HW Bush second term foreign policy?

[Višeslav]

So, let's say George HW Bush gets a second term in 1992.

A lot of interesting foreign policy decisions had to be made by the US in Clinton's first term, how might Bush Sr. a much more experienced foreign policy leader handle them? How would this effect the world?

The big issues:

• Israel-Palestine negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords and the second Camp David meeting had already been set in motion by the Bush administration, but Bill Clinton did a lot of work there. How might Bush handle them? What results might they have?
• Somalia. The UNITAF mission to secure food aid in Mogadishu started up right around the time of the election. Clinton stayed for statebuilding and got the Blackhawk Down incident instead. How would Somalia go under Bush The Elder?
• The Troubles towards the end saw a lot of involvement by the Clinton administration. How might HW handle this differently if at all?
• Rwanda. Especially with Somalia probably going differently, how might the US reaction to the Rwandan genocide change under Bush if at all?
• Yugoslavia. Though something I personally am not looking for answers on right now, others might be. 1992-1996 pretty much covers the whole Bosnian war and most of the Croatian war of independence and the US was very involved. What might Bush do differently than Clinton?
• General foreign policy. Russia, NATO expansion, China, Japan's decline. How might Bush handle other big issues of the early 90s?

• EDIT: Given the discussion so far, the main remaining hole seems to be Israel. The other big questions have largely been at least roughly laid out, although of course, more thoughts on any aspect of his foreign policy are appreciated.

So, what do you think? Any ideas?

Spoiler: My thoughts

• Israel-Palestine negotiations: If I remember correctly, the Bush administration was a lot harsher with Israel than most. Not withdrawing support by any means, but they kept Israel from returning air strikes against Iraq and were atypically supportive of Arab countries in the parts of the Israel-Palestine negotiations they handled.
• Somalia: Bush's last Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger (most American surname) made a big deal about how it would have been an in and out mission to deliver the food under a Bush administration.
• Yugoslavia:I know Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger was friendly with the Serbs on account of his investments in Yugoslav companies and possibly other things. I by no means think this would mean the US would suddenly start backing Slobodan Milošević but it is going to have SOME effects.
  • The first example that comes to mind is kind of random. I know there is a theory that Alija Izetbegović withdrew support for the Owen–Stoltenberg peace plan at the urging of the US because his rejection came not long after a meeting with US officials, but this is very unconfirmed. If that was the case, I CAN see someone like Bush who was more into quick solutions to conflicts than protracted work, and a more Serb-friendly Secretary of State not pushing for its rejection, but again, US involvement is unconfirmed. That said, this would be great for Bosnia. Since it happens before Srebrenica, there would be less bad blood between ethnicities postwar, a 3 way federal state would please both the Croats (who wouldn't feel dominated by Bosniaks as they do IOTL in the Federation of Bosnia And Herzegovina) and Serbs (who wouldn't feel like there is a united front against them), while an undivided, federal Sarajevo could both make Bosniaks happy that their capital isn't split and facilitate better right of return for Serb civilians that fled or were run out of town, and more desire to return since they would have spent less time in their new homes (this does mean Pale has a much smaller population).

[\SPOILER]

 

[Dancing Fool]

Somalia. The UNITAF mission to secure food aid in Mogadishu started up right around the time of the election. Clinton stayed for statebuilding and got the Blackhawk Down incident instead. How would Somalia go under Bush The Elder?

Since Bush The Elder is viewed as highly competent on foreign policy, Blackhawk Down is more likely to be viewed as “sometimes things just don’t work out.”

Bush is more likely to take a chance and respond to the Rwanda genocide in a prompt fashion, and maybe even pull the French along.

 

[Višeslav]

Since Bush The Elder is viewed as highly competent on foreign policy, Blackhawk Down is more likely to be viewed as “sometimes things just don’t work out.”

Makes sense. I have heard people say it would just not happen because he wouldn't keep the US in Somalia past UNITAF for anything other than protecting humanitarian aid deliveries, but I don't know how true that is.

Bush is more likely to take a chance and respond to the Rwanda genocide in a prompt fashion, and maybe even pull the French along.

What do you think that might look like? UN-backed Franco-American (and maybe some smaller countries) peacekeeping force goes in to stop the genocide? That's likely to be a little too late IMO.

