Is there a plausible way for Nato to be disbanded at the end of the Cold War?

[Rufus]

IOTL the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, and Soviet troops were recalled from eastern Europe and elsewhere. But Nato continued, and the US maintained its military presence all around the world.

Is there any plausible scenario where Nato and Warsaw Pact are disbanded at the same time, and the US closes down many of its military bases around the world, while the Soviets do the same? Basically, a kind of mutual demilitarization? Was such a thing possible in the late 80s/early 90s (probably under a different President than Bush)?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

IOTL the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, and Soviet troops were recalled from eastern Europe and elsewhere. But Nato continued, and the US maintained its military presence all around the world.

Is there any plausible scenario where Nato and Warsaw Pact are disbanded at the same time, and the US closes down many of its military bases around the world, while the Soviets do the same? Basically, a kind of mutual demilitarization? Was such a thing possible in the late 80s/early 90s (probably under a different President than Bush)?

ATL PoD wise, get a President that wants to cut costs or “put America first” now the Cold War has been won.

You’d have to find someone with a better knowledge of late 80s / early 90s American politics than me for likely candidates, though.

 

[Shadow1080]

Trump becomes president in 1993 after his consideration running for office in the Orpah Show.

 

[ennobee]

I recall that in the early 90's Bill Clinton flaoted te idea to the Russians that instead of being angry at so many former Warsaw-Pact nations lining up to join NATO, one could simply merge NATO and the former Warsaw-Pact into one new super-NATO that would operate along the same principles: mutually defense in case one of its members gets attacked by a third party, mutual exercises to get the various nations to see each other as friends. Eventually everything from the proposed command structure to even the moniker 'super-NATO' made this a no-go for the Russians from the start, but yes, the idea was there at least.

 

[Rufus]

Trump becomes president in 1993 after his consideration running for office in the Orpah Show.

I‘ve actually thought about this before. A Trump presidency in the 90s, just after the Cold War, could really change things around. A call for an end to Nato in the early 90s, after the end of the Soviet empire, but before the rise of islamic terrorism, would have sounded much less crazy than today. It would have been much harder for proponents of Nato to explain why the organisation should continue to exist, at least in the way it was set up.

But i‘m not sure if Trump would be successful as a Republican back then, he might be seen as too liberal. Maybe he runs as a Democrat, lol.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

A withdrawal attitude of the US might be more encouraged by a more pronounced break up of the USSR. Specifically the Russians split with a Siberia based state & perhaps some other internal division. Something like the warlords of China as the old Manchu empire dissolved. With three of four smaller armies replacing the 'Russian' army and the nuclear weapons marginalized, then a decade later NATO as we know it could dissolve also.

Trick is for many EU nations sticking together in a collective has some strong attractions. Without the US there is a lot of 'gravity' pulling them together.

 

[HunterX]

Trump becomes president in 1993 after his consideration running for office in the Orpah Show.

The conditions aren't there for Trump to actually win in the 90s though.

 

[L4a1]

How about a stronger EU?
Basically the European countries say we don't need NATO anymore without the Soviet Union/Warsaw pact around, and transition to a EU military command.

 

[Wendell]

Perot wins in 1992.

 

[marathag]

Trump becomes president in 1993 after his consideration running for office in the Orpah Show.

The one you are looking for was Pat Buchanan

 

[FillyofDelphi]

How about a stronger EU?
Basically the European countries say we don't need NATO anymore without the Soviet Union/Warsaw pact around, and transition to a EU military command.

Why thumb your nose at free security, which is effectively free money? Unless the US is leaning on them to increase contributions, in which case there's likely a global issue that retains the need for said security, most of Europe could happily go on as free riders

 

[L4a1]

Why thumb your nose at free security, which is effectively free money? Unless the US is leaning on them to increase contributions, in which case there's likely a global issue that retains the need for said security, most of Europe could happily go on as free riders

Tell that to the Philippines.
There are other issues besides the costs of security. Following the fall of the Soviet Union there was not seen to be a need for security everyone was cashing in on the Peace Dividend. If the EU was stronger, and Europeans were moving to an European identity away from a National identity then the presence of Foreign Troops on European soil could be seen as unacceptable. Remember the occupation of Germany didn't end until the 90's.
If you are relying on someone else for your security it places restrictions on your sovereignty. In a situation where the security treat is seen to be low having politicians say we can handle our own security in order to win elections is not so hard to believe.

