There’s an ongoing argument about NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union. Within the western political science community, there have been a number of sub-arguments, including whether Russia was promised that NATO would not expand. That has more or less been settled: Although some statements were made to that effect, they were not official commitments.
More broadly, arguments about NATO expansion tend to assume that if NATO hadn’t expanded, Europe would look about the same as it does now, but Russia would be less aggressive, and more accommodations would be possible.
Having co-chaired a NATO Advanced Research Workshop in Estonia and spent some time working with Estonians on a major environmental cleanup, I’ve recognized that there were many paths that could have been taken by the many actors involved, which could lead to quite different outcomes.
Would the newly independent countries trust Mother Russia? Could Mother Russia keep her hands off them? It would not be a single big decision, but a series of small ones.
At the Duck of Minerva, I’ve written a counterfactual in which NATO doesn’t expand. I’ve based it on events that have actually happened, although in different historical order. The outcome is different than has been assumed. It was fun to write and I think will be enjoyable to read.
Cross-posted to Nuclear Diner
ExpatDanBKK
1st! Good morning all. Almost midnight here. Saab 1300? My 5yo could have drawn that!
Chief Oshkosh
Who is Dan Nexon?
MattF
Sorry, but I’m leery of counterfactual history being considered as anything but a fictional genre.
Cameron
@Chief Oshkosh: He’s one of the crew at LGM
Another Scott
“Dan Nexon”??
I think this is really important, and self-evident if people think about their own lives and histories. “What if that guy hadn’t pulled me out of the pool when I was inhaling water??” And history is replete with examples – “What if Schwarzkopf had extended the post-war ban on Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft to helicopters??”
Thanks. I look forward to reading and thinking about it, once I wake up. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
Steeplejack (phone)
At first I read “As the Duck of Minerva, I’ve written,” which seems fitting.
Good piece.
Kent
This isn’t at all an area of expertise of mine. But that has never stopped me from tossing out opinions.
It seems to me that over 200 years of Russian Imperialism under the Tzars and later the Soviets has led to a situation where ethnic Russians are large minority populations in every eastern European country from the Baltics in the north to Ukraine and Georgia in the south. And the very real belief on the part of Russians that all of these “border lands” rightly fall under the Russian sphere of influence.
And, of course, Russian history from Napoleon to WW2 has taught the Russians that they do, indeed, need to control a buffer zone between them and the west.
Somehow I doubt that anything NATO chose to do or not do in the 1990s and early 2000s would have changed any of that.
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
nuclear sweden?
norway just got nervous.
J R in WV
@Chief Oshkosh:
Daniel H. Nexon is a professor in the School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government at Georgetown University.
From the GU web:
Also a LG&M guy. Most of those guys are professors of one thing or another. I can’t tell from the Duck of Minerva site whether he also authored the “Counterfactual” think piece with Rofer or not.
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@Kent: same can be said of japan n’ peru.
i only wish russia would get at least as much pushback for its feints into ukraine, georgia, estonia, et al, as japan got for harbouring fujimori while albie tried to evade trial.
WhatsMyNym
@Kent:
No more than anyone else. The only thing that saved the UK was the English Channel and the Channel Islands were taken over by the Germans in WWII.
Cheryl Rofer
Like many blogging sites, Duck of Minerva automatically inserts an author as the user at the time. I’m not a regular at the Duck, and Dan published my piece for me, He thought he fixed the author line, but evidently not. I’ve got a message in to him.
WhatsMyNym
Deleted
Omnes Omnibus
@Kent:
That, and a warm water port have been part of Russian foreign policy since well before Napoleon.
Kent
@WhatsMyNym: Exactly. You are making my point. The UK, USA, and Japan are all protected by moats. Russia is not.
And, in any event, how is the Monroe Doctrine and US meddling in Central and South America any different from Russian meddling in Eastern Europe?
I’m not some pro-Russian stooge defending their actions in Eastern Europe. I’m only saying I doubt NATO and the actions of the west has much to do with any of it.
Geminid
Thank you, Ms. Rofer, for another thought provoking post. And it has ducks! At least, a Duck.
Kent
Cheryl ends her article with the following:
While I agree, I don’t think the objective of not “leaving Russia feeling threatened or insecure” really has all that much meaning or weight.
The US has not been meaningfully threatened on its southern border for over 150 years. It is probably the most militarily secure major land border on the planet. Yet that hasn’t reduced our military and political meddling in the affairs of our neighbors to the south in the slightest. In the 1980s we had Ronald Reagan talking about Nicaragua being a red dagger pointed at our soft southern underbelly. and in 2018 we had “build the wall” Trump rattling on about caravans of immigrants threatening our sovereignty. Demagogues are going to demagogue.
I’m not sure why we expect an undemocratic nation like Russia, with more legitimate security concerns, to behave differently than us.