I feel like a realistic best case is that they go in to stop the smaller but earlier Burundian genocide, save some people but ultimately are too ultimately late. They do however notice things building up to the same thing in Rwanda, and notice the influence of RTLM. The response is toshut RTLM down, bring peacekeepers into Rwanda, crack down on/arrest leaders of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi, disarming the rank and file, and when they notice the importation of machetes and other bladed weapons, block further imports & confiscate them. Finally, again, in the best case, the US and French force the factions in the Rwandan Civil War to the negotiating table and the French lead negotiations. After at most a year of no genocide or (if it happens before a year) when negotiations succeed, the US leaves, letting the French man a peacekeeping skeleton crew of peacekeepers a little while longer to ensure all is good, perhaps letting the French create a permanent peacekeeping force akin to EUFOR or KFOR, but without the US getting bogged down.

Does that make any sense whatsoever?


Also, any thoughts on the other issues?

 

[Dancing Fool]

After at most a year of no genocide or (if it happens before a year) when negotiations succeed, the US leaves, letting the French man a peacekeeping skeleton crew of peacekeepers a little while longer to ensure all is good, perhaps letting the French create a permanent peacekeeping force akin to EUFOR or KFOR, but without the US getting bogged down.

Sounds like a plan. And I’m always in favor of preventing genocide.

 

[Dancing Fool]

The response is toshut RTLM down,

The radio station. And it’s an easy call because the station used majorly de-humanizing language and said an ethnic group needed to be exterminated. But in general —

Free speech is a failure.

And I hate saying that because I grew up really believing in free speech. And holy cow, I love to read and aspire to write screenplays, especially.

The classic response is to say the best remedy for bad speech is more speech. Or to quote Mark Twain to the effect that a good lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even put its boots on, but the truth has a way of catching up.

But these are just so much wishful thinking.

People want to believe bat shit crazy conspiracy theory, for whatever reason. They’re not interested in looking deeper. And that just seems to be the fact of the matter.

 

[Višeslav]

The radio station. And it’s an easy call because the station used majorly de-humanizing language and said an ethnic group needed to be exterminated.

Yeah, I figure, especially since it would be identifiable as a direct cause of the tensions in Burundi that would have led to genocide there.

But in general —

Free speech is a failure.

And I hate saying that because I grew up really believing in free speech. And holy cow, I love to read and aspire to write.

The classic response is to say the best remedy for bad speech is more speech. Or to quote Mark Twain to the effect that a good lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even put its boots on, but the truth has a way of catching up.

Both are just so much wishful thinking.

People want to believe bat shit crazy conspiracy theory, for whatever reason. They’re not interested in looking deeper. And that just seems to be the fact of the matter.

I don't know how far I'm willing to generalize this, but definitely applies for outlets akin to RTLM that are straight up calling people inhuman and unworthy of life. Don't want to take this thread any closer to current politics than it already is though lmao.

 

[GSD310]

General foreign policy. Russia, NATO expansion, China, Japan's decline. How might Bush handle other big issues of the early 90s?

Bearing in mind Bush41’s history with China, he eases post-Tiananmen sanctions and gets US-PRC relations back on track faster than Clinton in OTL. He and Jiang exchanges visits. Perhaps China in the WTO before Bush leaves office?

The question is what would happen to Taiwan. Does it get left in the cold between 1993-1997 or does it become something that Bush’s domestic opponents (both left and right) attack him with? Does the Third Straits Crisis occur or does China feel “Nah, we have a friend in the Oval Office”.

I’m wondering whether Bush would/could create a situation that would make it less appealing for China and Russia to drift in each other’s direction if/when they gets disgruntled about the unipolar world?

 

[aaronupright]

The big issues:

• Israel-Palestine negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords and the second Camp David meeting had already been set in motion by the Bush administration, but Bill Clinton did a lot of work there. How might Bush handle them? What results might they have?

Bush I was as harsh on Israel as any President. Probably he isn't going to tut tut on Israel infractions as Clinton did, but is going to follow ot up with punative measures. Domestically, his loss convinced two generations of Republicans that they had to always follow the Israeli line. So that's butterflied away.

• Somalia. The UNITAF mission to secure food aid in Mogadishu started up right around the time of the election. Clinton stayed for statebuilding and got the Blackhawk Down incident instead. How would Somalia go under Bush The Elder?

Bush was going to take it to its logica conclusion

• The Troubles towards the end saw a lot of involvement by the Clinton administration. How might HW handle this differently if at all?

Hands off approach, Encourage a settlement but take only limited actions behind the scenes.

• Rwanda. Especially with Somalia probably going differently, how might the US reaction to the Rwandan genocide change under Bush if at all?