 

[NORGCO]

IOTL the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, and Soviet troops were recalled from eastern Europe and elsewhere. But Nato continued, and the US maintained its military presence all around the world.

Is there any plausible scenario where Nato and Warsaw Pact are disbanded at the same time, and the US closes down many of its military bases around the world, while the Soviets do the same? Basically, a kind of mutual demilitarization? Was such a thing possible in the late 80s/early 90s (probably under a different President than Bush)?

NATO could be ended by recognising that it's reason for existence had disappeared.

It was created when Stalin was in charge of the USSR and had a huge army along the Elbe. 'Stalin had ten million men under arms in Europe' is how it keeps being quoted. Being afraid of facing the business end of guns controlled by Joseph Stalin was perfectly reasonable, and joining together for protection against them sensible.

Stalin had been dead for a long time in 1989, the Soviet Union was broke - hence leaving eastern Europe at all - and the security issues Europe might need to deal with different. Urban terrorism had been a huge issue in the 70's and still was in Britain. The PLO had a habit of launching terrorist attacks that affected citizens of European countries. Keeping the oil flowing from the middle east was in the interest of European countries, and relying on the US Central Command for that made them dependent on the good wishes of the US Government, which arguably undermines national sovereignty.

These issues were not taken into account when NATO was thought up. Disbanding NATO and working out a new alliance to deal with current and foreseeable issues would seem perfectly appropriate. The post-Ghadaffi civil war in Lybia, with its bombing campaign, that Britain, France and the US supported but Germany didn't might have been different if there had been a treaty alliance that required political consultation/agreement from its members.

Maybe Lybia would not be the mess it is today because the counter-arguments were taken into account. Whether or not to intervene in the Syrian Civil War was a question that affected European interests. Dealing with it at an alliance level is not an insane idea, but NATO doesn't really have provision for that.

So yes, dissolving NATO as soon as the Warsaw Pact collapsed is justifiable. It didn't deal with the security needs of the nations it was supposed to serve anymore.

 

[Father Maryland]

NATO could be ended by recognising that it's reason for existence had disappeared.

It was created when Stalin was in charge of the USSR and had a huge army along the Elbe. 'Stalin had ten million men under arms in Europe' is how it keeps being quoted. Being afraid of facing the business end of guns controlled by Joseph Stalin was perfectly reasonable, and joining together for protection against them sensible.

Stalin had been dead for a long time in 1989, the Soviet Union was broke - hence leaving eastern Europe at all - and the security issues Europe might need to deal with different. Urban terrorism had been a huge issue in the 70's and still was in Britain. The PLO had a habit of launching terrorist attacks that affected citizens of European countries. Keeping the oil flowing from the middle east was in the interest of European countries, and relying on the US Central Command for that made them dependent on the good wishes of the US Government, which arguably undermines national sovereignty.

These issues were not taken into account when NATO was thought up. Disbanding NATO and working out a new alliance to deal with current and foreseeable issues would seem perfectly appropriate. The post-Ghadaffi civil war in Lybia, with its bombing campaign, that Britain, France and the US supported but Germany didn't might have been different if there had been a treaty alliance that required political consultation/agreement from its members.

Maybe Lybia would not be the mess it is today because the counter-arguments were taken into account. Whether or not to intervene in the Syrian Civil War was a question that affected European interests. Dealing with it at an alliance level is not an insane idea, but NATO doesn't really have provision for that.

So yes, dissolving NATO as soon as the Warsaw Pact collapsed is justifiable. It didn't deal with the security needs of the nations it was supposed to serve anymore.

The fact that it was continued by each and every member of NATO and even expanded would seem to suggest that the member nations believed it served their interests.

 

[fscott]

IOTL the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, and Soviet troops were recalled from eastern Europe and elsewhere. But Nato continued, and the US maintained its military presence all around the world.

Is there any plausible scenario where Nato and Warsaw Pact are disbanded at the same time, and the US closes down many of its military bases around the world, while the Soviets do the same? Basically, a kind of mutual demilitarization? Was such a thing possible in the late 80s/early 90s (probably under a different President than Bush)?

After the Long Cold War I don't think the u.s. trusted the USSR in the Warsaw Pact would be actually disbanding it would more look at it as a possible trick or I plan to win World War 3. One of the other posters mentioned well Stalin's been dead since the 1950s but that didn't stop the USSR from the Cuban Missile Crisis and many other items that happened in the Cold War on both sides. Honestly I think it'd be a very hard sell to the American public 2 get that to happen