Post-Cold War EU eastward expansion still occurs but not post-Cold War NATO expansion

[WolfBear]

What if post-Cold War EU eastward expansion would have still occurred but not post-Cold War NATO expansion? For the sake of argument, please assume that a smaller NATO likewise bombs Serbia/Yugoslavia over Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011. Also please assume that the Afghan (with NATO military support) and Iraqi Wars both still take place on schedule. And please assume that the Orange Revolution and Maidan Revolution both still take place on schedule in Ukraine.

Are Russian-Western relations considerably better in this scenario or not?

 

[stevep]

What if post-Cold War EU eastward expansion would have still occurred but not post-Cold War NATO expansion? For the sake of argument, please assume that a smaller NATO likewise bombs Serbia/Yugoslavia over Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011. Also please assume that the Afghan (with NATO military support) and Iraqi Wars both still take place on schedule. And please assume that the Orange Revolution and Maidan Revolution both still take place on schedule in Ukraine.

Are Russian-Western relations considerably better in this scenario or not?

Assuming Putin or someone like him still gains power in Russia, which seems likely, probably not. Its less the existence of NATO weapons in Poland and Romania for instance than the existence of a more liberal and economically successful system of government than what Putin has in Russia that's the threat to him. Similarly during the cold war the threat the west posed was never some armed invasion but that it existed and disproved the lie that the Soviet system was the best way of doing thing, let alone the only one. The danger for Putin and for the Soviets before him is that too many of his subjects see the current ruling elite as the problem that's making their life miserable.

If you have EU expansion without NATO expansion - apart from the fact being in the EU is a probably a lot less attractive without NATO membership - then it leaves the latter in a bind when a Putin Russia starts throwing its weight about. Are France, Germany, Italy etc going to militarily support Poland, the Baltics, Romania without cover from the US, Canada or [by now] Britain? Talking here about actual fighting or at least boots on the ground. If their not willing then the assorted eastern nations have less reason to be in the EU. Does it prompt some earlier 'European' i.e. EU army/military establishment to cover this issue?

 

[WolfBear]

Assuming Putin or someone like him still gains power in Russia, which seems likely, probably not. Its less the existence of NATO weapons in Poland and Romania for instance than the existence of a more liberal and economically successful system of government than what Putin has in Russia that's the threat to him. Similarly during the cold war the threat the west posed was never some armed invasion but that it existed and disproved the lie that the Soviet system was the best way of doing thing, let alone the only one. The danger for Putin and for the Soviets before him is that too many of his subjects see the current ruling elite as the problem that's making their life miserable.

If you have EU expansion without NATO expansion - apart from the fact being in the EU is a probably a lot less attractive without NATO membership - then it leaves the latter in a bind when a Putin Russia starts throwing its weight about. Are France, Germany, Italy etc going to militarily support Poland, the Baltics, Romania without cover from the US, Canada or [by now] Britain? Talking here about actual fighting or at least boots on the ground. If their not willing then the assorted eastern nations have less reason to be in the EU. Does it prompt some earlier 'European' i.e. EU army/military establishment to cover this issue?

Steve, I want to point something out: Some European countries, such as Finland, Sweden, Austria, and, before 2014, Ukraine, were quite willing to seek EU membership without also seeking NATO membership. EU membership is valued for its economic benefits, which is separate from the security benefits that NATO provides.

 

[stevep]

Steve, I want to point something out: Some European countries, such as Finland, Sweden, Austria, and, before 2014, Ukraine, were quite willing to seek EU membership without also seeking NATO membership. EU membership is valued for its economic benefits, which is separate from the security benefits that NATO provides.

True there were economic benefits but especially for the people who had just escaped Soviet rule the military security, which the EU couldn't supply. EU membership is definitely still attractive to a lot of the nations but I would argue that NATO membership is at least as important. Also since the EU doesn't have a clear security establishment eastwards expansion by it without NATO also being included would raise questions both for the individual nations and the EU. For instance what if Ukraine had joined the EU then had something like the invasion of Crimea or the proxy war in the Donbas region had occurred? NATO would have given political and probably economic support but their unlikely to actually send their own forces in.

However I do accept that I have missed the last bit of the original post. How relations with Russia, assuming some Putin type gains power there would probably depend on how much influence he had on the states. I would still argue that the existence of a liberal democratic system with rule of law is far more threatening to Putin [as opposed to Russia itself] that an actual NATO-Russia common border.