Obviously this would need some major PoDs, but is it doable while also making the Union head towards federalization?
I think to make it more likely for Russia to join, a few conditions would need to be met first.
1) making democracy survive in Russia
2) keeping it just poor enough to make it join. The first could be done by having Yeltsin step down after the Supreme Soviet impeaches him. The second one is necessary because neither Norway, Switzerland nor Iceland joined the EU.
3) a collapse of the Russian sphere of influence by being on the losing side on most of the post Soviet conflicts
4) the EU would need to be already a lot more integrated before the eastern expansion (ie. qualified majority voting, common foreign policy, common military, common fiscal policy, ect.)
Leaving aside the "how" for a moment, what would be the implications?
Russia firmly integrated in the West.
The EU having inherited a ton of nukes.
The breadbaskets of the world (Russia and Ukraine) being part of the EU.
What I foresee is a potential "western schism" wherein a more powerful Europe would distance itself from the US and act more independently. Maybe even drop out of NATO entirely. The first few decades would probably be chaos in Europe alone for the sheer magnitude of these changes.
Unable to compete with cheap grain from the East, western European farmers would protest and we'd likely see a massive rise in farmer suicides. Would western European farmers adapt by switching to other crops? What do farmers in US states outside the Midwest plant when they can't compete with the Midwestern states in wheat, soybean and corn production? AFAIK, farmers in California and Arizona specialize in different products such as vegetables, nuts and fruits and leave grains to the Midwest. Southern Europe could emulate that while leaving grains to the North and East and letting the comparative advantage take care of things. According to Wiki, 31% of Italys arable land is used for grains. ITTL, they could use that for more valuable crops such as rice, tea, avocados, tomatoes, cotton, fruits, ect. While these are labour intensive crops, southern and western Europe will get tons of cheap labor from eastern European immigrants.
With Russia and Ukraine in the EU and southern Europe specializing in different crops, would European food prices decline? I presume the cheap eastern European food crops would lead to many farmers in western Europe either switching to other crops or would give up on farming entirely thus leading to more consolidation of farmland. This might be another factor for increased urbanization in western Europe along with the immigration of Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians.
The fact that this focus on vegetables and nuts would require lots of manual labor would give employment to lots of eastern Europeans. IOTL, eastern Europeans already work as seasonal laborers all across the EU.
A Europe with a pre-existing EU military would already be more independent from the US than IOTL but with the nuclear capabilities of Russia as well as some 200 million more people and energy resources of its own, Europe would be truly independent of America. This "schism" doesn't necessarily mean Europe and the US would become enemies just that Europe would be more independent and able to pursue its own goals though it is probably safe to say that Europes goals and Americas goals will almost always align. I don't think Europes western values would simply be swept away by Russia being part of the EU.
In addition to that, with Russia being a member of the EU, a more neutral foreign policy would be a necessity as the EU would border China and North Korea. Which brings me to my next point, what would relations to China and North Korea look like? I don't think it would be wise to take a more hawkish approach to them like the US does now that the EU would neighbor them.
The implications would be far reaching since Russia is one of the biggest backers of Iran.
If the Caucasus nations eventually join, would this lower the European aversion to Muslim countries such as Turkey? Russia hass large Muslim minority which could ease the rest of Europe into accepting Turkeys membership application too.
Furthermore, because this alternate EU would already be a lot more federalized than OTL EU, it's economy would likely be bigger without it having missed out on the digital age.
What would climate change action look like ITTL? OTL Europe is a leader in action against climate change driven for one by concerns for the environment or more importantly because the EU has few energy resources itself. With Russia being part of the EU, Europe would have plentiful cheap hydrocarbon resources, would Europe still be among the leaders of action against climate change? What would TTL EUs outlook on nuclear energy be? Will it entirely depend on its climate change action or will it be more down to domestic policy? With Russia and France, the some of the largest pillars of the EU, obviously being pro nuclear, could they outvote Germanys reluctance.
