"What are they defending against?" Isn't it OBVIOUS Cody? Aliens, it's aliens. Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to a mutual defense if Extraterrestrials ever invaded.
@@desolatortrooper7196 The "Zombie Outbreak" Plan on most procedure listing is also one of those plans that are good for MOST break down of civil order situations.
Sure that'd definitely be the case today... Since mostly modern Democrats have seized power everywhere today an are all 90 or more percent neo or outright Commies today anyways
it's quite impressive he managed to put this together because asking "what if russia joined Nato" is sort of like asking "what if the British joined Napoleon"
The most amazing part of all of it is... they basically would have done the same thing Louis XVI did! In supporting a government which explicitly extended the franchise beyond property ownership, the UK would be fanning the flames that, in OTL, sputtered in 1848. If Napoleon's second reign goes unchallenged, (assuming he still invades Russia) then there's no reason to assume France doesn't attempt to restore its "sister republics." The Netherlands and Denmark must be fuming in all of this!
Not really, because both the soviets and Putin’s Russia applied to join. The soviets might have just done it to get a justification for their own alliance knowing that they would get rejected, but Russia did have a real interest in joining, but they were refused by the americans.
It's funny because it seems like usually in vanilla HOI4 Russia's worse nightmare happens with historical focuses turned off in that Nazi Germany goes democratic and basically everyone unites to fight Russia, including Russia itself
I like how most of the scenarios either remove a person from the timeline or change a small decision by a diplomat, sometimes turn the tide of a significant battle This one is just “Yuri the psychic used his powers to force the US and the Soviets to get along”
"The War is over! What I've come to realize is that the commies and us want the same thing...you know... female companionship...steak" - Mind-Controlled General Carville
I know it'd be immediately demonetised and the comments would descend into a complete hellscape but it'd be really cool to hear your take on what the world would look like now if Petoria had won the 2000 Rhode Island Conflict.
That would assume that Russia is not Russia. The wider point is with the USSR gone, why so many of it neighbors fear Russia? Why aren't Russia treated like the other break away republics and welcome into the European community? Historical and mass memories still play a very strong parts in geopolitical landscapes.
@@DwynNWynns Ironically, it's not Russia but NATO that invades other countries and does regime changes. If NATO stayed out of Ukraine in 2014, we wouldn't have the war today.
@@DwynNWynns you know, it's interesting when all the old people actually regret loosing USSR, while all those countries "absolutely without some foreign influence" start to hate something they didn't even witnessed
Tom Clancy actually covered this scenario in his book's timeline with 'The Bear and the Dragon'. It involved China, due to several factors, performing espionage and threatening to invade Russia. The US offers Russia's pro-western government emergency entry into NATO and they accept. It wasn't too realistic but it was an entertaining read nonetheless.
The Bear and the Dragon is easily one of my favorite Clancy books, in part because the Russian characters I came to know and love in the previous books ended up being good guys which is great.
Glad someone mentioned it. I read that book in middle school and loved it. Again in college and loved it again. Not realistic... very optimistic 90s wishful thinking... but nice to imagine the dream of Abraham Lincoln and Alexander II coming true.
The funniest thing about the 1st scenario is that, despite all the chaos, the club wouldn't end since neither USA nor USSR would want to leave and allow the other to dominate it
I really think it would be a lot more plausible than Cody makes out the bear and the eagle decide that they can see stop fighting with each other they can eat all the fish
that’s extremely true, if the USSR did join nato both sides would very likely be forever bound in NATO because leaving would definitely not be a option for both sides lmao
Another factor that kicked off the rivalry between the US and the USSR was that both sides irrationally feared each other, feared the other was out to get them (hindsight neither side was really looking for a fight and was willing to mutually cooperate if given the opportunity)
@@burp2019it would have been a wonderful world where the Soviets didn't have to tank the economy for the sake of the military, and the Americans could have made some social reforms sooner and more. Everyone in the WORLD would be better off
I remember reading somewhere, I think in the NS Archives, that Gorbachev was under the impression that NATO would evolve into more than just a military alliance, but more into something similar to the EU with more integrated economies. Curious that if Russia had joined NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union, if they would have pushed for NATO to move towards something more like the EU.
I've seen it mentioned in a video talking about how far the EU could expand, that Russia is technically able to join, but that it's in neither Russia's nor the EUs interest to do so.
Maybe if the Soviet collapse had been even worse, rebuilding from the ground up in the EU could have been in Russia's interests. But that's not what happened. Or at least Russia wasn't going to admit how far they had fallen to themselves.
@@tritium1998 Because joining NATO is a process that takes like 7 years. The Soviet War industry would have to rebuilt from the ground up to produce NATO ammunition and weapons.
This really just becomes a “what if nato answered the Soviet’s text drunk with ‘yeah sure you can join’ and when they got sober they just didn’t back down from it” like it would have never happened because then it basically just self dissolves because the whole point for existence stopped
I think a major issue with Russia trying to join NATO is that Russia would be required to completely replace all its old hardware to comply with NATO’s standardization agreements, and I’m not sure that they could even afford to do something like this at any point in their history after the end of WWII
STANAG arsenal would already be a pretty effective deal breaker. Between equipment and structure, the Russia military would give up most of their distinguishing features.
The major issue with Russia joining NATO is that NATO is literally the western "Anti Russia and China club". NATO being an defensive alliance against russian expansionism is the whole entire fucking reason it exists. The whole premise of this video is beyond retarded.
@@BigKnecht I'm pretty sure cody himself made it clear there are many reasons why this is stupid and would simply not work and in order for this scenario to work you literally have to pretend whatever reason it is, it doesn't exist.
Funnily enough before the end of the cold war, the idea of it just ending never really occurred to most speculative fiction writers. It's why the USSR exists in most golden age sci fi novels. The CoDominium world by Jerry Pournelle is perhaps most famous of the "the US and USSR do a power sharing agreement" worlds.
Command and Conquer GDI (Global Defense Initiative) = An Alliance between the West and Russia, Nod = A religious Superpower that controls much of Asia, large parts of Latin America and the Near East, lead by their immortal leader Kane Both sides want to control a resource and Terraforming agent called Tiberium
The only reason Russia and the West would get together is if there’s an extraterrestrial enemy so powerful that they have to put aside their differences
Hmm, mentioning the Turkish invasion of Cyprus does bring up an interesting what if scenario. In the real timeline Greece did fight a bit during the invasion with several Greek units stationed in the island. But not officially. So what if the Cyprus invasion escalated to a full blown Greko-Turkish war ?? The consequences could be extreme given the date and that both are Nato members.
@@whyops most likely, however the two nations where more closely matched at that point than now, plus the overall geopolitics would drastically shift with US involvement. Potentially leading to Greece leaving NATO.
@@whyops More likely they would beat the shit outta the Turk then set up an US sponsored dictatorship there while removing the Greeks authority from the island and annexing it. The US has strong policy of stern warning to their strong allies, whether its the Suez war or the dutch war in East Indies. The US showed that their "allies" are not allowed to have territory expansion or geopolitical gain, minor conflicts is ok... Anything else without their approval will result in regime change.
Хахахахахк, спасибо за прааду! Правда проще)) Мы, русские, уничтожив советский союз, уничтожив коммуртщм, хотели вступить к вам в НАТО и продаться Америке))) Но США и НАТО сами отказалиаь от этого, не захотели дружить полностью, потому, что им не выгодно было бы дружить с России. Вы даже не представляете, сколько США зарабатывает на том, что создала Анти-Россию. Зарабатывает США на миллионах умерших Украинцев. Интересно, как вы все, потдерживаете США, когда эта страна является империалистом, покупающий весь мир, в свои руки?
No. Russia: Let us join! NATO: Ok, enable just elections, stop your genocide, denounce your past genocides, reject your plans of conquering your neighbors, enable free speech and sure you are absolutely free to join us. Russia: [a u t i s t i c screams] nAtO ith evil! Zey dan't lat us jain zem! Zey are bad! bad! bad! look zey dan't want to lat us join! Zey are afraid af us! This is how it was.
Russia joining NATO or any sort of collective security agreement with the west would require that they would have felt threatened by China...which is not a historical impossibility. After all, after the Sino-Soviet split, Soviet-Chinese relations soured considerably and Russia took a fair bit of land from China in the past. One can imagine China going down a different path post-Mao, becoming more dogmaticaly communist and belligerent. If the Soviets fell like they did in our timeline, Russia could have faced a very hostile, Juche North Korea-tier China in the East. Since the Russians and the west (or rather americans via Taiwan and Japan) have now a common enemy, a security agreement could perhaps been worked out to free both sides resources to contain China. Europeans wouldn't have much stakes in Asia, but would probably welcome the idea of cold war divisions dissipating. In this timeline China doesn't become the "factory of the world", it becomes the mother of all rogue states, constantly using whatever means it has to undermine the new Eurasian-Atlantic alliance against them, thus perpetuating a cycle of unrest and proxy wars which continues to justify the existence of this new West-Russia alliance.
Sino Soviet split was nothing but a ruse and the Chinese benefited from it immensely. They've always been long term allies with the goal to expand their sphere of influence westward.
If its the 90's timeline, im pretty sure the standards would go away.........not even the railroad tracks are the same. Something that is hurting Ukraine rn.
