AHC: Make Russian an accepted part of the west.
- Thread starter AllthetTropesMan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia democracy
This is alt history so you can start with the alternatives and then we’ll see how it goes.
A forumer adressed this earlier in this thread: it's not like the Revolution (product of Western philosophy) fundamentally changed Russia. The thing is USSR grew stronger and stronger and developed in opposition to the rest of Europe and West and that's why became the "other". They themselves embraced this new identity as much as their opponents.
For me personally, "West" is a very straighforward concept: Europe and its extension (Americas, Aus&NZ and Siberia). It's only became a useful term when Europe overflow its geographic borders. It's similar to "White": if Europeans hadn't conquered entire continents for themselves and their descendants, we didn't need that word. "European" would suffice.
Other than that, you can always say "NATO", "NATO White countries only", "US and Northwestern Europe", "Western Europe and Americas", "White people from Northern European descent", etc. I must say, however, it's a bit cringe the need for using some of those definitions on daily basis.
I have a project of TL on my mind and one of the Big butterflies caused by my PoD (which is the death of the future Nappy III around 1845) is that Russia Can more freely weaken the Ottoman Empire and impose its peace conditions without risking a foreign intervention (which OTL is know as the Crimean War). And I would want to know how this would have impacted Russia on its foreign policy as well as internally. But this thread is surely not the place to talk about that, so I'm not gonna expand further that point here.
Sorry, I don't engage with people that start by insulting people.
If Russia dramatically changes enough to be part of "the West", it will be a geopolitical turning point so big that the very term "West" will probably cease being used in the way it is shortly after it happens. Our current conception of "the West" is primarily a product of the Cold War, before that Germany, Central and Southern Europe weren't truly included. Certainly any PoD involving the Russian Empire will butterfly the term away from ever becoming salient. European ≠ "Western."
It should also be remembered that before it was universally accepted as a "East" European country, Russia was often considered to be part of Northern European along with the Baltic, Finland and Scandinavia.
It should also be remembered that before it was universally accepted as a "East" European country, Russia was often considered to be part of Northern European along with the Baltic, Finland and Scandinavia.
If Franco’s Spain and Salazars Portugal survived to the present, I wonder if they would be considered part of the West?
We could have the West join Russia instead.
A Tsarist Russia that wins two World Wars, creates a United European trade zone and keeps the Anglos out, could define itself as the pinnacle of European civilization.
An ATL Soviet Union that easily wins WWII could have all of the continent go Communist.
A Tsarist Russia that wins two World Wars, creates a United European trade zone and keeps the Anglos out, could define itself as the pinnacle of European civilization.
An ATL Soviet Union that easily wins WWII could have all of the continent go Communist.
This probably is the most definitive way to fulfill this quest in a premodern setting.
I think people are working the question backwards. The path of least resistance isn't about making Russia conform, it's also about making them less of an outlier such that there's no real need or desire to other them. Don't bother wasting time arguing what's part of the West or what isn't, that's as fluid as water depending on the context and the person talking. The only thing that needs to be said regarding 'The West' is that IMO it's defined by the defining of an east. And that's largely down to the splitting of the Roman Empire in two. Sure you've got the Bosporus/Anatolia as the start of Asia in ancient Greek thought, but is that even relevant to most people arguing these semantics? Of course not. They're labeling West or otherwise out of modern day political interests and reinterpretations of the past for the sake of seeing what they want.
Everything since that split, be it religion, language, w/e is just window dressing. So back to the question; make Russia a part of the West? Make them align with the rest of Europe against the 'East'. The easiest way is a superpower China that's able to exert political power abroad akin to how Europeans were able to from the ~XV century onwards. Russia is exposed as the first point of contact on land while the rest of Europe(The West) is exposed at sea. Or maybe a more successful Mongol horde that manages to raid all the way into France and Italy; a shared Mongol trauma would go a hell of a long way to establishing a common enemy that's an Other From The East that isn't the Russians themselves.
It isn't about changing Russia, it's about getting Russia to join the League of Haters of People East of Here
Everything since that split, be it religion, language, w/e is just window dressing. So back to the question; make Russia a part of the West? Make them align with the rest of Europe against the 'East'. The easiest way is a superpower China that's able to exert political power abroad akin to how Europeans were able to from the ~XV century onwards. Russia is exposed as the first point of contact on land while the rest of Europe(The West) is exposed at sea. Or maybe a more successful Mongol horde that manages to raid all the way into France and Italy; a shared Mongol trauma would go a hell of a long way to establishing a common enemy that's an Other From The East that isn't the Russians themselves.
It isn't about changing Russia, it's about getting Russia to join the League of Haters of People East of Here
Exactly! The reason why we can have this conversation in the first place is because Europe, just like other other regions of the world, tends to follow specific "scripts" that or metapolicies that dictate the political maneuvers taken on a day to day basis. America must be the center of power. Britain must be distant from the continent. Japan is always the East Asian country that matches up with the west. Meanwhile China and India are devloping their own "scripts" where they're the rising gaggle of salarymen to outdo the global north. And as you point out in tracing the origins of the Europe-Russia split further back than I did, back to the division of the Roman Empire, you demonstrate how these "scripts" don't just emerge out of nowhere; instead they're reinforced time and time again by geogrpahical and cultural barriers whose effects play out through centuries. In fact a case can be made that the specific solution you point out (namely, unite Russia and the unambiguous west against a prominent power in Asia) was already applied during the height of the Russian Empire, both in the Great Game that drove the tsardom to expand into Central Asia and eventually clash with the British over spheres of influence and in the fact that Russia took part in the dismemberment of the Qing Dynasty.
I mentioned that earlier that I found very weird the use of term "West" meaning "NATO", but one particularly annoying that I forgot to mention is conflates "West" with "high income economy". That one is even more problematic as it implies "West" (a word that only exists as a replacement for "European", "White people") is the only one capable of material development. And of course, also problematic the level of importance given to money as the only thing that matters on human existence.
I would say that in the Anglo-West world it means NATO. So a collection of vassal countries under the orbit of the United States, which makes sense to a certain extent due to the castration of Europe as a relevant entity (aside from economics) after WW2. With the most active member and away from the american sphere in europe being france.
one word Argentina
I'm particularly very liberal when it comes to language. People call things the way they want: if they want to say "West" meaning "NATO", good. That's absolutely normal.
However, it might become problematic when it fundamentally changes people's perception of world reality. For instance, it might lead one to believe Spain and Argentina are completely distinct places because one is "West" (NATO) and the other is not; or that Transatlantic bonds are only an US-Britain thing when there are perfectly good analogous on South America. In fact, there are quote big differences between British and American societies, on structure of government, laws, culture, while Brazilians and Argentines tend to do a copy-and-paste of Europe in several fields.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Try being a little less inflammatory. If you’re going to endorse “soft” fascism, be aware that’s a fairly extreme stance and that a little sugar might help your argument go down better.