WI: Russia Joins the EU

[Ellis MacVey]

Okay, let's say Russia somehow stays more stable after the fall of the Soviet Union and doesn't become a dictatorship, doesn't make threatening moves on its neighbors, and eventually applies for membership of the EU and gets it.

What happens next? How does this impact Russia? How does it impact the rest of the EU? How does it impact the rest of the world if Russia stays on friendly terms with the West?

 

[RandomChance]

Massively skews the seats in the European Parliament for a start. The political repercussions of its entry to the EU would be massive, simply based upon its relative scale in population and size compared to any other single member.

There would be unease, if not outright opposition from some existing members, but if they’re allowed in, the amount of power the Russians would wield would outweigh any opposition, which might cause the EU to fragment. I’m thinking this scenario might even border on ASB territory, especially in the ‘90s where there’s still some bad blood with Eastern Europe including Germany. Some would struggle with separating the identities of the Soviet Union and Russia.

 

[Post]

I’m thinking this scenario might even border on ASB territory, especially in the ‘90s where there’s still some bad blood with Eastern Europe including Germany. Some would struggle with separating the identities of the Soviet Union and Russia.

I agree. I can't see Germany, France and the UK agreeing to it, because Russia would have more seats than them (probably than them combined). Not so shortly after the fall of the USSR.

 

[CountDVB]

Well, it'd all depend on the system. Maybe they would rework the system so everyone had an equal amount of seats?

 

[Swede]

I just don't see a unified Russia being allowed to join. Had Russia become so unstable as to break apart, maybe one of the parts could have joined by now. Kind of like how a Belarus that had been West-focused and had a clearly developing economy & democracy would have been able to join by now.

 

[Orcbuster]

You guys seem to massively overestimate the russian population. Its smaller than germany and UK combined.

 

[LunazimHawk]

You guys seem to massively overestimate the russian population. Its smaller than germany and UK combined.

And hasn’t Russia been on a population decline following WW2 for a good while? I can see Russian emigrating even more if given the opportunity like they’ve already done.

 

[Yülia]

You guys seem to massively overestimate the russian population. Its smaller than germany and UK combined.

And hasn’t Russia been on a population decline following WW2 for a good while? I can see Russian emigrating even more if given the opportunity like they’ve already done.

It kinda sounds like the "scaremongering" that was done to prevent Russia from actually joining NATO when they tried.

 

[Orcbuster]

It kinda sounds like the "scaremongering" that was done to prevent Russia from actually joining NATO when they tried.

Its not so much much scaremongering as the EU and NATO serving its primary purpose, which is to keep the russians out.

 

[Ellis MacVey]

Guys, I'm not talking about Russia joining the EU in the 1990s, I'm talking more about Russian democracy surviving and them joining in the mid-to-late 2000s or maybe even the early 2010s...

 

[finch]

The population of Russia is said to be about 145 million.
There would be a few problems with Russia joining the EU. The EU is an open and free market. Russia is not and would not move over to being one in the near future. The Annexation of the Crimea and Sevastopol are considered to be illegal, by the UN, and Russia would need to give them up. The Russians have an ageing population and have been actively inviting ex-soviet people to emigrate to Russia. I believe the Russians would not be to keen on allowing their young an opportunity to flee the country.

 

[Yülia]

Its not so much much scaremongering as the EU and NATO serving its primary purpose, which is to keep the russians out.

NATOs purpose ended when the Soviets collapsed. It did not need to be against Russia and should not have been turned into that.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Guys, I'm not talking about Russia joining the EU in the 1990s, I'm talking more about Russian democracy surviving and them joining in the mid-to-late 2000s or maybe even the early 2010s...

A Russia that was like that is by its very nature a really hard Russia to assess. We have gotten so used to Russia's long decline institutionally and economically that looking at a Russia of robust legal norms and open to foreigners is very difficult to gauge. It would be both more powerful and yet likely have an executive with less freedom of manoeuvre on the foreign policy stage. An awful lot would of course depend on how Russian democracy developed, a democratic Russia might not be open to the West or conversely so successful it does not feel the need to join with the EU and will at most settle for a free trade deal like a number of other powerful northern hemisphere economies.

If it joined as an honest and willing member I can see a lot of churn in Russian society as educated Russians head west and foreigners are drawn into Russia itself to take their place.

 

[Orcbuster]

NATOs purpose ended when the Soviets collapsed. It did not need to be against Russia and should not have been turned into that.

Why? Russias historical position in relation to the rest of europe did not change overnight. It was very much in the economic and political interest of both EU and NATO to keep the russians down as they are the traditonal rival. The decline of russia and economic dominance of NATO and EU are testament to this.

 

[Yülia]

Why? Russias historical position in relation to the rest of europe did not change overnight. It was very much in the economic and political interest of both EU and NATO to keep the russians down as they are the traditonal rival. The decline of russia and economic dominance of NATO and EU are testament to this.