Benw
The best counterfactuals involve time travel and/or dinosaurs. I suppose we’re learning that ducks are just teeny dinosaurs :)
Gin & Tonic
@Kent:
It’s worse than that. Many Russians, including one V.V. Putin, believe that Ukrainians are not a distinct nationality, and that the Ukrainian language is some stunted hillbilly dialect of Russian. They appropriate for themselves the history of Kyivan Rus’, ignoring the fact that Kyiv is where it has always been, and in the 10th Century was the seat of a kingdom, while Muscovy was a swamp.
WhatsMyNym
@Kent:
I see an expanded NATO as deterant to a mother Russia who is always looking to control nearby natural resources that they don’t have.
Mike in NC
As noted a few days ago, in “I Alone Can Fix It” the authors claim that after seizing power, newly minted fascist dictator Trump wanted to drop out of NATO because he disliked the European leaders he met in Brussels and needed to pay back his mentor and master, Putin. I believe that 100%. He needs to die.
Gin & Tonic
Speaking of alleged “spheres of influence”
Captain C
@Kent:
You could make a very good argument that Russia’s neighbors all need a buffer zone between themselves and Russia, who has been a rather shitty, expansionist neighbor for hundreds of years.
PsiFighter37
I will have to read a history of the 1990s in Russia; my lasting memory (as a kid) was that Clinton and Yeltsin were very chummy, but simply put, the West failed miserably when it came to fostering sustainable change in the country – and now you have had Putin running the show ever since.
A huge missed opportunity, although given the long historical context within which Russia operates, I am not sure much could have been changed. Same goes for China – perhaps things turn out differently if Clinton wins in 2016, but Xi Jinping already seems to have made up his mind to go in a more authoritarian, closed-world route. Trump just gave him the opportunity to accelerate that initiative on many fronts. I do think, though, that the recent crackdown (or whatever it is – companies not paying enough fealty to the Communist Party?) on companies is a clear strategic mistake on China’s part.
Another Scott
@Kent: US Counterpoint – October 1962.
Things happened so quickly with the collapse of the USSR that it was destined to be a messy situation for a very long time. Not having a major civil war immediately develop was an excellent outcome and everyone involved should be proud of that accomplishment.
Politics is slow and takes time. The peoples over there have to figure out their way forward. But the idea of “spheres of influence” and “great powers” and all the rest needs to be left behind. Ukraine and all the others are either independent and able to make their own alliances, or they’re not. If Russia really wants a peaceful buffer to protect The Homeland, the way to get it is to encourage economic and political development and peaceful stability. Not send little green men into countries that don’t toe Putin’s line to be vassals to Moscow.
Yeah, easier said than done, agreed.
Cheers,
Scott.
Chief Oshkosh
@Cheryl Rofer: Bummer. I thought the explanation would be that you’re leading a double life as Cheryl/Dan and slipped up with the byline.
Come to think of it, that might still be true– DAN.
;)
Baud
@Gin & Tonic:
Huh? Do you know more about this? The other ones make sense.
Hilfy
You can’t be Dan Nexon. The pictured cat is not yours.
Brachiator
Hasn’t Russia always felt threatened or insecure?
This is interesting stuff. I don’t know what is happening in the region, and most news stories seem to suggest that Putin is trying to re-establish the old Soviet Empire.
But weren’t there efforts to reach out to new Russia with the collapse of the old Soviet Union? I know that I didn’t think that an enemy had been defeated, but that the stupidity of communism had collapsed from its own contradictions.
But any analysis that looks for realistic ways to reduce tension is a good idea.
Kent
@Baud: Both cities were captured by the USSR during WW2 and remain Russian territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigsberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyborg
Baud
@Kent:
Ok, thanks. I thought that the country names indicated present borders.
Tony Jay
@Baud:
Yeah, the German example is especially bullshit. Russia annexed that chunk of East Prussia after WW2. Might as well talk about the ‘Polish Occupation of Germany’ because of Silesia, or the American Occupation of Texas and California.
Poe Larity
There’s NATO and then there is the EU. The EU wants security, no immigrants and Russian gas too while messing about with Ukraine, Libya and Syria.
Someone is not acting rationally here and I’m not sure it’s all Vlad.
lashonharangue
There were indeed those who thought NATO expansion was a mistake at the time. I could argue we “owed” Poland, the Czech Republic and maybe the Baltic states NATO protection. Cheryl’s article suggests that while Putin is horrible we probably make a mistake if we think Russia’s actions would be very different with someone else in charge.
Major Major Major Major
Open thread? Here’s an amazing thread from what I can only assume is an extraordinary scholar
Major Major Major Major
Also, I look forward to reading this! I know surprisingly little (surprising to me at least) about this stuff.
Gin & Tonic
@Tony Jay: Sure, Kaliningrad/Königsberg is a stretch there, but the larger point stands.
Another Scott
@Major Major Major Major: Excellent.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
patrick II
Putin considers the loss of the Soviet Empire the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. His singular goal, aside from self-preservation and enrichment, is to restore the power and prestige of the Soviet Union. There was never going to be a less hostile Russia under Putin, only one that saw more opportunities.
Another Scott
I’m closer to being awake now.