7:53 I mean this did happen to some extent. The British and French were upset with US interference in their colonial and imperial affairs, ironically being unsupportive of their allies, and so sought to detach themselves from US foreign policy. I remember Enoch Powell being supportive of an alliance with the Soviet Union and implored Thatcher to do the same.
This basically did happen in Egypt during the Suez crisis. France and the UK were humiliated because they didn’t have the power anymore to act on their own
@@slovakiaballif24 Well, the American response to the Suez crisis was an attempt to prevent the Levant Arab countries from being driven into the arms of the Soviets by the British alliance with Israel. It did not result in a British-Soviet alliance, and I don't think there was ever any serious possibility of that. Whether for the reason Eisenhower predicted (reaction to the formation of a British-Israeli-American alliance) or not, most of the Arab republics became allies of the Soviets within the next few decades, with the British-American alliance only ruffled a bit but still intact.
I mean yeah this did happen but both the USA and USSR counteracted the UK/French The Communists were not fans of Western Imperial Colonialism, instead they preferred their Russian Communist Colonialism
I think a more interesting hypothetical would be "What if Russia joined the EU?" He's basically talking about the same stuff. But NATO is a military alliance, while the EU is a political and financial one. I wonder if Cody would think about the differences between these 2 ideas.
"Russia is part of the European culture, and I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world. So it's hard for me to visualise NATO as an enemy." - Vladimir Putin, 2000
Is it worth considering that in the US-Russia team-up scenario that, given the greater hostility shown by china, there would be less economic dependence built up?
well i mean corporations moved to china for cheap labor rather then any necessity and with china being more aggressive and belligerent towards the west they would likely look elsewhere. You would probably see more investment in Vietnam Indonesia and India. so basically what's happening now but 25 years earlier which would make china far weaker.
Russia and eastern europe would have been a better place to offshore manufacturing than the PRoC if they joined NATO or an equivalent alliance. It would strengthen the relationship and smooth over most hard feelings from 'losing' the cold war. This leaves the CCP a paranoid wreck with a massive population, but they simply don't have the influence that Cody assumes they'd still gain somehow. The cost of manufacturing in 90's Russia and 00's PRoC were comparable and building a connection with a new major ally would have taken precedent over selling out to the only great power left that wants to destroy America.
If Russia joined NATO in the 90s it would be before China controlled the world's production. As you said, with greater hostility shown by and towards China, there would be less willingness to invest. China wouldn't be anywhere near as dominant because of this.
Although the west didn't actually care if the members of NATO were democratic or not. It only mattered that they were anticommunist. That's why countries like Greece under Papadopoulos was part of NATO.
Удивительно. Что при Путине,Россия так же подавала заявку в НАТО. Типо:"Ладно,создадим однополярный,но спокойный мир". И нам всегда отказывали. И ладно,если альянс существовал во время холодной войны. Но после распада,после 2000,зачем он был нужен?
Потому что Россия и США по-прежнему оставались заклятыми врагами, несмотря на любую вежливую политическую чушь, которая могла сорваться с уст политиков.
Да, это так. Действительно, как же заебала США, Британия и Европа. Все беды от них. Видимо они не простили, что СССР активно помогал в деколонизации бедным странам, из которых сосали все что можно. После распада совка они радовались, что сверхдержаву смогли победить, что РФ теперь будет сырьевой колонией запада. Так оно и было до 2008 года, все началось с Мюнхенской речи Путина, когда прямо сказал что больше не хочет однополярного мира...
@@elyisusking3603 in the sense that journalists and protesters can do their thing without disseapearing in jail and where the media can show things that compromise the government.
In the timeline where nato is taken over by the soviets, the franco-british would probably keep more of their imperial influence since the USA would be isolationist and the USSR wouldn't want to risk losing their 2 biggest allies
also, I imagine the whole world would be set back quite a lot, since with the US (the only major power during WW2 that was left unscathed) being isolationist, there would be no funding to rebuild Europe - or perhaps the US would become even more of a global power, since they wouldn't be spending funds on rebuilding everyone else
There's an interesting alt history scenario currently WIP called "The Red Order", which is kinda about this: Britain and France don't join the US after WW2, and instead decide to hold on to their colonies. As a result, UN fails as a global organization, instead becoming a purely US-aligned block, while Britain and France form their own "Entente Commonwealth Organization" + there's the Soviet Weimar Pact. In other words, the Cold War is now 3-way. There're also other differences, though: Stalin never comes to power, with Bukharin-lead Right Opposition winning the 1920s Soviet power struggle instead, resulting USSR and its puppets having a more market-style economy; Japan doesn't surrender in WW2, causing a full-scale US land invasion; Korea is a united neutral nation, while China is split into North and South (also, Mao dies early); Finland, Denmark, and Northern Norway are under the Soviet influence; Austria is split, with its western part annexed into West Germany; Greece and Iran are also split; and so on...
The Suez crisis would have gone differently if the US was more disconnected from the world. That's when it started being more clear that the US was going to insist on being the leading member of the western alliance, as opposed to being the muscle directed by the UK and France.
I love how even in bizzare scenario like this Cody... Don't really focus only on alternate history, but uses the scenario to tell why we are where we are (in oue timeline)
5:15 The "allied but with much animosity and undermining" scenario you're describing can be seen to an extent in real life with Saudi, Pakistani, Egyptian and Israeli relations with the U.S., so its not as totally impossible of a concept as it might seem.
“No enemies would join a alliance together.” Here is a list of countries that joined a alliance despite being enemies Greece and Turkey UK and France Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire Greek states (pre-Roman) joining together every time a foreigner declares war on one
yeah 50 years after germany and france were at each others' throats murdering hundreds of thousands of each others' citizens, they became best of friends and created the EU
Notice how all of these are due to the pressures of a foreign threat. Similar to the unity of the American colonies due to the threat of a French invasion. The context of the quote is completely without foreign threat… there is literally no strategic reason for these two historical enemies to ally
Because they had common goals, the only commom goal of Russia/Soviet Union and the United States is being the most influential power in the world, and there can't be 2 number 1s
@@hugossg7908 Right on, it's simply a matter of conflicting and even contradicting priorities. That some tenuous neighbors, when enemies from outside threaten to subjugate them all, will band together _out of necessity,_ this is in no way to be treated equally with a situation where no such necessity exists.
Thing is, NATO didn't officially state it was an anti-Soviet/anti-communist alliance. Since most of its members were liberal democracies, they couldn't openly say they existed to fight a popular ideology, whose parties regularly ran in elections (the Italian Communist Party was the main opposition party and second biggest party in the country, for example). CENTO and SEATO on the other hand, being made up mostly of dictatorships, didn't need to hide. The Soviet request to join NATO was a way to make it come out as openly anti-Soviet and have a pretext to form its own alliance.
@@semiramisubw4864 it wasn’t created to destroy them, but to defend against incase of an communist invasion. If Nato truly would want to destroy russia, the 90s would be the time as russia was in deep shit back then. And well now again.
The EU opposes literally everything the 'russian democracy' stands for. Canada or Turkey would have a higher chance at joining the EU before the russia.
@@Adrian2140 It would need to be a hypothetical where Russian democracy evolved differently after 1991 (more like actual democracy or imagining Russia going down the same path Ukraine actually did
Tom Clancy wrote a Jack Ryan novel where Russia joins NATO to defend against a Chinese invasion. It’s a good read, if a bit crazy how easy Clancy makes it.
As much as I dislike games with Tom Clancy's "signature", I have to admit that he was still Russophobic and anti-Soviet. Which, in general, is the norm for those who grew up and lived under this propaganda during the Cold War. The problem is that this case has gone to the second round.
The Soviet strategy of proposing that the U.S be relegated to a non voting position is actually pretty smart, at least in terms of propaganda. They basically showed that NATO was an offensive imperialist alliance where not all members were equal and was mostly meant to preserve American hegemony. Luckily, the Soviets firmly rejected the idea of forming their own offensive imperialist alliance where one country held the vast majority of the power and everyone lived happily ever after.
I would like a "What if the League of Three Emperors" (The pact between Imperial Germany, Imperial Russia, and Austria-Hungary to defend each other before WW1) "Stuck together"
you mean "what if the hungarian part of the Austria-Hungary parliament didn't stall for a month before agreeing to do something about their heir to the throne being assassinated"?
@@sirjerearchive1342 That was what if the nationalists won the Sino Civil War, I don't think the Sino-Soviet Split has been covered as a full topic here
*Russia joins NATO* Russia: So NATO was formed to defend against my former self right? NATO: Yes. Russia: So now that I'm here, who are we defending against? *NATO looks at china* china: *sweats nervously* North korea: Haha! I'm in danger.
Churchill actually wanted the USSR to join Nato. At that time British and French contributed most to the NATO Forces and the US was only a minor player because the Korean war had screwed up the American deployment plans for Europe. Beria had already made overtures towards the West, and the proposal of the Soviets to join NATO would have been a great first step towards ending the Cold War and start an era of peaceful co-existence. This would have been beneficial for all parties involved and would have increased the standard of living for the British People (which was still pretty low less than a decade after the war had ended). So Churchill supported the move, maybe he could have been more persuasive in this alt history.