Easy answer, he goes in. He was an old money WASP, his instinct would be to intervene.

• Yugoslavia. Though something I personally am not looking for answers on right now, others might be. 1992-1996 pretty much covers the whole Bosnian war and most of the Croatian war of independence and the US was very involved. What might Bush do differently than Clinton?

Earlier intervension. It would be a major part of his settlement plan for Europe.

• General foreign policy. Russia, NATO expansion, China, Japan's decline. How might Bush handle other big issues of the early 90s?

There will be no or limited NATO expansion. He would have seen the E Europeans as being a natural buffer. If Russia is a 1000 miles east, let them remain.

On China he would have been a hawk. And would have implemented the pivot to Asia and trade barriers much earlier. Japan as is.
Nuclear proliferation, he would have been as active in disarmament as Clinton was. He may well have used force against N Korea. He probably would have tacitly accepted the S Asian arsenals.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Easy answer, he goes in. He was an old money WASP, his instinct would be to intervene.

I’m generally against intervention, but genocide is the clear and obvious exception.

The problem is that a lot of genocide is cloaked. Or it’s pretty far along before you’re sure.

 

[Višeslav]

Bearing in mind Bush41’s history with China, he eases post-Tiananmen sanctions and gets US-PRC relations back on track faster than Clinton in OTL. He and Jiang exchanges visits. Perhaps China in the WTO before Bush leaves office?

What history are we thinking of here? The general late cold war & 90s warming?

On China he would have been a hawk. And would have implemented the pivot to Asia and trade barriers much earlier. Japan as is.

I’ve seen both contradicting takes on Bush even outside of this thread I’m pretty sure. What makes you think this?

The question is what would happen to Taiwan. Does it get left in the cold between 1993-1997 or does it become something that Bush’s domestic opponents (both left and right) attack him with?

It definitely becomes something Bush’s enemies attack him with if Bush goes with such a policy.

Does the Third Straits Crisis occur or does China feel “Nah, we have a friend in the Oval Office”.

Not sure what caused it IOTL but if he’s chummier with China possibly not.

I’m wondering whether Bush would/could create a situation that would make it less appealing for China and Russia to drift in each other’s direction if/when they gets disgruntled about the unipolar world?

If Bush improves relations with China it depends if future asministrations screw them up enough I guess. Could be that China tries to build a soft power network within the Western-led world order.

Bush I was as harsh on Israel as any President. Probably he isn't going to tut tut on Israel infractions as Clinton did, but is going to follow ot up with punative measures. Domestically, his loss convinced two generations of Republicans that they had to always follow the Israeli line. So that's butterflied away.

Ah so the US is likely to be more open to reprecussions against Israel when it misbehaves?

Do you think this would positively impact the Israel-Palestine peace process?

Do you think the Democrats would go more pro Israel to grab that portion of the vote?

Bush was going to take it to its logical conclusion

Which is what, in your opinion?

Hands off approach, Encourage a settlement but take only limited actions behind the scenes.

Do you think that means something analogous to the Good Friday agreement comes later then? I imagine not much later since both sides were kind of tired of the fighting.

Easy answer, he goes in. He was an old money WASP, his instinct would be to intervene.

Mmm.

Earlier intervension. It would be a major part of his settlement plan for Europe.

Hmm.

Eagleburger’s Yugoslav investments might be cooked lmao but he’ll defer to the president’s judgement for sure.

So perhaps peace in Bosnia in 1993? The Serbs, Croats & Bosniaks were actually open to an agreement at that point so he might not even need to apply that much pressure.

Where the US might need to get involved is Croatia. Ironically that could be better for the Serbs in Krajina since with US involvement, though they will lose, the Croats may not be anle to get away with the mass exodus they did during operation storm IOTL. Ofc they wouldn’t have OTL hindsight so they’d still hate the US for destroying what they thought was a legitimate chance at independence.

As for what he does vis a vis the Kosovo War and Milošević regime IDK. I could see anything for the war ranging from “supporting Serbia’s territorial integrity but putting strong pressure to ensure humane condict woth civilians” to “land invasion to support the KLA” and anything in between. The US considered the KLA a terrorist organization for most of or even throughout Bush’s term & CIA funding is only really confirmed during the Clinton administration so I’m not sure what Bush would do. I suppose it also depends on how much Milošević fucks up diplomacy with the US, which he had a habit of doing, and how brutal he is with civilians which isnimpacted bg how much oversight there is and how much he thinks he can get away with.