I’m not sure what this means. Given NATO troops in the country in exercises, it seems like some words are missing. It’s before your “counterfactual” section, so is it out of place? Or are you assuming some sort of “nuclear umbrella” from Moscow over Ukraine now (or up until some recent time)?
Excellent as always. Clear and thought-provoking.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
Cheryl Rofer
@Another Scott: I assume that for the counterfactual. As I said in the article, Germany and Ukraine deserve their own counterfactuals. Any other assumption would have complicated the counterfactual too much.
Another Scott
@Cheryl Rofer: Ah, thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
Mallard Filmore
I have not been over there in a few years, but I think you would be welcomed over at
https://www.alternatehistory.com
mrmoshpotato
@Major Major Major Major: Hhahahahahahaha!!!!! Excellent!
mrmoshpotato
So, open thread.
Via ahumorlessfem
The Pale Scot
@PsiFighter37:
It was worse than that. The US government ignored the situation, that left an opening for libertarian and American Heritage types to send ideologues fresh out of college to explain how privatizing everything, before a functioning legal and court system was created would solve everything. KGB types came back from their Western posts already versed in how to BS American Style and “privatized everything that was not nailed down. Those stranded assets were stripped and given to locals to own.
Geminid
@Baud: Vipurii, or Vyborg, is a port on the south side of the Karelian Penisula, 80 miles west of St. Petersburg. It was taken by the Soviet Union in it’s 1939-40 “Winter War” with Finland.
In the runup to the war, the U.S.S.R. demanded that Finland cede a portion of the Peninsula closer to Saint Petersburg, along with islands covering the sea approaches to the city. In return for a more defensible “Petrograd,” Stalin and company offered to swap land along the two countries’ central border. Field Marhall Mannerheim, Finland’s army commander, advised his civilian superiors to take the deal, but they would not, and the Soviets attacked. Mannerheim’s forces repulsed the first Soviet offensive, but not the second. Finland had to cede the Karelian Peninsula up to Vipurii in the Treaty of Moscow.
The Finns retook the city when they joined Germany’s attack on the U.S.S.R. in June of 1941. The Soviets took Vipurii back in August, 1944, and they and then Russia have held it ever since.
The Pale Scot
@Poe Larity:
That’s the UK and rest of the Anglo 5 Eyes. The Uk is no longer a member of the EU. Please, do keep up.
NotMax
Maybe Putin can nudge Mexico to pay for a wall.
//
The Pale Scot
@mrmoshpotato:
The piece is called Yakety Sax
Tony Jay
@Gin & Tonic:
It’s a good larger point and it deserves to stand on its own merits. Adding the German and Finnish examples effectively labels every single postwar land transfer in history as an ‘Occupation’, which is just super silly.
mrmoshpotato
@The Pale Scot: I am not Gabe Sanchez. :)
Geminid
@Tony Jay: The Russian naval and air bases in Syria are also different in kind from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, I think. Not that this makes them benign.
Robert Sneddon
@Tony Jay:
It also misses out, for example, the Okinawa situation where the US military still occupies about half of the land area of the islands or the Diego Garcia airbase facility which was gifted to the US in the 1960s by the UK in lieu of granting the BIOT independence. Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is, of course, still in US hands a century after the Spanish-American War.
The Kurile and Sakhalin islands were lost during the Russo-Japanese war of 1905 and the Soviet (re-) conquest of the islands at the end of WWII was a big deal for Russian nationalists at the time despite their lack of strategic importance or utility then and indeed now.
NotMax
@Robert Sneddon
Guantanamo is a rental. Should the U.S. ever move out, betcha we don’t get back the security deposit.
//
Tony Jay
@Geminid: @Robert Sneddon:
Quite. The original quote is supposed to be a list of modern Russian military occupations, and that’s worth clarifying as a topic for discussion. Slamming in examples of ‘military advisor’ placements and land transfers agreed at postwar peace settlements just muddies the hell out of the intended clarity and practically begs for the topic to be buried in endless and quite genuine “whatabouts?”.
jl
Thanks to Cheryl and commenters for a very interesting discussion. I’ve been a critique of how the US handled some of the post Cold War expansion. I think most of it was appropriate and advisable. I think some of the Russian provocations were bluffs and symbolic maneuvering for bargaining, and it seems to me that more hawkish elements in US foreign policy took that to justify barging in on some of NATO expansion.
My main criticism is that it was extended to countries that I do not think met NATO criteria for entry. The US felt like it should expand asap and as far as possible while the getting was good . I think there was always a concern about the robustness of democracy in Hungary, and to a much lesser extent Poland (but I think recent good signs there). I can be accused of a double standard because of the original entries of Spain and Portugal, but those problems solved themselves peacefully, and should be viewed as unfortunate situations that should not be repeated. In terms of realities on the ground, they were not on the border of NATO, so the problems they could cause were limited.
Bill Arnold
@Steeplejack (phone):
Likewise. I was momentarily surprised that Cheryl was revealing her secret identity. :-)
Parmenides
This is really good, too often are the interests of the central European states not considered and what actions they might take when talking about NATO expansion. Thank you, a very informative read.