"churchill wanted the scoop to join nato" churchill meanwhile "the ussr it is the genocidal and unfair ultra poor country. It's literally hell"(and he was right) -_-
Problem with this is that to turn major enemies into friends, you often have to pay extreme price. Russia would be best friend of USA. They would love top support them economicaly and with military´. Only the price they would ask for that is for USA to turn into comunist country
How about doing "what if NATO invades Russia?". Because a LOT of people on twitter seem to think that's a great idea right now. Someone should point out why it's actually a *terrible* idea. Mostly this seems to be either based on a mistaken belief that NATO could prevent nuclear retaliation with a decapitating first strike. (they could decapitate sure but it still wouldn't prevent the nuclear retaliation) or that Russia "wouldn't dare" to escalate a conventional conflict into a nuclear one (they don't seem to know that small battlefield nukes make this sort of escalation a lot more likely than they realize)
Dead hand system can launch russian nukes without any human input . But it was developed by the Soviets in 1983 so it's a bit old and considering how the Soviet and later the russian military haven't actually been receiving proper funding since 1988, I dont think dead hand and much of the equipment of the russian army have been well maintained. Soviet defense budget peaked at $ 344 billion in 1988 before plummeting to less than $ 20 billion under Yeltsin in 1999.
I mean, we do have a NATO without the US. That's basically the EU (less militaristic but basically just replaces myilitary power with economic power). Which Russia also hates because it considers joining the EU more or less a prelude to joining NATO and the EU is clearly capitalist.
Russia today is capitalist. If we're talking Russia and not soviet union, what would bother Putin's Russia the most in the EU is the whole human rights, liberal democracy and economical regulation bits i'd think.
@@thundercheckov9782 yeah, thought the same. Capitalism isn't the issue, human rights, liberal democracy, environmental protection demands and the need to submit to decisions made by the EC would probably be too much. Russia considers itself too big and powerful to be 'just' a member.
The EU is not a military alliance. Sweden and Finland are both EU members and consider themselves non alligned, they aren't NATO allies. The EU is more or less a common economic market, and it isn't even that "common" since Schengen and Eurozone don't include the same states, as it stands there is no formal agreement between member states to protect eachother. There were however talks of a common EU army; not sure if it was to be another layer above state side armies or to conglomerate all the armed forces into a single entity.
This is something I've been working on in my own head for a while but would love to see your take on: What if the American Civil War spiraled into a global conflict?
that should be a good video for sure also I made a video about it if you wanna see my opinion on what would happen th-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/w-d-xo.html
I don't think the major powers would have been able to this, not only where each country dealing with big internal problems, it wouldn't be financially viable.
It actually makes some sense, some European countries almost got involved to help the confederates due to a lack of cotton supplies but decided not to because they had already done away with slavery and fighting for it would give them a bad reputation.
The only way I could see Russia joining NATO and things go swimmingly is if the Republic of Novgorod defeated the Grand Duchy of Muscovy at the Battle of Shelon River during the 1470's and unified the Russian state under their own system of governance being a quasi-parliamentary republic instead of an absolutist monarchy. Then again, the history of the European continent would be dramatically different, maybe Communism might be laughed off as some concept that some old bearded guy in Germany wrote in a rambly book, maybe NATO wouldn't exist at all... might be a good episode of alternate history, Cody.
And then Novgorod Russia falls apart due nobles infighting as did the Kievan Rus, Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Holly Roman Empire. Only to have its remnants swallowed up by the Ottomans, Austrians and Swedes. P.S. You'd have to somehow alter history and remove the age of absolutism for a large European republic to exist during this timeframe.
If we assume for a moment that the general ideological and technological process of Europe and America continue as in our timeline, we would still see the rise of socialist and communist thought, and the influence of Marxism on the far left. But, after Lenin's successful revolution, Leninist doctrines were able to monopolize a lot of this sphere of leftism. Let's assume the fall of Moscovy means the fall of this doctrine, and we have no USSR-equivalent. What we would see in these spaces is other factions of the left maintain their power within Europe and America. In Europe, that would be those like social democrats, libertarian socialists, anarchists, and those like Luxembourgists who were more sympathetic to Marx's later works on radical democracy as an alternative to DotP. (Luxembourg was very critical of Lenin's vanguard) And in America, with a lack of the first Red Scare, this may see a much more powerful libertarian socialists and syndicalist block, which could have had unknown effects during the Great Depression. So, generally, a far less toxic global left more sympathetic to republican values if Leninism doesn't win out. No way of knowing how that would manifest beyond this though.
in the "China driven crazy" scenario, I'd think you'd see the US and China having more conflicts earlier and likely see something echoing the middle east over in S.E. Asia and much of the Pacific Islands. US likely pivots the military expenditures in Europe over to building influence and bases around land they fought Japan over in WW2. But do you suppose with the US and Russia now having conflicts with China brings about a fundamental change in who becomes the factory of the world? I feel like you'd see the umbrella alliance of non-action (EU+Warsaw+US) finding cheaper labor in the Middle East and Africa, maybe seeing a new true superpower arise out of this oil and production powerhouse.
"1984" probably spells out a fairly realistic way all of the world governments could/would come together. And the ways that would effect the people. Pretty much the opposite of optimistic.
1984's vision of world unity was utterly stupid. Fighting an endless war is unsustainable economically and agreeing to fight a war between Allies to maintain power would require some braindead leadership on all sides. And the idea that the "Proles" would be unregulated by INCSOC and they wouldn't care about their miserable conditions due to the war economy was even dumber.
There actually was a brief moment where Russia was considered to join NATO. The problem was that Russia wanted instant membership, they thought they would skip the onboarding process. NATO said no, you have to go through the whole process, you have to become NATO compliant, and Russia threw a bitch fit and it ended. Also NATO REALLLLLY didn't want them to start with because they feared Russia would just use their position within NATO to do what they do on the UN Security Council and veto anything that wasn't beneficial to them, because NATO operations have to be unanimously voted upon.
Just to correct you. It was sort of jokingly suggested by Russians to allow them to join NATO , because they new they would not be accepted, as it would defeat the whole purpose of NATO. Basically, how can you make countries pay for protection, when there is nothing to protect them from? But with Russia around, you can make claims on how she is dangerous and sell weapons and receive money from members of NATO.
I think Russia as a NATO member could have worked, if Russia had manage to become a functioning democracy. NATO is already too large for it's own good and includes several medium sized powers (France, Germany, Turkey) that pretty much just do their own thing. But for that to happen the Russians would have to admit that they aren't a world power anymore, just a regional power.
I feel like that idea of 2 superpowers being in one alliance lacks critical assumption. Whole argumentation is built upon assumption of Russia being and viewing herself as a superpower. As you said 2 superpowers will try to expand their sphears of influence but I feel like in the 90`s Russia was so poor and uncertain about her future (much more than nowadays), that idea of giving up superpower status and becoming just one of the european states could become reality. Of course in such reality Russia would not immediately become just like western europe, but at least took that path. Britain and France both were superpowers and rival and now they are in one alliance, some state in Germany also always seen themselves as a superpower, even Poland tried to be a superpower during the interbellum. All of them gave up at least some of ambitions and became just one of the european states after experiencing great disaster. So why again is it unthinkable in case of Russia?
Because Britain, France, and Germany all got their asses handed to them. Rusia did not. Russia just lost an ideological debate To this day Russians claim to be a superpower and that is the problem... The Humility inflicted upon the French in the wars of the 19th century made them comfortably with an alliance with Britain The Humility inflicted upon the Germans in the wars of the 20th century made them comfortably with an alliance with Britain and the French The loss of all their empires and global influences made them all comfortable with subordination to the Americans who practically speaking have never suffered a major defeat (despite them losing decades-long wars, they all way do better than even the eventual victors) It is this lack of failure the fact that Russia is simply too big of a state to ever see itself as anything less than an equal of the US is why they can never be allies. All American allies to some extent have accepted American Hegemony as a fact of life, those who resist are the ones that The US is constantly in Contention with.
@@explodethebomb The collapse of the Empire My country exists because of it actually Despite the UK being one of the Big 3 and being the lynchpin that connect east and west to drive home an allied victory in WW2 The British Empire, for all its glory in its finest hour was at it final hour Britain was a winner that lost And lost bad The debt, the economic strain, the political crisis, the international crisis all coupled to produce a British that in the 70s had a weaker economy than the western half of a bombed to rubble Germany The precipitous Decline in British Power following their victory in world war 2 was a “victory” of consequences worse than any “defeat” say for example the US has has ever had. And it is the reality of the position that made them, and continues to make them accept their role as a Junior partner to the Americans (as pretty much every one is). And In my view it was very smart that they did. That’s why I meant , I’m sorry if I want so clear earlier.
@@salahabdalla368 Yh, The US has lost wars But ask yourself for every war the US ever lost, Who left worse. I know im probably wasting my time with you but I’m not talking about morals here I’m talking about power Real power The Americans by virtue of their power occupy a unique role and the wests understanding of that allows them to live under an imperial system that for those who submit, regardless of what they think about the Americans, are offered some of the best quality of life in human history form Japan to Canada to Saudi Arabia to Israel to Chile to South Korea to Botswana and those who resist … well just take a look at North Korea or Cuba or Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything your emphasis on the power of the Americans to utterly ruin peoples lives is proof of my point that the best play is to willingly join the American Empire and reap it benefits or at the very least avoid getting in its way.
