What If Russia ...

[Athretvari]

The logic of Russia’s foreign policy since the end of Communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union has baffled me for a while. I have often wondered, “What if Russia had embraced the West?”

It may have joined the European Union. If it had, it would have had the largest population in the EU and as a result would have had one of the largest allowable delegations in the European Parliament. Its vote in the European Council would carry as much or more weight than Germany’s. Both facts of which would have guaranteed it a top-tier power position on par or stronger than Germany in the EU. It would have had access to and been the primary go-to for the EU’s internal (including energy) markets without issue. It would have secured Russian as a major European ethnic and linguistic group which Russia could advocate for from within the EU. It would allow Russia to easily serve as the EU’s land-bridge to Central and East Asia.

It may have joined NATO. If it had, it would have had the second largest population and military in the alliance, second only to the US. It would have had much greater effect on NATO’s and the US’s military decisions in Europe, Central Asia and even the Arctic. It would have had access to NATO’s much wealthier defense markets, and it would have had the world’s most capable “treaty-bound allies” against any foriegn aggression, not to mention it would have allowed Russia to focus on protecting its East—aka keeping China out of Siberia.

Considering the ability then for Russia to utilitize these potential assets to further its vital interests would be magnitudes greater than its ability without, why has Russia choosen such an opposite path? What if it had choosen to "embrace the West" instead?

What are your thoughts?

[Rusozak]

If Russia embraced the west, even joined the EU, Europe would have become the new superpower. America probably would have been forced to back off as European coalition campaigns started the global police work.

[Arkinesia]

Russia refused to embrace that path for the same reason the US has continued to over-support its European allies.

Russia is still led by Cold Warriors. Putin's entire career up to 1991 was being a Cold Warrior in the KGB and later the FSB. Pretty much everyone in the upper echelons of the Duma are Cold Warriors. The majority of the cabinet in Russia are Cold Warriors.

There still exists a fear that the West will expose, accept, and exploit the weaknesses inherent in the Russian state. So they revert to old tactics. The disinformation, the propaganda, the disappearing and murdering of critics.

Until the influence of the Cold Warriors goes away this will continue.

[Tsaraine]

The key to understanding Russia is this: they have no "soft power". Because of this, they're forced to rely on "hard power", which further erodes their soft power. Messing with the Ukraine when that nation threatened to join NATO/the EU makes sense in light of Russia wanting to preserve its Crimean naval base. Similarly, Putin's support for Assad makes sense in light of wanting to preserve the Syrian naval base. When you engage in gunboat diplomacy over talky diplomacy, you get worse at the talky kind (because the people you want to talk to regard you as a thug) and you need places to park your gunboats.

[Athretvari]

Russia refused to embrace that path for the same reason the US has continued to over-support its European allies.

Russia is still led by Cold Warriors. Putin's entire career up to 1991 was being a Cold Warrior in the KGB and later the FSB. Pretty much everyone in the upper echelons of the Duma are Cold Warriors. The majority of the cabinet in Russia are Cold Warriors.

There still exists a fear that the West will expose, accept, and exploit the weaknesses inherent in the Russian state. So they revert to old tactics. The disinformation, the propaganda, the disappearing and murdering of critics.

Until the influence of the Cold Warriors goes away this will continue.

I hate how the past is always screwing over the future. That's a real illogical decision on their part, considering the incredible influence they could have over the EU and NATO by joining/inflitrating them, and the additional fiplomatic and military assets they'd have at their disposal. These guys are mostly crooked oligarchs now, so even from a business point of view its just illogical. Between energy and agriculture they would rule the EU. Guess having a lot of a little is better than having a little of a lot.

[Athretvari]

The key to understanding Russia is this: they have no "soft power". Because of this, they're forced to rely on "hard power", which further erodes their soft power. Messing with the Ukraine when that nation threatened to join NATO/the EU makes sense in light of Russia wanting to preserve its Crimean naval base. Similarly, Putin's support for Assad makes sense in light of wanting to preserve the Syrian naval base. When you engage in gunboat diplomacy over talky diplomacy, you get worse at the talky kind (because the people you want to talk to regard you as a thug) and you need places to park your gunboats.

True, but my point is, Ukraine would have been joining two institutions which (if Russia had joined, would be a dominant power in) would have given Russia a crap more political and economic power over Ukraine than it has now that it has crapped in Kiev's face. Again, bad decision. The other option would have been better, and you could still play referendum games (EU loves those!) to get Crimea back. Not to mention that Russia wouldn't need to worry about losing its naval port to NATO, it would be in it—access granted.

[The Lone Alliance]

The problem is that you actually believed that the everyone in the West wanted to Embrace Russia in the first place.

There were cold warriors on both sides who still to this day are unhappy the wall came down.

