accomodating the Portuguese Estado Novo or the numerous Turkish juntas. Turkey could have stayed neutral in the Cold War if it wanted to, it's just that Kemal's bridge to the West was still a recent thing, so Turkey was highly secularist and pro-Western, and the Soviets wanted preferential access to the Bosphorus, scaring Turkey into joining NATO for protection.

After the collapse of the USSR, NATO turned into a direct supporter of democratic transition and more of a collective security alliance of Western-style democratic governments and as the Soviet threat to the Bosphorus was gone and Turkey experienced an Islamic and Neo-Ottomanist revival, the rift with NATO started and Turkey now is a convenience US ally rather than out of fear.
 

1962strat

Geekhis Khan said:
It's worth remembering that you don't just get to join NATO, there are membership criteria.


To writ:



None of these States save Finland has met these base criteria even today due to ongoing issues with corruption, imperfect democratic or fully autocratic institutions, and a reliance on Russian military kit, nor do some of them meet the requirement that they must not be in any ongoing conflicts or territorial disputes (Russia's "frozen conflicts").

The great central irony of the Ukraine War is that, if Russia's goal truly was to prevent The Ukraine from joining NATO, it was pointless because Ukraine was nowhere near meeting the NATO membership criteria and even struggling to meet EU membership criteria, and Russia could have accomplished that no-NATO goal by literally doing nothing. #EnoughSaidAboutThat #NotPoliticalChat

So for the OP, while Finland is a possibility, we'd need the former ASSRs to enact much stronger and more focused political and economic reforms far earlier, and with a lot of luck, and with a US and EU not afraid of openly antagonizing Russia even as they become increasingly dependent upon Russian fossil fuels. Perhaps had Yeltsin fallen to a Putinesque figure far earlier and that leader started openly and aggressively antagonizing their neighbors before the Red Army is up to actually enforcing things or launching frozen conflicts this could be a possibility.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that in Ukraine’s case, they met could arguably meet those criteria better in the late 90s than now, or at least it would be perceived as such.

Let‘s go one by one:
--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.
Click to expand...
Back then it was not as clear as now that most post-USSR states would fall into some kind of dictatorship or incredibly corrupt oligarchy. Hell, by that point even Russia was a democracy, even if not a particularly functional one. Likewise Ukraine could pass as a democratic country, even if time would prove that corruption and oligarchy would take their toll.
--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.
Click to expand...
When you consider Ukraine was a communist state not 10 years ago, there’s little discussion about this one.
--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.
Click to expand...
--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.
Click to expand...
There are no issues as far as these are concerned.
--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.
Click to expand...
While they don't cross this one, it's also the easiest to sidestep. If the will is for it, some half-arsed program would fit this requirement officially.

Which brings me to the point: the problem are not the requirements, but the will for it. There was not a strong push on either side for it, so the accession won't happen unless something drastic changes. The requirements, for their part, are also probably merely an official nicety, and there have been several examples of countries that don't fit them perfectly getting the membership nonetheless.
 

Geekhis Khan

1962strat said:
I’d argue that in Ukraine’s case, they met could arguably meet those criteria better in the late 90s than now, or at least it would be perceived as such.
Click to expand...
I'd agree that if there was a major will to expand earlier they'd play things looser, hence why I mentioned a scenario where an aggressive anti-western autocrat rose sooner, say a military putsch shortly after Yeltsin took over. In that case with a "clear and present danger" rather than a Russia that was arguably also on the way to meeting the criteria in the same way Ukraine was at the time, the calculus changes, much like in 1949 when Salazar looked a lot better to cozy up to than Stalin (before those rules were formalized, IIRC).

And keep in mind there are numerous specific metrics by which the NATO criteria are seen as "met" as spelled out in long bureaucratic documents, not just however you choose to define them at the time. Ukraine was then and is now "making progress" towards those goals per those metrics (Poland and Hungary are arguably backsliding on them). In the putsch scenario, the West conceivably works to "speed the process" or at least speed the appearance of progress in the process.

Or alternately, you could just develop a "NATO in all but name" scenario where CEFTA evolves into a defensive alliance ("CETO") that then makes a mutual defense pact with NATO.

Or a scenario where the west takes a much more hawkish approach from the beginning, say a world where Dan Quayle says something so stupid and offensive that even the evangelicals are like "dude!" Quayle retires as VP to "spend time with his family" and Bush Sr. chooses a hawkish Neocon like Cheney as the new VP in 1992 to boost his conservative cred after having raised taxes, and squeaks out a victory over Clinton or whomever. Not long after inauguration Marine 1 crashes in a tragedy that drives conspiracy theories to this day - or more allo-ironically, Bush is assassinated in NYC by a disgruntled former KGB officer turned cabbie named Vlad Putin - and Cheney is POTUS. He decides to "Kick the Rooskies while they're down" and loosens the NATO criteria. NATO expands all the way to contiguous mainland Russia's borders. Yeltsin cries betrayal and the French and others in NATO voice "concerns" and the process of integrating all these still-recovering ex-Soviet states proves a logistical and economic nightmare. "Charlie Foxtrot" becomes King of Europe.
 

octoberman

Banned
Lalli said:
Changing that in FInland you should change something in Russia. Perhaps October Crisis goes wrong and Yeltsin is either ousted or killed and National Salvation Front, combined by ultra-nationalists and communists, take power. This would get Finland feel itself safeless.
Click to expand...
National Salvation Front would make Finland ineligible for NATO membership by launching a frozen conflict with it
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top