I wrote a research paper about US foreign policy for a composition class last semester. My scenario for Russia joining NATO: the US never invades Iraq. It was the Iraq war that made Putin begin to view the West, specifically the US, as “imperialists”. I believe that if Iraq was not invaded in 2003, Russia and the US could have put aside their differences.
It seems that everyone forgot about the bombing and destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999. THIS is what showed Russia the danger of NATO, and Iraq only reinforced it. And then there was Libya. All this showed Russia that NATO is an aggressor, and that something needs to be done about it until NATO came to Russia.
15:40 not only do we not "rely entirely" on cheap Chinese products, China relies on us more than we do them. The US is a net exporter of everything except consumer merchandise. China is a net importer of food, energy, raw materials, and all manner of strategic goods. China makes stuff we want, we make stuff they need.
I disagree with your assessment on relations with china, had Russia and the US normalized relations back in the 90’s, with an influx of Russian natural resources into Europe and the US, and worse relationships overall with the Chinese, the west would most likely rely less on china for finished goods as we do in this timeline, making sanctions much easier to implement
We would have opened more manufacturing in Russia. Russia should have been allowed to join but the US didn't want to lose dominance and the eastern countries had animosity.
Could you make a video about if Italy, Austria and Hungary, went to war with Germany over the annexation of Austria? Mussoliny was probably considering it, but was eventually scared out by the Allies not doing anything about Hitlers violations of treaties.
No the Allies weren’t against him. Poland was for it actually but the Germans did everything possible to convince him they weren’t going to annex it. So they signed a treaty which the Germans violated anyway and removed Dolfus.
Honestly, everyone in Europe coming together in a pan-European alliance that isn’t NATO would be pretty cool, and ironically, there’d be peace there. Double ironically, if countries like Russia weren’t so focused on their own interests, and instead achieving peace on the continent, this kind of thing might have happened already.
We Europeans would be happy to be in good relations with Russian people. We all are Europeans, but because of geopolitics we can’t achieve such peace. It’s very sad.
America would never allow that to happen. At the end of the day, America cares bout merica and a strong independent Europe that needs no merica, is not good
Well that's just it. From the Russian perspective, that is achieving peace, in regards to their interests. A Russia that feels safe in Europe, can reorient its foreign policy away from it. As ironic as it sounds, probably the only real scenario where we get that non-intrusive peaceful Russia, would come as a result of the USSR never happening, and Russia never losing control over its western territories. The best case scenario being: No communist revolution, heavy reforming of the Russian Empire to a model similar to the UK's where the monarchy just becomes increasingly irrelevant and more of a symbol, than an actual monarch, the same setup Finland had within the Russian Empire, extended to the baltic territories (autonomous domestic policies) but we don't get to have that because of Germany lol. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk screwed everything up, and they also sent Lenin back to Russia at the worst possible time lmao thanks germany...
"A house divided, where the family is constantly fighting and trying to upstage one another, many regretting why they ever moved in or where even born." I feel personally attacked.
One thing I’d point out, in a scenario where the US and Russia come to an agreement and create a peaceful or even friendly relationship would probably create much more investment in Russia and there wouldn’t be one factory of the world. Instead Russia and China would share that as Russia has the manpower, resources, education, and terrible economy while China has the artificially deflated currency and even tighter restrictions on its population to attract companies. This might make it easier to sanction a bellicose China and also give Russia a boost to seriously challenge china in Central Asia. This is basically what the Tsarist Russia was trying to do before WW1 ruined everything and crippled them for generations.
China's population is 10x Russia's. They don't have the manpower to match China. They also don't have as many coastal cities and China does, and railways are a lot more expensive than ships. I think Vietnam or Indonesia would do a better job. India might, but India industrializing enough to beat Japan or SK let alone China would be its own Alt-History.
@@crocfighter.1322 Ya and america had like 1/100th of chinas population when it was the factory of the world? You need a large population but you don’t need the largest, unless you’re making things out of people having 600 million starving peasants in the countryside isn’t exactly a bonus. The costal cities would be an issue if their main consumer base isn’t literally next door. China has been trying to expand its rail access to Europe and areas of Asia for decades now and they are much further away from Germany and France than Russia is. Vietnam and Indonesia ARE going to become the next global factory but that’s because we live int he timeline where Russia and the west did not kiss and make up at the end of the Cold War.
Honestly your taking out the initial Russian perspective of that generation because you still see this today because one thing that didn't change in Russia was this general district with the West even thinking about joining NATO made Boris Yeltsin very unpopular by Russians because it was perceived defeat by many Russians. Now Russia has been going through a generational change the younger generation don't have that same view and you can see that reflected today with majority of the anti war protestors come from the younger generation.
However this younger generation is minority because Russia's declining birth rates this has been true for the past decade and half experiencing a negative brith to death ratio second maybe only to Japan and China.
10:18 "Two superpowers that opposed one another would never want to come together in the same alliance." The Soviet Union and China were not rivals per se. However, they were considered to be two superpowers that came together during the Cold War. Even today, Russia and China are very close. P.S. I already know that Russia is no longer a superpower.
The whole america kicked out of nato idea actually sounds alright for the American people. No cold war spending while being owed billions from Europe and we’re chilling with a significantly stronger economy. But also with that America still had global bases given to America from GB
@@quanghuyvo6112 Realistically, no matter what economic system, that was gonna happen anyway as long as colonial empires existed. It wasn't like the Soviets suddenly stopped exploiting the peoples outside of Moscow.
In short term it would work better for USA. But in long term USA would be left without any allies. Whatever economic boost you would get out of this would never be worth it. Having entire Europe turned red would be distater for USA. It would practicaly reverse current roles. It would be USA that would be absolutely isolated and with only few countries willing to trade with them. At the same time, by spending a lot on oposing Soviets, they ensured that their economy will be much healthier in long term due to massive trade. They also ensured that lot of European countries do tend to not make too much of a fuss when USA sticks their nose somewhere they should not. As was mentioned here, USA would probably ended up back in isolationism.
Honestly, the likelihood of Russia/the USSR ever joining NATO is so low, I'd say the best case scenario would be something like Tom Clancy's The Bear and the Dragon, where surveyors discover the world's largest gold and oil reserves in Siberia, just north of the Chinese border with Russia, and an overzealous, expansionist China decides to acquire those resources by force, thus leaving Russia no choice but to join NATO so that the world can collectively Article Five China back to the edges of its own borders. But I digress. :D
9:53 Cody: "So... Sue me!" Putin: "Challenge Accepted." Cody: Oh no.. NO... NO! Bill Wurtz: "You can make a religion out of this." Emperor Tigerstar: "Anywho... The Nato border line is kinda shady in my opinion.." ReaLifeLore: "You can line up 200 thousand Toyota Corollas to make up the absurd border of Nato." Cody: "Hey Now!"
They would be able to undermine NATO from the inside. Get access to their technology, learn about their logistics and strategy, and exploit that later on when they inevitably attack Chechen, Georgian or Ukrainian territory.
Same thing that happens in WWII. They fall upon the Little Maginot Line and get slaughtered. The Royal Navy will reduce the Italian Navy to cinders. Italian Government destabilizes.
Not a bad suggestion. What do you think? No Gallipoli, but Anzio? Lawrence is "Lorenzo of Tuscany" so no Arab uprising, Ottomans barely hang on and the Levant isn't greedily chopped up between Brit and French? Aus-Hun devotes more to the Russia fight who lose a year earlier, so no Lenin? Brit and French have to defend more, so no Somme? List goes on. Not much would happen at the French-Italian border due to terrain, and I think the Allies would still win, though not as big. Versailles treaty would be a lot different, for sure. I hope Cody takes up your suggestion.
@@questerperipatetic4861 allies have to defend another 120 divisions also France would be screwed taking the Iran Liam Austria Hungary front Italy lost 1 million man say they replicate that I don’t think France could have taken another million causlities
Tiberium is found on the Tiber River, a source of limitless energy and the Brotherhood of Nod takes control of most of it sparking the 1st Tiberium War
One other scenario I can think of had the USSR been allowed into NATO in 1953, is that both sides could put aside their differences in favor of mutual benefit. In this timeline you'd still have the east vs west rivalry, but it could be expressed in other less violent ways on the grounds that both sides would at least be working towards an overall mutually beneficial position, even if one side seeks to benefit more from it than the other. Wishful thinking, I know, but it's a best case scenario.
I agree with you. This great video shows how mind-bogglingly difficult it is for us to find the scenario where it works (think Groundhog Day or Edge of Tomorrow, try, fail again, fail better, as Samuel Beckett once wrote). ...yet at the same time it narrows down where the leak is coming from in the plumbing. So somehow, there IS hope. Except not via sheer wishful thinking. Gandhi: "If we are serious in waging war against war, we should begin with children" (And I don't think he meant declaring war to kids ;p )
i think one of the mass effect fanfics I've read used something like this as a base, relations didn't cool nearly as much post WW2 and both countries turned into somewhat friendly rivals, less military buildup and much more funneled into the space race as the two used it as a way to one-up each other. this leads to more orbital habitats and much earlier colonies on the moon and mars.
@@burp2019 Well, that's the thing. One of the big contention points between the US and Russia _is_ NATO. If Russia had been allowed to join, US relations with them would have been significantly less tense.
This is stupid. Enjoy
ok
Nothing is stupid, this alternative reality to the stupid reality we're living in.