And Russia's antagonistic relationship with Eastern Europe left a lot of old wounds that have created a divide that would take generations to heal.... if not never heal at all at this rate.

We could either embrace Eastern Europe or embrace Russia.

The time to have reached out to Russia was the 90s and there were few organized attempts then to do so...

[Nicerra]

Ok. I'm sorry if my english somewhat sucks. I'm half-russian. I lived here for long. So don't consider my words as racism or something. It's results of my observation, not imagination or probaganda.
Russians are bad people.
I just understood what if I'll try to write here all their flaws, I'll probably be banned. If I'll try to compare them with orther flawed nations, I'll probably be banned too. So, just pick a third-world nation you dislike most, then you'll be sure russians are like them in many aspects.

So ok, I'll try to express my opinion through statistics.
Here's some statistics about Russia. It's official statistics, so it probably highly underestimated.
10500 registered murders in 2015, or one murder/year per 12739 people. With an average lifespan of 71.5 years (65,9 for men, 76,7 for women) every russian have a roughly 12739*71.5=1/178 chance do be murdered during his life.
3900 registered rapes in 2015, or one rape/year per 18782 females. Most registered rapes are heterosexual, so every russian female have a roughly 18782/76.7=1/245 chance to be raped during your life.
30200 grievous bodily injury assaults in 2015, or one/year per 4751 people. So the chance of every russian to get a grievous injury from someone is roughly 4751/71.5=1/66
236900 drug incidents in 2015, or one/year per 618 people. So every russian have a roughly 618/71.5=2/17 chance to get in such incident.

At the beginnging of 2016 year there were a 646000 people in jails. It's 0.45% of population. It seems roughly 5-10% of russians were ever jailed. So the chance of typical russian to be jailed is between 1/10 and 1/20.
At the beginnging 2015 the percentage of “not guilty” verdicts in russian courts were 0.4%. That explains much.

Also there's around 50000 missing and never found people every year, or one such missing/year per 2870 people, according to http://elemental1111.livejournal.com/25430.html (on russian). Most of these people are probably dead. So every russian's chance to miss and never be found is roughly 2870/71.5=1/40.
Also there were 848,000 abortions in 2015 year, or one abortion/year per 85 females.
Also, there were 22099 suicides in 2015 year, or one suicide/year per 6493 people. So every russian have a roughly 6493/71.5=1/91 chance finish his life that way.
Also a wicked propaganda on TV and no freedom of press. Russia's at the 148th position of the Press Freedom Index.
Also, Russia is a coppupted country. It's at 122th position of Corruption Perceptions Index.

Now you can google statistics for your country or state and praice the god you aren't russian.

In conclusion:
Russia is bad country. Russians are bad people. You really won't be happy to see a typical russians in your town. It is a terrible idea to invite them to EU.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Then everything would be better and we would be happily kicking terrorist ass.

[Nicerra]

I'd rather bet on the next cold war.
Very dirty, very unpleasant cold war.
Which will finish just like previous.
Or with nukes, lol.

[Discretospia]

The logic of Russia’s foreign policy since the end of Communism

The USSR was not communist.

[Ethel mermania]

The problem is that you actually believed that the everyone in the West wanted to Embrace Russia in the first place.

There were cold warriors on both sides who still to this day are unhappy the wall came down.

And Russia's antagonistic relationship with Eastern Europe left a lot of old wounds that have created a divide that would take generations to heal.... if not never heal at all at this rate.

We could either embrace Eastern Europe or embrace Russia.

The time to have reached out to Russia was the 90s and there were few organized attempts then to do so...

One of Gorbachev 's biggest complaints was that the west did nothing to help Russia during the dismantling of the Soviet union.

Russia acts in accordance with russia's perceived self interest. They have seen themselves as a major world power since the 1700's, and act accordingly.

[The Federation of Kendor]

The logic of Russia’s foreign policy since the end of Communism

The USSR was not communist.

It's communist, though i remembered on an internet site that i now forget, USSR was actually a Capitalist Command Economy

[Arkinesia]

Similarly, Putin's support for Assad makes sense in light of wanting to preserve the Syrian naval base.

The rest of your post is correct, I just want to highlight a niggle here—that is the pretext, but the truth is that Russia has no actual projection power to speak of and thus the Syrian project has become less about a naval base and more about Putin's attempts to make it look like Russia has way more hard power than it really does.

The logic of Russia’s foreign policy since the end of Communism

The USSR was not communist.

No True Comm—I mean, Scotsman, strikes again.

Leninism and Stalinism were still communism. The fact that they weren't “pure” doesn't change that.

[Saiwania]

The west hasn't given Russia much reason to embrace them anyways. If they did, it would be to their detriment. Russia is better off positioning itself as a regional power if not move back to superpower status.