As for the massive population difference, if both the EU members and Russia were genuinely trying to make this work, wouldn't Russians simply move to western Europe during the economic hardships? Millions of Poles moved to western Europe once it joined the EU. So many that some 10% of their population is in fellow EU countries. Some 14 million Russians moving to western Europe would be interesting but I think they would just be as integrated as any other Europeans are.
Would it even matter that much? Yes, Russia has a massive population and it would give it a lot of sway in decision making, but so would the rest of Europe. The inner six, + UK, Spain, Portugal had a population of 312 million in 1989. Add Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Austria and Greece and we're at 354 million. Add eastern Europe without Russia (and Caucasus nations) and we're at 517 million. 126 million Russians VS 517 million non-Russians should make the concern about Russia single-handedly bringing down the EU, though admittedly even with qualified majority voting, Russia alone would almost have enough sway to veto EU decision making by itself.
Post-Soviet Russia had to struggle a lot. There was hope that closer ties with the West will change everything but this hope was quickly lost come the economic hardships. As for the economic hardships, could western (European) oil companies invest in Russia rather than Russia selling off their hydrocarbon sector to oligarchs and once western European oil companies have recouped their investment (+ a bit of profit for the investors), the Russian government would nationalize its oil and gas resources thus using the revenue generated by it to become a net contributor to the EU budget?
Would it be more doable if the EU was already more federalized before the Soviet Union collapsed (European constitution, EU military, common monetary, fiscal and foreign policy, ect)? A more integrated EU would be able to do a lot more. For instance, if both sides are genuine and sincere about their intentions of Russia joining, then the 1990s for Russia could be a lot more peaceful and the transition to a western democracy could be a lot easier. This more integrated EU could help Russia draft a new constitution as well as giving financial and humanitarian aid to Russia a la Marshall plan where the boxes of humanitarian aid have a big fat EU logo on top of it for propaganda purposes to ingrain into the Russian populous that the EU is their friend and savior. Lots of Russians would be able to move to the West to work there which would lower Russias population by a lot. Even judging by todays EU membership criteria, a lot of these conditions could have been implemented right when TTL Russia drafts its new constitution then enforce it properly for the next 10-15 years and then it could join.
The EU military could be created by the European Defence Community being created in 1952. According to the treaty, it would have functioned like a European NATO but also work in cooperation with actual NATO while giving members the freedom to raise forces intended for use on non-European territory. Starting out as being a European equivalent of NATO wherein European militaries standardize their equipment and become a full on common army following the Cuban missile crisis which is conveniently around the time the Algerian war ended. A more integrated EU begs the question, would other countries even bother joining when they would lose that much of their sovereignty. In my opinion, they still would join the EU. If Europe was more integrated earlier on, it would be more economically successful by the time the Soviet Union disintegrates.
There would be a lot of skepticism in non-Russian eastern Europe about joining a Union with Russia after just having left a union with Russia, however, the united European army would be more than a match for the Russian army which would ITTL be subordinate to/part of the EU military.
Perhaps with earlier transnational political parties, a EU party could establish itself in Russia so that Russias recovery after the turbulent 90s would be attributed to said EU party.
Which begs the question, would Europe leave NATO once the Soviet Union collapses, Russia is on track of becoming part of the EU and Europe has its own powerful military? There would be no more threat to Europe and its former adversary would become part of its own armed forces boosting them to become a superpower in their own (after several decades of rebuilding eastern Europe).
With literally hundreds of millions of low cost highly educated people being part of the Union, the EU would likely encourage western European companies to outsource production to eastern Europe rather than Asia. They did so IOTL though a lot of production still went to Asia as the process began 2 decades before OTL eastern Europe expansion.
Another effect might be the growth of the the service sector in western Europe if more of their production chooses to go to eastern Europe for the low cost labor. This would make European exports a lot more cost competitive than IOTL.
Could Latin have been established as the lingua franca of Europe before the UK joined ie by the inner six integrating faster? It would be a pain in the bum but post war Europe just started to learn English as a second language anyways so replacing it with Latin wouldn't be too much of a stretch. In addition to that, Latin rather then English would stroke the egos of the French and Italians.