Yes but what if Ohio joined the Confederate States
real life is not like Star trek
This is truly the best timeline
"What are they defending against?"
Isn't it OBVIOUS Cody?
Aliens, it's aliens.
Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to a mutual defense if Extraterrestrials ever invaded.
It is true?
I mean it doesn't seem unrealistic because i have heard that US army has plan in case of zombie outbreak.
@@desolatortrooper7196 The "Zombie Outbreak" Plan on most procedure listing is also one of those plans that are good for MOST break down of civil order situations.
No its against Kane and his Brotherhood of Nod for control of Tiberium
Which would make the Imperial Aquila very appropriate.
"Purge the Xenos!"
@@DetectiveLance make sens since anarchy will probably be a huge consequence of a zombie outbreak.
Maybe a higher threat than zombies themself.
Soviets: Can I join NATO?
NATO: Sure.
Soviets: *Wait, that actually worked?*
Yeah you just have to adopt certain military requirements, human rights and election standards... No wording saying Russia can't join too!
@@enubisgaming6829 I mean, Turkey is in NATO...
@@enubisgaming6829 human rights? Yeah right
@@enubisgaming6829 nato: you cannot kill your own civilians
russia: *SLAMS FIST ON DESK*
Sure that'd definitely be the case today... Since mostly modern Democrats have seized power everywhere today an are all 90 or more percent neo or outright Commies today anyways
USSR: "Hey fellas can I join?"
NATO: "No dictators."
USSR: "But you let Portugal join."
NATO: "I said no dictator(s), we're allowed to have 1."
Portugal: "Uh hyuk!"
*Turkey enters the chat*
Technically Spain was one too, and Greece during the Three Colonels
@@ArcturusOTE Small details, irrelevant.
Unironically, that's how politics work and lawyers get a paycheck
it's quite impressive he managed to put this together because asking "what if russia joined Nato" is sort of like asking "what if the British joined Napoleon"
The most amazing part of all of it is... they basically would have done the same thing Louis XVI did! In supporting a government which explicitly extended the franchise beyond property ownership, the UK would be fanning the flames that, in OTL, sputtered in 1848. If Napoleon's second reign goes unchallenged, (assuming he still invades Russia) then there's no reason to assume France doesn't attempt to restore its "sister republics." The Netherlands and Denmark must be fuming in all of this!
True
Or like "what if Robespierre joined the coalition"
@@alessandrosilvafilho8527 HAHAHAHA!
Not really, because both the soviets and Putin’s Russia applied to join. The soviets might have just done it to get a justification for their own alliance knowing that they would get rejected, but Russia did have a real interest in joining, but they were refused by the americans.
This scenario is just turning off historical AI focuses in HOI4 but in/after the Cold War
Millennium Dawn mod ftw
Lmao
@think differently STOP
also, finnaly it’s here
th-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/w-d-xo.html
It's funny because it seems like usually in vanilla HOI4 Russia's worse nightmare happens with historical focuses turned off in that Nazi Germany goes democratic and basically everyone unites to fight Russia, including Russia itself
@think differently Stop existing you bot
I like how most of the scenarios either remove a person from the timeline or change a small decision by a diplomat, sometimes turn the tide of a significant battle
This one is just
“Yuri the psychic used his powers to force the US and the Soviets to get along”
"The War is over! What I've come to realize is that the commies and us want the same thing...you know... female companionship...steak" - Mind-Controlled General Carville
Is that Yuri the psychic a Command & Conquer: Red Alert reference or just a coincidence?
@@Eleiber Hellyeah it is
Imagine Russia drunk on vodka and NATO clueless so they made the decision to join. Now we got a reason for this to work out.
@@RazorM97 the entire country overdid the booze
I know it'd be immediately demonetised and the comments would descend into a complete hellscape but it'd be really cool to hear your take on what the world would look like now if Petoria had won the 2000 Rhode Island Conflict.
All heil Peter. May he grant us with an abundance of Pawtucket Patriot.
Hail Peter Griffin President of Greater Petertoria and soon perhaps all of New England. (Upstate NY)
Best. April Fool's Joke. Ever.
@@wotintarnation8388 Yes, or Cody should troll us and make one the day before or after.
I will pay money to have this.
When Russia joins NATO and America gets kicked out:
“You can’t do this to me…
YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I SACRIFICED?!”
That would assume that Russia is not Russia. The wider point is with the USSR gone, why so many of it neighbors fear Russia? Why aren't Russia treated like the other break away republics and welcome into the European community? Historical and mass memories still play a very strong parts in geopolitical landscapes.
@@DwynNWynns Yup
America, 5 years after getting kicked out of Soviet NATO:
"You know, I'm sort of a communist myself."
@@DwynNWynns Ironically, it's not Russia but NATO that invades other countries and does regime changes. If NATO stayed out of Ukraine in 2014, we wouldn't have the war today.
@@DwynNWynns you know, it's interesting when all the old people actually regret loosing USSR, while all those countries "absolutely without some foreign influence" start to hate something they didn't even witnessed
Tom Clancy actually covered this scenario in his book's timeline with 'The Bear and the Dragon'. It involved China, due to several factors, performing espionage and threatening to invade Russia. The US offers Russia's pro-western government emergency entry into NATO and they accept. It wasn't too realistic but it was an entertaining read nonetheless.
I’ve just bought the book on ebay, cheers mate!
The Bear and the Dragon is easily one of my favorite Clancy books, in part because the Russian characters I came to know and love in the previous books ended up being good guys
which is great.
Thick volume of a book. Owned it but never got around to reading it. Guess I’ll give it a ready
th-cam.com/video/QH8Cqqxki5I/w-d-xo.html.
Glad someone mentioned it. I read that book in middle school and loved it. Again in college and loved it again. Not realistic... very optimistic 90s wishful thinking... but nice to imagine the dream of Abraham Lincoln and Alexander II coming true.
Zelensky: OK, you stop the war, we stop joining NATO.
Putin: OK, deal.
*the next day*
Putin: We're joining NATO
Zelensky: WTF?!
Lmao Reading that scenario literally made me laugh out loud
Lmao 😂😂😂
"if you can't beat them ,join them.
China: point nukes toward Russia and rebuild Great Wall for a combine Russian, Indian, European, Japanese and American & Australian invasion
@Seksbog34slqto not anymore
The funniest thing about the 1st scenario is that, despite all the chaos, the club wouldn't end since neither USA nor USSR would want to leave and allow the other to dominate it
I really think it would be a lot more plausible than Cody makes out the bear and the eagle decide that they can see stop fighting with each other they can eat all the fish
It'd be like two parents arguing over custody rights...
When something works because it shouldn’t lol
that’s extremely true, if the USSR did join nato both sides would very likely be forever bound in NATO because leaving would definitely not be a option for both sides lmao
And none of the smaller countries can leave because that would mean either of the NATO factions could steamroll them with impunity.
Another factor that kicked off the rivalry between the US and the USSR was that both sides irrationally feared each other, feared the other was out to get them (hindsight neither side was really looking for a fight and was willing to mutually cooperate if given the opportunity)
would be interesting to see what would have happened if relations hadn't collapsed after WWII
@@burp2019it would have been a wonderful world where the Soviets didn't have to tank the economy for the sake of the military, and the Americans could have made some social reforms sooner and more. Everyone in the WORLD would be better off
America and Russia “living together” in NATO would make a great sitcom plot
What gender should the characters be ? Or is it just axis powers Hetalia
@@darthjekyll3648 Not humans, but the animals of each nation, so the eagle would just steal the bear's honey or something.
@@thunderspark1536 That’s actually a really good addition.
I would watch it
@@thunderspark1536*Perfect*
I remember reading somewhere, I think in the NS Archives, that Gorbachev was under the impression that NATO would evolve into more than just a military alliance, but more into something similar to the EU with more integrated economies. Curious that if Russia had joined NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union, if they would have pushed for NATO to move towards something more like the EU.
I've seen it mentioned in a video talking about how far the EU could expand, that Russia is technically able to join, but that it's in neither Russia's nor the EUs interest to do so.
Maybe if the Soviet collapse had been even worse, rebuilding from the ground up in the EU could have been in Russia's interests. But that's not what happened. Or at least Russia wasn't going to admit how far they had fallen to themselves.
Russia did try to join NATO. They were laughed off. Russia can't fight NATO and they've always known that.
Why didn't they want Russia to join before it dissolved and weakened itself? Almost like they don't want strong allies, but weak colonies.
@@tritium1998 Because joining NATO is a process that takes like 7 years. The Soviet War industry would have to rebuilt from the ground up to produce NATO ammunition and weapons.
"And don't just say China."
I laughed way too hard at that!
China is like artificial intelligence, not gonna be that strong yet but could get stronger.
China's economy is gonna collapse in about 20 years due to it's unsustainable demographics so the West really has nothing to worry about long term
2042… Battlefield anyone? 20 years?
This really just becomes a “what if nato answered the Soviet’s text drunk with ‘yeah sure you can join’ and when they got sober they just didn’t back down from it” like it would have never happened because then it basically just self dissolves because the whole point for existence stopped
I think a major issue with Russia trying to join NATO is that Russia would be required to completely replace all its old hardware to comply with NATO’s standardization agreements, and I’m not sure that they could even afford to do something like this at any point in their history after the end of WWII
Not necessarily, plenty of Eastern European nato members still have soviet equipment like MiGs for example
STANAG arsenal would already be a pretty effective deal breaker. Between equipment and structure, the Russia military would give up most of their distinguishing features.