[Herargon]

Russia could have joined the West, but I think that because of the dissolution of the USSR, joining an union composed of nations, would not have been a great idea for them because they became too nationalistic.

[Discretospia]

Similarly, Putin's support for Assad makes sense in light of wanting to preserve the Syrian naval base.

The rest of your post is correct, I just want to highlight a niggle here—that is the pretext, but the truth is that Russia has no actual projection power to speak of and thus the Syrian project has become less about a naval base and more about Putin's attempts to make it look like Russia has way more hard power than it really does.

The USSR was not communist.

No True Comm—I mean, Scotsman, strikes again.

Leninism and Stalinism were still communism. The fact that they weren't “pure” doesn't change that.

There is no "pure" and "impure" communism. Communism is communism.
A statless, classless, moneyless society in which the means of production are held collectively and everyone gives according to their abilities and takes according to their needs. This is the definition of communism. Was this achieved? No. It hasn't been practiced.

On the bright side, you match the first line of my signature so I applaud you for that.

[Angleter]

For Russia to have had even the slightest chance of joining the EU (quite why it would've wanted to do so is beyond me), it would also have had to avoid the rise of the oligarchs, the political chaos and lawlessness, the economic collapse, and the widespread corruption and organised crime. And even then it would've basically been a massive money pit for the EU.

I'm also not entirely sure how it could've stayed on the same page as the West regarding Yugoslavia - at least not without outraging most of its own people.

[Genivaria]

The USSR was not communist.

It's communist, though i remembered on an internet site that i now forget, USSR was actually a Capitalist Command Economy

That would imply that the USSR government was one giant corporation, which it was not.

[Rio Cana]

Historically, it seems out of most major European nations it was France that tended to get along better with Russia. The French candidate La Pen even says she would try to establish better ties with Russia.

Has for Russia, if they had let the EU. influence them more would then have not broken up. After all, there are most likely politicians in the EU. that would like more then anything to break up Russia which would mean no more threat to the East.

[Impireacht]

The USSR was not communist.

It's communist, though i remembered on an internet site that i now forget, USSR was actually a Capitalist Command Economy

I think the phrase you're looking for is state capitalism?

Anyways, jt's a good thing they didn't westernize, last time they did they ended up conquering 1/3 of Asia and going from being some crappy oppressed peasants under the mongols to being an actual empire.

[United Marxist Nations]

Russia doesn't want to join the EU because that would likely lead to being forced to accept West-European views on culture, politics, etc.

Russia fiercely wants to maintain some semblance of political independence from the West. This is one of the few things most Russian agree on.

[Arkinesia]

There is no "pure" and "impure" communism. Communism is communism.
A statless, classless, moneyless society in which the means of production are held collectively and everyone gives according to their abilities and takes according to their needs. This is the definition of communism. Was this achieved? No. It hasn't been practiced.

On the bright side, you match the first line of my signature so I applaud you for that.

Yet Leninism and Stalinism, both of which have driven the body politic of a nation, are considered forms of communism.

Again, just because the communism practiced in the Soviet Union doesn't fit your narrow definition doesn't mean communism didn't happen. The fact that it was diluted doesn't make it not communism.

You claim that the Soviet Union did not practice communism, yet this goes against the orthodoxy of economists and historians alike.

[NeoLiberia]

If Russia had embraced the West, thousands of lives would have been saved, and several regions in Russia's "sphere" would be much more stable than they are today. I think this Russia would have been non-imperialist and focused on its own economic and social prosperity.

There are no mythical "Russian traditional values" which prevent it from associating with the West. For example: just 3% of the ethnic Russian population normally attend church. The problem is that they lacked the institutions for liberal democracy, and really do prefer electing greedy strongmen. They had many chances to embrace the West; the West was trying to embrace them. Then they got this one strongman, fucked everything up, and turned Russia into what it is.

[The Lone Alliance]

If Russia had embraced the West, thousands of lives would have been saved, and several regions in Russia's "sphere" would be much more stable than they are today. I think this Russia would have been non-imperialist and focused on its own economic and social prosperity.

There are no mythical "Russian traditional values" which prevent it from associating with the West. For example: just 3% of the ethnic Russian population normally attend church. The problem is that they lacked the institutions for liberal democracy, and really do prefer electing greedy strongmen. They had many chances to embrace the West; the West was trying to embrace them. Then they got this one strongman, fucked everything up, and turned Russia into what it is.

No the West had no interest in embracing a failed state, which is what Russia became in the 90s, embracing Russia would have meant trying to rebuild Russia as a Liberal Democracy while their economy collapsed and their entire government system was FUBAR.

The west didn't want to do the effort and Russia didn't trust the west to allow the effort anyway.

I mean Yeltsin had an armed showdown with the Russian parliament with tanks driving through Moscow opening fire on government buildings.

How does the west fix that?