I think to make it more likely for Russia to join, a few conditions would need to be met first.
1) making democracy survive in Russia
2) keeping it just poor enough to make it join. The first could be done by having Yeltsin step down after the Supreme Soviet impeaches him. The second one is necessary because neither Norway, Switzerland nor Iceland joined the EU.
3) a collapse of the Russian sphere of influence by being on the losing side on most of the post Soviet conflicts
4) the EU would need to be already a lot more integrated before the eastern expansion (ie. qualified majority voting, common foreign policy, common military, common fiscal policy, ect.)
Leaving aside the "how" for a moment, what would be the implications?
Russia firmly integrated in the West.
The EU having inherited a ton of nukes.
The breadbaskets of the world (Russia and Ukraine) being part of the EU.
What I foresee is a potential "western schism" wherein a more powerful Europe would distance itself from the US and act more independently. Maybe even drop out of NATO entirely. The first few decades would probably be chaos in Europe alone for the sheer magnitude of these changes.
Unable to compete with cheap grain from the East, western European farmers would protest and we'd likely see a massive rise in farmer suicides. Would western European farmers adapt by switching to other crops? What do farmers in US states outside the Midwest plant when they can't compete with the Midwestern states in wheat, soybean and corn production? AFAIK, farmers in California and Arizona specialize in different products such as vegetables, nuts and fruits and leave grains to the Midwest. Southern Europe could emulate that while leaving grains to the North and East and letting the comparative advantage take care of things. According to Wiki, 31% of Italys arable land is used for grains. ITTL, they could use that for more valuable crops such as rice, tea, avocados, tomatoes, cotton, fruits, ect. While these are labour intensive crops, southern and western Europe will get tons of cheap labor from eastern European immigrants.
With Russia and Ukraine in the EU and southern Europe specializing in different crops, would European food prices decline? I presume the cheap eastern European food crops would lead to many farmers in western Europe either switching to other crops or would give up on farming entirely thus leading to more consolidation of farmland. This might be another factor for increased urbanization in western Europe along with the immigration of Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians.
The fact that this focus on vegetables and nuts would require lots of manual labor would give employment to lots of eastern Europeans. IOTL, eastern Europeans already work as seasonal laborers all across the EU.
A Europe with a pre-existing EU military would already be more independent from the US than IOTL but with the nuclear capabilities of Russia as well as some 200 million more people and energy resources of its own, Europe would be truly independent of America. This "schism" doesn't necessarily mean Europe and the US would become enemies just that Europe would be more independent and able to pursue its own goals though it is probably safe to say that Europes goals and Americas goals will almost always align. I don't think Europes western values would simply be swept away by Russia being part of the EU.
In addition to that, with Russia being a member of the EU, a more neutral foreign policy would be a necessity as the EU would border China and North Korea. Which brings me to my next point, what would relations to China and North Korea look like? I don't think it would be wise to take a more hawkish approach to them like the US does now that the EU would neighbor them.
The implications would be far reaching since Russia is one of the biggest backers of Iran.
If the Caucasus nations eventually join, would this lower the European aversion to Muslim countries such as Turkey? Russia hass large Muslim minority which could ease the rest of Europe into accepting Turkeys membership application too.
Furthermore, because this alternate EU would already be a lot more federalized than OTL EU, it's economy would likely be bigger without it having missed out on the digital age.
What would climate change action look like ITTL? OTL Europe is a leader in action against climate change driven for one by concerns for the environment or more importantly because the EU has few energy resources itself. With Russia being part of the EU, Europe would have plentiful cheap hydrocarbon resources, would Europe still be among the leaders of action against climate change? What would TTL EUs outlook on nuclear energy be? Will it entirely depend on its climate change action or will it be more down to domestic policy? With Russia and France, the some of the largest pillars of the EU, obviously being pro nuclear, could they outvote Germanys reluctance.