They wouldn't have to because they can just have the US pay for it. Why contribute anything to an alliance when the US can write a blank check.
The major issue with Russia joining NATO is that NATO is literally the western "Anti Russia and China club".
NATO being an defensive alliance against russian expansionism is the whole entire fucking reason it exists. The whole premise of this video is beyond retarded.
@@BigKnecht I'm pretty sure cody himself made it clear there are many reasons why this is stupid and would simply not work and in order for this scenario to work you literally have to pretend whatever reason it is, it doesn't exist.
I am totally going to write a fantasy world where the main-conflict is driven by a mutual defense pact dominated by two opposing factions
Fantasy?
Funnily enough before the end of the cold war, the idea of it just ending never really occurred to most speculative fiction writers. It's why the USSR exists in most golden age sci fi novels. The CoDominium world by Jerry Pournelle is perhaps most famous of the "the US and USSR do a power sharing agreement" worlds.
Greece-Turkey relationship in a nutshell:
Command and Conquer
GDI (Global Defense Initiative) = An Alliance between the West and Russia,
Nod = A religious Superpower that controls much of Asia, large parts of Latin America and the Near East, lead by their immortal leader Kane
Both sides want to control a resource and Terraforming agent called Tiberium
@@crowbasen3293 Well but they don't domiante NATO
Russia: two-headed eagle
America: one-headed eagle
Russo-American Alliance: three-headed eagle
It's just math, guys.
My first thought is that it reminds me of cerberus; on a second thought that might actually be very accurate
So the Russo-American Alliance would be Ghidorah.
@@subduedreader5627 Ghidorah but Eagle
The only reason Russia and the West would get together is if there’s an extraterrestrial enemy so powerful that they have to put aside their differences
ALIENS
Then they stand no chance anyway
Nazi germany
OR hitler 2 rises to power is China and invades siberian russia
Transformers?
"and don't just say China"
"ok, The people's republic of China"
Hmm, mentioning the Turkish invasion of Cyprus does bring up an interesting what if scenario. In the real timeline Greece did fight a bit during the invasion with several Greek units stationed in the island. But not officially. So what if the Cyprus invasion escalated to a full blown Greko-Turkish war ?? The consequences could be extreme given the date and that both are Nato members.
Greece would lose or USA would force them to make peace.
@@whyops most likely, however the two nations where more closely matched at that point than now, plus the overall geopolitics would drastically shift with US involvement. Potentially leading to Greece leaving NATO.
Turkey deserves to be kicked off the island, we should’ve intervened after the USSR fell
th-cam.com/video/QH8Cqqxki5I/w-d-xo.html.
@@whyops More likely they would beat the shit outta the Turk then set up an US sponsored dictatorship there while removing the Greeks authority from the island and annexing it.
The US has strong policy of stern warning to their strong allies, whether its the Suez war or the dutch war in East Indies. The US showed that their "allies" are not allowed to have territory expansion or geopolitical gain, minor conflicts is ok... Anything else without their approval will result in regime change.
It always makes my day when Cody uploads, I was having a bad one until now.
Same, I always look forward to his videos.
Dont build a parasocial relationship
th-cam.com/video/QH8Cqqxki5I/w-d-xo.html.
NATO: We are NOT an anti-Russia pact
Russia: So may I join?
NATO: F*ck no!!!!
Хахахахахк, спасибо за прааду!
Правда проще))
Мы, русские, уничтожив советский союз, уничтожив коммуртщм, хотели вступить к вам в НАТО и продаться Америке)))
Но США и НАТО сами отказалиаь от этого, не захотели дружить полностью, потому, что им не выгодно было бы дружить с России.
Вы даже не представляете, сколько США зарабатывает на том, что создала Анти-Россию.
Зарабатывает США на миллионах умерших Украинцев.
Интересно, как вы все, потдерживаете США, когда эта страна является империалистом, покупающий весь мир, в свои руки?
NATO: ok give back the territories you annexed into the USSR....then out last NATO🤡
@@billyccall5774 as soon as Ukraine gives Hungary and Poland the lands taken by STALIN of all people back to Hungary and Poland.
Nobody in the history of nato has ever said that nato isn’t an anti russia pact.
Well it's was against the USSR not Russia (well it's now against Russia)@@jackmccool9911
Russia: Let us join!
NATO: 99% chance we reject you
Russia: So you’re telling me there’s a chance!
Aka the Lloyd Christmas geopolitical strategy
russia rolls a 20!
@@SirDeadPuppy One more country decided to neither reject nor accept.
No.
Russia: Let us join!
NATO: Ok, enable just elections, stop your genocide, denounce your past genocides, reject your plans of conquering your neighbors, enable free speech and sure you are absolutely free to join us.
Russia: [a u t i s t i c screams] nAtO ith evil! Zey dan't lat us jain zem! Zey are bad! bad! bad! look zey dan't want to lat us join! Zey are afraid af us!
This is how it was.
@@asbest2092 turkey and portugal: hello uwu
Cody: A two headed eagle.
Me: Oh, like the Imperial Aquila from 40k?
Cody: *shows the Imperial Aquila from 40k*
Me: Oh no.
dd,dlslsoslsls is a good example of the time you go to the club
Oh yeahhhh..... bring on the battle sisters and gaurdsmen.
Russia joining NATO or any sort of collective security agreement with the west would require that they would have felt threatened by China...which is not a historical impossibility. After all, after the Sino-Soviet split, Soviet-Chinese relations soured considerably and Russia took a fair bit of land from China in the past. One can imagine China going down a different path post-Mao, becoming more dogmaticaly communist and belligerent. If the Soviets fell like they did in our timeline, Russia could have faced a very hostile, Juche North Korea-tier China in the East.
Since the Russians and the west (or rather americans via Taiwan and Japan) have now a common enemy, a security agreement could perhaps been worked out to free both sides resources to contain China. Europeans wouldn't have much stakes in Asia, but would probably welcome the idea of cold war divisions dissipating. In this timeline China doesn't become the "factory of the world", it becomes the mother of all rogue states, constantly using whatever means it has to undermine the new Eurasian-Atlantic alliance against them, thus perpetuating a cycle of unrest and proxy wars which continues to justify the existence of this new West-Russia alliance.
Sino Soviet split was nothing but a ruse and the Chinese benefited from it immensely. They've always been long term allies with the goal to expand their sphere of influence westward.
KGB defector Golitsyn explained it in much more detail in his book new Lies for Old.
Thus leading to the WORLD OF FALLOUT
It's coming. China smells blood in the water.
@Kiznuat This would be Best for MY COUNTRY INDIA
"Can we join NATO?"
"Sure thing friend!"
*A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one*
Can you imagine the enormous clusterfuck of having Russia's arsenal change to NATO standards?
If its the 90's timeline, im pretty sure the standards would go away.........not even the railroad tracks are the same. Something that is hurting Ukraine rn.
those standards would be nonexistant
OR NATO accomodating Russian standarts. Which would be worse.
7:53 I mean this did happen to some extent. The British and French were upset with US interference in their colonial and imperial affairs, ironically being unsupportive of their allies, and so sought to detach themselves from US foreign policy. I remember Enoch Powell being supportive of an alliance with the Soviet Union and implored Thatcher to do the same.
Ho boy, that'd be a bad idea.
Like real awful
This basically did happen in Egypt during the Suez crisis. France and the UK were humiliated because they didn’t have the power anymore to act on their own
@@slovakiaballif24 Well, the American response to the Suez crisis was an attempt to prevent the Levant Arab countries from being driven into the arms of the Soviets by the British alliance with Israel.
It did not result in a British-Soviet alliance, and I don't think there was ever any serious possibility of that.
Whether for the reason Eisenhower predicted (reaction to the formation of a British-Israeli-American alliance) or not, most of the Arab republics became allies of the Soviets within the next few decades, with the British-American alliance only ruffled a bit but still intact.
I mean yeah this did happen but both the USA and USSR counteracted the UK/French
The Communists were not fans of Western Imperial Colonialism, instead they preferred their Russian Communist Colonialism
I think a more interesting hypothetical would be "What if Russia joined the EU?" He's basically talking about the same stuff. But NATO is a military alliance, while the EU is a political and financial one. I wonder if Cody would think about the differences between these 2 ideas.
Russia wouldn't cede sovereignty to Germany and France so it would be like Brexit the moment they demand reforms.
"Russia is part of the European culture, and I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world. So it's hard for me to visualise NATO as an enemy."
- Vladimir Putin, 2000
Russia is not civilized
@@pesticide1596 Oh no. You sure did destory him. I'm sure his feelings are very hurt right now. He's probably crying.
@@pesticide1596 Mad
@@pesticide1596 That's what the Founding Fathers themselves said, they didn't want a democracy.
@@pesticide1596 pathetic troll
Is it worth considering that in the US-Russia team-up scenario that, given the greater hostility shown by china, there would be less economic dependence built up?
well i mean corporations moved to china for cheap labor rather then any necessity and with china being more aggressive and belligerent towards the west they would likely look elsewhere. You would probably see more investment in Vietnam Indonesia and India. so basically what's happening now but 25 years earlier which would make china far weaker.