And "traditon" should never be changed? That was a golden opportunity to work towards Russia NOT being a rival, NOT being a threat. The origin of the EU was to prevent another European war. If Russia was as incoporated as the rest, Russia wouldn't be opposing the EU/NATO as that would be against Russia's new interests.

Just because they "are the traditional Rival" doesnt mean they should never fix that and change that. Or should France and Germany start preping for another war? Since they are "traditional" enemies and "natural threats"?

 

[RodentRevolution]

Why? Russias historical position in relation to the rest of europe did not change overnight. It was very much in the economic and political interest of both EU and NATO to keep the russians down as they are the traditonal rival. The decline of russia and economic dominance of NATO and EU are testament to this.

I am not sure anyone in the EU nor many in NATO subscribe to mercantilism. It would normally be seen as better to have the Russians build up their economy so their western (well northern and eastern in the case of the US and Canada) neighbours can then sell them more stuff.

I think the issue with Russia joining NATO is that somewhere along the line the finicky legalism of the USSR seems to have gotten lost. A member of NATO must be committed to article 5 and not just there to steal technology. A member of the EU needs to adhere to the four freedoms.

 

[Orcbuster]

And "traditon" should never be changed? That was a golden opportunity to work towards Russia NOT being a rival, NOT being a threat. The origin of the EU was to prevent another European war. If Russia was as incoporated as the rest, Russia wouldn't be opposing the EU/NATO as that would be against Russia's new interests.

Just because they "are the traditional Rival" doesnt mean they should never fix that and change that. Or should France and Germany start preping for another war? Since they are "traditional" enemies and "natural threats"?

What conditions existed to allow for this golden opportunity? Russia was a mess bordering on civil war and with rampant corruption largely caused by itself.

 

[Dan1988]

Okay, let's say Russia somehow stays more stable after the fall of the Soviet Union and doesn't become a dictatorship, doesn't make threatening moves on its neighbors, and eventually applies for membership of the EU and gets it.

What happens next? How does this impact Russia? How does it impact the rest of the EU? How does it impact the rest of the world if Russia stays on friendly terms with the West?

It depends on what type of institutional arrangement is used in the Russian Republic. However, it is dependent on several factors, among them either getting Jelcin out of the way after he served his purpose opposing the 1991 coup (or no Jelcin at all), followed by a more gentle approach to liberalization and an earlier crackdown on corruption. This would also mean conserving as much of the Soviet-style institutional arrangment (imitating Gorbachev's reforms at the all-Union level) since they were already moving towards democratic norms, and thus could be reformed towards a Russian Democratic Federative Republic of sorts. By retaining stability with a middle way economically and more institutional stability on a political level, that would create a more positive impact on Russia and the CIS as a whole. I don't see Russia joining the EU but the CIS could come up with a solution similar to OTL's EU-Russia Common Spaces but deeper and more comprehensive so it would be similar to an expanded EEA. If Russia wanted to, EFTA membership could work in tandem with the pan-CIS solution. And hence my main opinion of this - as the CIS was meant to allow for a continued gradual dissolution of the USSR, I'm surprised that during the '90s not much use was made of the organization as an extension of European (or rather, in this case, Eurasian) integration, alongside organizations like the CoE and the OSCE. It could have helped with encouraging more democratic development in, say, Kyrgyzstan, with a more democratic Russia as a model. Some food for thought.

 

[Yülia]

I am not sure anyone in the EU nor many in NATO subscribe to mercantilism. It would normally be seen as better to have the Russians build up their economy so their western (well northern and eastern in the case of the US and Canada) neighbours can then sell them more stuff.

I think the issue with Russia joining NATO is that somewhere along the line the finicky legalism of the USSR seems to have gotten lost. A member of NATO must be committed to article 5 and not just there to steal technology. A member of the EU needs to adhere to the four freedoms.

Ideally Russia would have actually stayed on the path to democracy, rather than reverting to what we have at present.

What conditions existed to allow for this golden opportunity? Russia was a mess bordering on civil war and with rampant corruption largely caused by itself.

Assisting Russia avoid the civil war, get out of it's mess and avoid rampant corruption by having it be part of the larger European Community. There would not have been a feeling of alienation from Europe, and Russia would not have been "the enemy". It is easier to incorporate a nation that you are helping and has a trusting public than a hostile one. Russia now would find it harder to join as it has spent nearly three decades being "the Enemy". In 1991, they were another new nation like the breakaway Baltic states.

Look at how Germany and France built their strong ties after WW2. Germany was a mess, and yet now it is not remotely hostile to it's "traditional" rival, which would be the situation with Russia had they been incorporated.

 

[Orcbuster]

So you're saying the west should occupy russia? Because that is basically what it would take.