There will be no or limited NATO expansion. He would have seen the E Europeans as being a natural buffer. If Russia is a 1000 miles east, let them remain.

I wonder if this would embolden Russia in its aggressive tendencies or make them feel safer and thus put them in a less aggressive mood.

Nuclear proliferation, he would have been as active in disarmament as Clinton was. He may well have used force against N Korea. He probably would have tacitly accepted the S Asian arsenals.

You really think Bush would have gone to war with the DPRK? I mean, the thing is, unipolar world or not, that’s a clear way to demolish relations with Russia and China over what is effectively a geopolitical chihuahua.

 

[arrowiv]

Eagleburger's connection with the Serbs was more closer, actually. He started out as an aide to Kissinger in the early years of the Nixon White House and was also ambassador to a then-united Yugoslavia and was acquainted with its legendary leader Tito (who was actually much respected in the Western and non-aligned worlds back in the day). Bush had long close ties with China. In 1971, he was UN ambassador when the Taiwanese were kicked out and the PRC moved in. Later on, he would be Nixon's ambassdor to Beijing after relations were re-established with China following Nixon's visit.
Would a second Bush Senior term also affect Bush Junior as the father would educate the son in foreign policy? Or would it also butterfly a presidency by Junior?
Of course, there is also the Bushes' too-close-for-comfort relationship with the Saudis, especially in the area where oil and politics mix. In fact, ambassador Bandar bin Sultan al Saud was so close that he was literally considered something of an honorary Bush family member!

 

[Ambusher11]

On China he would have been a hawk. And would have implemented the pivot to Asia and trade barriers much earlier.

Would he really have been one? When he visited France on November 26, 1997 (after he would've no longer been president ITTL), he was lambasting the U.S. Congress' hostility to China. I doubt he'd be more hawkish towards China than Clinton was.

 

[Višeslav]

So what I’ve gathered so far that seems to be a rough consensus:

• Israel-Palestine negotiations: Tougher on Israel. Not the unwavering support that is the norm IOTL. With a second Bush win, future American foreign policy may be more willing to tell Israel to stop misbehaving.
  • Might this mean that with a more accountable Israel without a veto in the UNSC on any criticism of it, the peace process goes better? Or maybe Israel becomes a pariah?
  • Alternatively does Israel realign with a different great power?
• Somalia. Intervenes but less focus on establishing a government. Either stops at protecting food deliveries or at most captures Aidid.
  • Long term probably not much effect. I don’t think the US will sit around trying to build a stable government. Might mean the world is more ok with Somaliland’s independence. Southern Somalia is likely unstable either way.
• The Troubles: Less US involvement, the troubles end a little later but likely similarly.
  • Not sure on the long term effects. Maybe unionist and republican feelings remain stronger in their respective communities?
• Rwanda: Intervenes but gets out once it’s done, leaves maintenance perhaps to the French
  • This is firmly just a better situation. Not much to say. Global confidence in the UN would be much higher, especially if Srebrenica also doesn’t happen.
• Yugoslavia. Sees to it that Bosnia and Croatia are settled by about 93, intervening if necessary. Not sure what he’d do with kosovo or Albanian-Macedonian tensions.
  • Not sure here, I guess long term effects depend a lot on his decisions with kosovo
• NATO expansion: None or very little beyond East Germany joining the West.
  • Not sure if this makes Russia calmer as it feels less threatened or more aggressive as it has more opportunities
  • A more distinct second world remains perhaps
• China: Less hostile than IOTL, greater Chinese integration into the global community.
  • China may be slower to turn to more controversial partners like Russia & Iran (albeit remaining friendly with the DPRK)
  • On the other hand China likely wins the trade war with the US before anyone even starts thinking of it as a war. Being more integrated with the West, trade with China is easier & Europe especially may move much closer to China economically than IOTL, perhaps giving the EU more independence from the US as a power bloc in the long run
• Russia: Not sure.

 

[connorCD]

Would an earlier entry for China in the WTO combined with NAFTA lead to a more protectionist Democrat being nominated in '96?

 

[Višeslav]

Would an earlier entry for China in the WTO combined with NAFTA lead to a more protectionist Democrat being nominated in '96?

Not sure but it sounds reasonably plausible

 

[regnak]

Not sure but it sounds reasonably plausible

Would NAFTA even pass under Bush? Or is it one of those ideas that Democrats oppose until they are in office?

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

I’m not really sure but it is a very interesting idea as imo Bush was superior to Clinton in foreign policy and would’ve handled these issues better. But in some areas I don’t have a clue. Like with China or Russia.