So basically Command and Conquer but instead of Nod its China which is funnily enough part of Nod in the Lore.
Russia and eastern europe would have been a better place to offshore manufacturing than the PRoC if they joined NATO or an equivalent alliance. It would strengthen the relationship and smooth over most hard feelings from 'losing' the cold war. This leaves the CCP a paranoid wreck with a massive population, but they simply don't have the influence that Cody assumes they'd still gain somehow. The cost of manufacturing in 90's Russia and 00's PRoC were comparable and building a connection with a new major ally would have taken precedent over selling out to the only great power left that wants to destroy America.
Doubt it considering Soviet Russia is very is a big reason modern China exists
If Russia joined NATO in the 90s it would be before China controlled the world's production. As you said, with greater hostility shown by and towards China, there would be less willingness to invest. China wouldn't be anywhere near as dominant because of this.
Although the west didn't actually care if the members of NATO were democratic or not. It only mattered that they were anticommunist. That's why countries like Greece under Papadopoulos was part of NATO.
Удивительно. Что при Путине,Россия так же подавала заявку в НАТО. Типо:"Ладно,создадим однополярный,но спокойный мир". И нам всегда отказывали. И ладно,если альянс существовал во время холодной войны. Но после распада,после 2000,зачем он был нужен?
Потому что они хотят нас развалить и т.д.. Так как мы их главный после КНР соперник.
Можно предположить, что для «защиты» от Китая, но расширение на Прибалтику в 2004 году этому немного противоречит
Просто хотели полного развала страны
Потому что Россия и США по-прежнему оставались заклятыми врагами, несмотря на любую вежливую политическую чушь, которая могла сорваться с уст политиков.
Да, это так. Действительно, как же заебала США, Британия и Европа. Все беды от них. Видимо они не простили, что СССР активно помогал в деколонизации бедным странам, из которых сосали все что можно. После распада совка они радовались, что сверхдержаву смогли победить, что РФ теперь будет сырьевой колонией запада. Так оно и было до 2008 года, все началось с Мюнхенской речи Путина, когда прямо сказал что больше не хочет однополярного мира...
"To Defeat the Enemy, Join the Enemy and because you're so incompetent they will Lose"
-Sun Tzu (Probably)
Plan failed successfully
"Agreed"
-Moon Tsu
The Italy tactic
@@deiansalazar140 Lol trueee
@@ThwipThwipBoom If you try to fail, and you succeed, which have you?
I think a more "realistic" alternative would be: "What if Russia joined the EU?"
But this would need Russia to be a democracy.
@@Simon_lauer aren't Spain a constitutional Monarchy ?
@@elyisusking3603 no
@@elyisusking3603 Its a Monarchy with a presidential system
@@elyisusking3603 in the sense that journalists and protesters can do their thing without disseapearing in jail and where the media can show things that compromise the government.
I love how NATO looks so tired in the thumbnail. Also interesting idea.
I thing almost all the big enteres have does eyes, I remember the Roman empire also having tire eyes
@@trla6505 true
Dang, America getting kicked out of NATO is like an owner of a company getting voted out by his board of directors…
Like Steve Jobs
DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I SACRIFICED?
Owner can't get kicked out, CEO can.
In the timeline where nato is taken over by the soviets, the franco-british would probably keep more of their imperial influence since the USA would be isolationist and the USSR wouldn't want to risk losing their 2 biggest allies
also, I imagine the whole world would be set back quite a lot, since with the US (the only major power during WW2 that was left unscathed) being isolationist, there would be no funding to rebuild Europe - or perhaps the US would become even more of a global power, since they wouldn't be spending funds on rebuilding everyone else
I can imagine the US becoming more Asia focused in the alternate timeline and rearm Japan and empower South Korea/support the nationalists in China.
th-cam.com/video/QH8Cqqxki5I/w-d-xo.html.
There's an interesting alt history scenario currently WIP called "The Red Order", which is kinda about this: Britain and France don't join the US after WW2, and instead decide to hold on to their colonies. As a result, UN fails as a global organization, instead becoming a purely US-aligned block, while Britain and France form their own "Entente Commonwealth Organization" + there's the Soviet Weimar Pact. In other words, the Cold War is now 3-way.
There're also other differences, though: Stalin never comes to power, with Bukharin-lead Right Opposition winning the 1920s Soviet power struggle instead, resulting USSR and its puppets having a more market-style economy; Japan doesn't surrender in WW2, causing a full-scale US land invasion; Korea is a united neutral nation, while China is split into North and South (also, Mao dies early); Finland, Denmark, and Northern Norway are under the Soviet influence; Austria is split, with its western part annexed into West Germany; Greece and Iran are also split; and so on...
The Suez crisis would have gone differently if the US was more disconnected from the world. That's when it started being more clear that the US was going to insist on being the leading member of the western alliance, as opposed to being the muscle directed by the UK and France.
I love how even in bizzare scenario like this Cody... Don't really focus only on alternate history, but uses the scenario to tell why we are where we are (in oue timeline)
5:15 The "allied but with much animosity and undermining" scenario you're describing can be seen to an extent in real life with Saudi, Pakistani, Egyptian and Israeli relations with the U.S., so its not as totally impossible of a concept as it might seem.
“No enemies would join a alliance together.” Here is a list of countries that joined a alliance despite being enemies
Greece and Turkey
UK and France
Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire
Greek states (pre-Roman) joining together every time a foreigner declares war on one
yeah 50 years after germany and france were at each others' throats murdering hundreds of thousands of each others' citizens, they became best of friends and created the EU
Notice how all of these are due to the pressures of a foreign threat. Similar to the unity of the American colonies due to the threat of a French invasion. The context of the quote is completely without foreign threat… there is literally no strategic reason for these two historical enemies to ally
Because they had common goals, the only commom goal of Russia/Soviet Union and the United States is being the most influential power in the world, and there can't be 2 number 1s
@@hugossg7908 Right on, it's simply a matter of conflicting and even contradicting priorities. That some tenuous neighbors, when enemies from outside threaten to subjugate them all, will band together _out of necessity,_ this is in no way to be treated equally with a situation where no such necessity exists.
2:36 “It’s 1953 and Stalin is dead.” The way he said that so casually just was unexpectedly funny for me.
@today was a good day Why do you keep spamming that?
@@BuxtonsWater Please go through comments and report him for spam, the more reports the quicker they get a deserved ban.
NATO: we are formed to fight Russia/the soviets
Ussr: can I joined?
NATO: what? NO!
Thing is, NATO didn't officially state it was an anti-Soviet/anti-communist alliance. Since most of its members were liberal democracies, they couldn't openly say they existed to fight a popular ideology, whose parties regularly ran in elections (the Italian Communist Party was the main opposition party and second biggest party in the country, for example). CENTO and SEATO on the other hand, being made up mostly of dictatorships, didn't need to hide. The Soviet request to join NATO was a way to make it come out as openly anti-Soviet and have a pretext to form its own alliance.
*A NATO with Russia would be more scrambled than the Holy Roman Empire.*
@@doughboyproductions4391 The clock.... It's Ticking. The Regent has joined the OFN...
@@doughboyproductions4391 Fr 💀
I can never get past how much Putin looks like my uncle.
Then you're lucky he did not hire him as his doppelganger
Putin IS your uncle
pov: next ww3 leader of russia
Is your last name putin?
What if Russia joined the EU is a more interesting question. Russia joining an anti-Russia alliance makes absolutely no sense.
@@salahabdalla368 why would they want to join an alliance that is created to destroy them?
NATO only exists to keep the Americans in, Russians out and Germans down.
That has been the only purpose of nato.
@@semiramisubw4864 it wasn’t created to destroy them, but to defend against incase of an communist invasion. If Nato truly would want to destroy russia, the 90s would be the time as russia was in deep shit back then. And well now again.
The EU opposes literally everything the 'russian democracy' stands for. Canada or Turkey would have a higher chance at joining the EU before the russia.
@@Adrian2140 It would need to be a hypothetical where Russian democracy evolved differently after 1991 (more like actual democracy or imagining Russia going down the same path Ukraine actually did
Tom Clancy wrote a Jack Ryan novel where Russia joins NATO to defend against a Chinese invasion. It’s a good read, if a bit crazy how easy Clancy makes it.
As much as I dislike games with Tom Clancy's "signature", I have to admit that he was still Russophobic and anti-Soviet. Which, in general, is the norm for those who grew up and lived under this propaganda during the Cold War. The problem is that this case has gone to the second round.
@@TheAlien729 Anyone normal who enjoys having rights is anti-Soviet
@@JJAB91 you are literally a propaganda machine
@@bruh9659 Imagine stanning for a authoritarian shithole. The Soviets lost, cope.
The Bear and the Dragon, yes?
The Imperial Aquila genuinely killed me
The Emperor Protects
Ave Imperator!
Maybe the early NATO-Russia alliance could’ve both worked together to get to space faster and farther. A “For all Mankind” kind of thing.
The Soviet strategy of proposing that the U.S be relegated to a non voting position is actually pretty smart, at least in terms of propaganda. They basically showed that NATO was an offensive imperialist alliance where not all members were equal and was mostly meant to preserve American hegemony. Luckily, the Soviets firmly rejected the idea of forming their own offensive imperialist alliance where one country held the vast majority of the power and everyone lived happily ever after.