As for the massive population difference, if both the EU members and Russia were genuinely trying to make this work, wouldn't Russians simply move to western Europe during the economic hardships? Millions of Poles moved to western Europe once it joined the EU. So many that some 10% of their population is in fellow EU countries. Some 14 million Russians moving to western Europe would be interesting but I think they would just be as integrated as any other Europeans are.
Would it even matter that much? Yes, Russia has a massive population and it would give it a lot of sway in decision making, but so would the rest of Europe. The inner six, + UK, Spain, Portugal had a population of 312 million in 1989. Add Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Austria and Greece and we're at 354 million. Add eastern Europe without Russia (and Caucasus nations) and we're at 517 million. 126 million Russians VS 517 million non-Russians should make the concern about Russia single-handedly bringing down the EU, though admittedly even with qualified majority voting, Russia alone would almost have enough sway to veto EU decision making by itself.
Post-Soviet Russia had to struggle a lot. There was hope that closer ties with the West will change everything but this hope was quickly lost come the economic hardships. As for the economic hardships, could western (European) oil companies invest in Russia rather than Russia selling off their hydrocarbon sector to oligarchs and once western European oil companies have recouped their investment (+ a bit of profit for the investors), the Russian government would nationalize its oil and gas resources thus using the revenue generated by it to become a net contributor to the EU budget?
Would it be more doable if the EU was already more federalized before the Soviet Union collapsed (European constitution, EU military, common monetary, fiscal and foreign policy, ect)? A more integrated EU would be able to do a lot more. For instance, if both sides are genuine and sincere about their intentions of Russia joining, then the 1990s for Russia could be a lot more peaceful and the transition to a western democracy could be a lot easier. This more integrated EU could help Russia draft a new constitution as well as giving financial and humanitarian aid to Russia a la Marshall plan where the boxes of humanitarian aid have a big fat EU logo on top of it for propaganda purposes to ingrain into the Russian populous that the EU is their friend and savior. Lots of Russians would be able to move to the West to work there which would lower Russias population by a lot. Even judging by todays EU membership criteria, a lot of these conditions could have been implemented right when TTL Russia drafts its new constitution then enforce it properly for the next 10-15 years and then it could join.
The EU military could be created by the European Defence Community being created in 1952. According to the treaty, it would have functioned like a European NATO but also work in cooperation with actual NATO while giving members the freedom to raise forces intended for use on non-European territory. Starting out as being a European equivalent of NATO wherein European militaries standardize their equipment and become a full on common army following the Cuban missile crisis which is conveniently around the time the Algerian war ended. A more integrated EU begs the question, would other countries even bother joining when they would lose that much of their sovereignty. In my opinion, they still would join the EU. If Europe was more integrated earlier on, it would be more economically successful by the time the Soviet Union disintegrates.
There would be a lot of skepticism in non-Russian eastern Europe about joining a Union with Russia after just having left a union with Russia, however, the united European army would be more than a match for the Russian army which would ITTL be subordinate to/part of the EU military.
Perhaps with earlier transnational political parties, a EU party could establish itself in Russia so that Russias recovery after the turbulent 90s would be attributed to said EU party.
Which begs the question, would Europe leave NATO once the Soviet Union collapses, Russia is on track of becoming part of the EU and Europe has its own powerful military? There would be no more threat to Europe and its former adversary would become part of its own armed forces boosting them to become a superpower in their own (after several decades of rebuilding eastern Europe).
With literally hundreds of millions of low cost highly educated people being part of the Union, the EU would likely encourage western European companies to outsource production to eastern Europe rather than Asia. They did so IOTL though a lot of production still went to Asia as the process began 2 decades before OTL eastern Europe expansion.
Another effect might be the growth of the the service sector in western Europe if more of their production chooses to go to eastern Europe for the low cost labor. This would make European exports a lot more cost competitive than IOTL.
Could Latin have been established as the lingua franca of Europe before the UK joined ie by the inner six integrating faster? It would be a pain in the bum but post war Europe just started to learn English as a second language anyways so replacing it with Latin wouldn't be too much of a stretch. In addition to that, Latin rather then English would stroke the egos of the French and Italians.