So overall I think he’d of done better in Somalia as that whole Blackhawk down situation would either not have happened at all or would’ve instead been a success.

With Yugoslavia I’m not entirely sure but I agree with what most say in that there’d likely be a much earlier agreement that keeps most of the Yugoslav wars from occurring.

In Rwanda we probably see him intervene and stop the genocide before it gets out of hand. I always remembering hearing that the black hawk down issue made Clinton reluctant to do anything after the blunder in Somalia, so between HW’s pro intervention trigger finger and no Blackhawk down, you probably see a US lead or aided intervention.

Not sure on Russia as I don’t know what HW’s relationship was like with Yeltsin but I doubt it would be the same as it was with Clinton as iirc the two got along and he helped Yeltsin out a lot. Although I’ve also heard that the brief time we were actually ok with Russia started to sour when we intervened in Yugoslavia, so maybe that being avoided helps. Especially if nato doesn’t move east, although I’m not sure how long that will last depending on Russia’s tendencies causing Eastern Europe to rush towards nato.

Not sure at all on the rest. But one thing I feel would be a major butterfly of HW being a two term president with these foreign policy wins would be the UN having a much better standing and not see as failures since there’d be no Srebrenica massacre, no Rwanda genocide where the world stood by and failed to act, and no Somalia blunder. If these are all successes then the UN comes out of the 90s looking a heck of a lot better. Not sure if that could lead to a UN that is treated more seriously and reformed more effectively, or if its reputation only lasts a bit longer till some other fuck up still makes them be seen as failures, but it can’t be as bad as iotl.

 

[Višeslav]

I’m not really sure but it is a very interesting idea as imo Bush was superior to Clinton in foreign policy and would’ve handled these issues better.

Definitely. If nothing else his more extensive political experience is useful.

But in some areas I don’t have a clue. Like with China or Russia.

So overall I think he’d of done better in Somalia as that whole Blackhawk down situation would either not have happened at all or would’ve instead been a success.

I’m inclined to agree. From what his associates said afterwards, Bush aimed to finish UNITAF and get out rather than stick around but if he did, I can see him at least handling things differently. Since he’s not a new president, it’s also gonna be less reputation-defining for him than it was for Clinton even if it does go s bdas IOTL.

With Yugoslavia I’m not entirely sure but I agree with what most say in that there’d likely be a much earlier agreement that keeps most of the Yugoslav wars from occurring.

Well, a good chunk of the wars would still happen but some of the nastier stuff could be avoided.

One big thing is even if the US bombing of Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 happened (which it might well not, Bush might seek to settle the kosovo problems preemptively and would have better diplomats behind him for the job) Bush would definitely NOT be stupid enough to bomb the Chinese embassy multiple times, even if he DID suspect it was being used as a radio relay station by the Yugoslav army. That was a HUGE blow to Sino-American relations & is still a sore spot, unsurprisingly.

In Rwanda we probably see him intervene and stop the genocide before it gets out of hand. I always remembering hearing that the black hawk down issue made Clinton reluctant to do anything after the blunder in Somalia, so between HW’s pro intervention trigger finger and no Blackhawk down, you probably see a US lead or aided intervention.

I’m inclined to agree.

Not sure on Russia as I don’t know what HW’s relationship was like with Yeltsin but I doubt it would be the same as it was with Clinton as iirc the two got along and he helped Yeltsin out a lot.

Which two? Clinton and Yeltsin or Bush and Yeltsin?

Although I’ve also heard that the brief time we were actually ok with Russia started to sour when we intervened in Yugoslavia, so maybe that being avoided helps.

Yeah a lot depends on how Yugoslavia goes. To the Russians it definitely made the US look like an aggressive bully, attacking a historic Russian ally (Serbia), on top of that all in Russia’s perceived backyard. Whether this perception is correct or not I won’t comment on because that’s still current politics but it definitely influenced Russian foreign policy and made the post cold war peace look disingenuous to them.

Especially if nato doesn’t move east, although I’m not sure how long that will last depending on Russia’s tendencies causing Eastern Europe to rush towards nato.

I imagine NATO will eventually move east but not under Bush. I wonder what Russia might do in the meantime. IOTL they of course invaded Georgia and Moldova.

Not sure at all on the rest. But one thing I feel would be a major butterfly of HW being a two term president with these foreign policy wins would be the UN having a much better standing and not see as failures since there’d be no Srebrenica massacre, no Rwanda genocide where the world stood by and failed to act, and no Somalia blunder.

100%. I’ll note that from the “Eastern” perspective so to speak, a lack of the ethnic cleansing part of operation storm (Croatia’s final push against Serb forces that saw almost half of Croatia’s Serb population forced from their homes forever, which the UN failed to stop) and a possible lack or different handling of the bombing of Yugoslavia (which was carried out without UN mandate and cheapened the UN’s reputation while also looking to “eastern” powers like the UN doing nothing against American aggression) the UN will also have a big image boost. Mainly I’m talking about Russia, Iraq, and Libya in their perception of the UN but to a lesser extent also China and India.

If these are all successes then the UN comes out of the 90s looking a heck of a lot better. Not sure if that could lead to a UN that is treated more seriously

Certainly for a while I’d imagine.

and reformed more effectively

I’m split between saying “if the UN seems more powerful, reform seems more important” and saying “if the UN seems to work, the need for reform is seen as less urgent”.

What reforms, if any, do you have in mind?

or if its reputation only lasts a bit longer till some other fuck up still makes them be seen as failures, but it can’t be as bad as iotl.

I feel with later NATO expansion, a big risk is that Russia might do some unpleasant things in Eastern Europe that the UN fails to stop but that did happen to some extent IOTL so an increase in Russian aggression is not likely to have a worse impact than not stopping some of the biggest acts of ethnic cleansing in history.

 

[Vladyslav]

NATO expansion,

NATO expansion wouldn't happened during Bush41 presidency but it will return to the menu under POTUS#42.

wonder if this would embolden Russia in its aggressive tendencies or make them feel safer and thus put them in a less aggressive mood.

Although I’ve also heard that the brief time we were actually ok with Russia started to sour when we intervened in Yugoslavia, so maybe that being avoided helps. Especially if nato doesn’t move east, although I’m not sure how long that will last depending on Russia’s tendencies causing Eastern Europe to rush towards nato

The main Russian problem is not the NATO expansion. They think that Russia us a superpower like the US or the PRC but Russia can't be a superpower after Ukrainian independence.
Even pro-Western liberals considered the CIS a legitimate Russian sphere of influence. Russia accepted the collapse of the USSR because Yeltsin was not ready to fight with Ukraine or remain with Central Asia in one country without 50 million Ukrainian Slavs. Many people wanted to “return” at least Crimea as a “original Russian land,” but Yeltsin understood the consequences of this step for Russian policy in Ukraine. Yeltsin hoped that Ukraine would return to the herd peacefully, but Russian policies only scared Ukraine away, forcing it to seek friendship with the EU. The United States will support Yeltsin in any case, but I cannot really say what will happen after Yeltsin without a TL. IOTL the NATO expansion became the thing only after Zhirinovsky's 25% on 1993 election

 

[Višeslav]

Nice to see the forum’s resident East Slavic History expert show up!

NATO expansion wouldn't happened during Bush41 presidency but it will return to the menu under POTUS#42.

I’m definitely inclined to agree.

The main Russian problem is not the NATO expansion. They think that Russia us a superpower like the US or the PRC but Russia can't be a superpower after Ukrainian independence.
Even pro-Western liberals considered the CIS a legitimate Russian sphere of influence. Russia accepted the collapse of the USSR because Yeltsin was not ready to fight with Ukraine or remain with Central Asia in one country without 50 million Ukrainian Slavs. Many people wanted to “return” at least Crimea as a “original Russian land,” but Yeltsin understood the consequences of this step for Russian policy in Ukraine.

So are you saying saying for a powerful Russia/USSR/CIS/whatever to work, it needs central asian oil and manpower alongside Ukrainian vast food supplies, ports, and its Slavic population to balance out the Turkics in Central Asia?

And that grabbing Crimea, though popular, would permanently drive the rest of Ukraine away from Russia and wad therefore not pursued, iut of hope for Ukraine’s return to Russia’s sphere of influence?

Yeltsin hoped that Ukraine would return to the herd peacefully, but Russian policies only scared Ukraine away, forcing it to seek friendship with the EU.

And, at risk of going off topic, what policies are those, out of curiosity?

The United States will support Yeltsin in any case, but I cannot really say what will happen after Yeltsin without a TL. IOTL the NATO expansion became the thing only after Zhirinovsky's 25% on 1993 election

Zhirinovsky is the Russian nationalist candidate right?
So you’re saying NATO expansion wasn’t even really desired until they saw serious potential for a Russian expansionist to come to power?