Yes, the Soviets would never stoop so lo- *Sees Warsaw Pact and the Sino-Soviet Alliance* What the fuck is that?!
I would like a "What if the League of Three Emperors" (The pact between Imperial Germany, Imperial Russia, and Austria-Hungary to defend each other before WW1) "Stuck together"
you mean "what if the hungarian part of the Austria-Hungary parliament didn't stall for a month before agreeing to do something about their heir to the throne being assassinated"?
Then France would be fucked as both Russia and Germany both had about 12,000,000 troops that served in total and Austria was like 7,800,000
Probably be a lot like what if germany won ww1 mixed with a bit of what if Russia didn't fall to communism
@@ThanesTito The Hungarians can't help it, they're just slow
Please do a video on if the Sino-Soviet split never happened or was patched up in the 70s. It would be super cool.
Isn't that just soviets continuing with Stalinism or China softens and pro and cons that follow?
@@tuotuolu2805 probably the USSR reforming and opening considering what Kosygin had in mind. He was the inspiration for Xiaoping.
I think he already did
He did something with a sino topic in the past
@@sirjerearchive1342 That was what if the nationalists won the Sino Civil War, I don't think the Sino-Soviet Split has been covered as a full topic here
*Russia joins NATO*
Russia: So NATO was formed to defend against my former self right?
NATO: Yes.
Russia: So now that I'm here, who are we defending against?
*NATO looks at china*
china: *sweats nervously*
North korea: Haha! I'm in danger.
I love that you, unlike other alt-hist channels, admit how stupid and unlikely some of your scenarios are. This is amazing.
Churchill actually wanted the USSR to join Nato. At that time British and French contributed most to the NATO Forces and the US was only a minor player because the Korean war had screwed up the American deployment plans for Europe.
Beria had already made overtures towards the West, and the proposal of the Soviets to join NATO would have been a great first step towards ending the Cold War and start an era of peaceful co-existence. This would have been beneficial for all parties involved and would have increased the standard of living for the British People (which was still pretty low less than a decade after the war had ended). So Churchill supported the move, maybe he could have been more persuasive in this alt history.
"churchill wanted the scoop to join nato" churchill meanwhile "the ussr it is the genocidal and unfair ultra poor country. It's literally hell"(and he was right) -_-
"If I turn an enemy into a friend, haven't I defeated the enemy?"
Abraham Lincoln.
Both sides win and both sides lose, if that is the case.
Problem with this is that to turn major enemies into friends, you often have to pay extreme price. Russia would be best friend of USA. They would love top support them economicaly and with military´. Only the price they would ask for that is for USA to turn into comunist country
Russia: joins NATO
NATO: error 404
How about doing "what if NATO invades Russia?". Because a LOT of people on twitter seem to think that's a great idea right now. Someone should point out why it's actually a *terrible* idea. Mostly this seems to be either based on a mistaken belief that NATO could prevent nuclear retaliation with a decapitating first strike. (they could decapitate sure but it still wouldn't prevent the nuclear retaliation) or that Russia "wouldn't dare" to escalate a conventional conflict into a nuclear one (they don't seem to know that small battlefield nukes make this sort of escalation a lot more likely than they realize)
Answer is: Red button and new Fallout 2022
Dead hand system can launch russian nukes without any human input .
But it was developed by the Soviets in 1983 so it's a bit old and considering how the Soviet and later the russian military haven't actually been receiving proper funding since 1988, I dont think dead hand and much of the equipment of the russian army have been well maintained. Soviet defense budget peaked at $ 344 billion in 1988 before plummeting to less than $ 20 billion under Yeltsin in 1999.
@@GenocideWesterners who knows. NATO still staying after union's collapse may have resulted in Russian paranoia, forcing them to develop nukes further
@@КотВасилий-м7н Russians were paranoid decades before NATO was even formed.
@@kavky /shrug
I mean, we do have a NATO without the US. That's basically the EU (less militaristic but basically just replaces myilitary power with economic power). Which Russia also hates because it considers joining the EU more or less a prelude to joining NATO and the EU is clearly capitalist.
True but like Nato the EU is ran by a bunch of egotistic morons who don't want to do anything besides consolidate power and line their pockets.
Russia today is capitalist. If we're talking Russia and not soviet union, what would bother Putin's Russia the most in the EU is the whole human rights, liberal democracy and economical regulation bits i'd think.
@@thundercheckov9782 yeah, thought the same. Capitalism isn't the issue, human rights, liberal democracy, environmental protection demands and the need to submit to decisions made by the EC would probably be too much. Russia considers itself too big and powerful to be 'just' a member.
The EU is not a military alliance. Sweden and Finland are both EU members and consider themselves non alligned, they aren't NATO allies. The EU is more or less a common economic market, and it isn't even that "common" since Schengen and Eurozone don't include the same states, as it stands there is no formal agreement between member states to protect eachother. There were however talks of a common EU army; not sure if it was to be another layer above state side armies or to conglomerate all the armed forces into a single entity.
@@andreibaciu7518 there is the EUBG. They're only batallion-sized. It operates under the EU.
This is something I've been working on in my own head for a while but would love to see your take on:
What if the American Civil War spiraled into a global conflict?
that should be a good video for sure
also I made a video about it if you wanna see my opinion on what would happen
th-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/w-d-xo.html
I don't think the major powers would have been able to this, not only where each country dealing with big internal problems, it wouldn't be financially viable.
It actually makes some sense, some European countries almost got involved to help the confederates due to a lack of cotton supplies but decided not to because they had already done away with slavery and fighting for it would give them a bad reputation.
@@bigchungusdriplord2301 HA! you can't fool me with that link! i've saw it atleast a 100 times!
@@Ronald98 well what about this link
th-cam.com/video/GPLS9HCH6m0/w-d-xo.html
Achievement unlocked: Global Peace
More like : global confustion
Can you use a less offensive profile pic please?
@@nobbynobbs8182 it's only a man who offers you a handshake, nothing wrong with that
@@night_aviation you mean the backstabbing monster, pathological liar and war criminal?
10:32
"Zelenskyy was surrendered all his forces to the Russians, as Ukraine, like every nation, cares about russian interests!"
*Soviets joined NATO*
Everyone: Alright
*cricket noises*
Everyone: now what?
Attack 🇨🇳
The only way I could see Russia joining NATO and things go swimmingly is if the Republic of Novgorod defeated the Grand Duchy of Muscovy at the Battle of Shelon River during the 1470's and unified the Russian state under their own system of governance being a quasi-parliamentary republic instead of an absolutist monarchy. Then again, the history of the European continent would be dramatically different, maybe Communism might be laughed off as some concept that some old bearded guy in Germany wrote in a rambly book, maybe NATO wouldn't exist at all... might be a good episode of alternate history, Cody.
And then Novgorod Russia falls apart due nobles infighting as did the Kievan Rus, Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Holly Roman Empire. Only to have its remnants swallowed up by the Ottomans, Austrians and Swedes. P.S. You'd have to somehow alter history and remove the age of absolutism for a large European republic to exist during this timeframe.
or.. russian revolution doesn't happen, russia was considered a part of the west until that
If we assume for a moment that the general ideological and technological process of Europe and America continue as in our timeline, we would still see the rise of socialist and communist thought, and the influence of Marxism on the far left. But, after Lenin's successful revolution, Leninist doctrines were able to monopolize a lot of this sphere of leftism. Let's assume the fall of Moscovy means the fall of this doctrine, and we have no USSR-equivalent.
What we would see in these spaces is other factions of the left maintain their power within Europe and America. In Europe, that would be those like social democrats, libertarian socialists, anarchists, and those like Luxembourgists who were more sympathetic to Marx's later works on radical democracy as an alternative to DotP. (Luxembourg was very critical of Lenin's vanguard) And in America, with a lack of the first Red Scare, this may see a much more powerful libertarian socialists and syndicalist block, which could have had unknown effects during the Great Depression.
So, generally, a far less toxic global left more sympathetic to republican values if Leninism doesn't win out. No way of knowing how that would manifest beyond this though.
Novgorod was a fucking oligarchical state, and an elective monarchy. This killed it. Muscovy was strong enough to survive, and it did
In this timeline, Russia becomes the bastion of democracy and the Americans create a communist bloc. Lol idk
Is no one gonna talk about how nato was made to deal with russia
in the "China driven crazy" scenario, I'd think you'd see the US and China having more conflicts earlier and likely see something echoing the middle east over in S.E. Asia and much of the Pacific Islands. US likely pivots the military expenditures in Europe over to building influence and bases around land they fought Japan over in WW2. But do you suppose with the US and Russia now having conflicts with China brings about a fundamental change in who becomes the factory of the world? I feel like you'd see the umbrella alliance of non-action (EU+Warsaw+US) finding cheaper labor in the Middle East and Africa, maybe seeing a new true superpower arise out of this oil and production powerhouse.
India gets the job of 'factory of the world' is my thought.
At least you know you've always depended on foreigners for cheaper labor.
Hell, the Us might just go back to being self sufficient. It’s more than capable of it, it’s just been easier for corporations not to be.
"1984" probably spells out a fairly realistic way all of the world governments could/would come together. And the ways that would effect the people.
Pretty much the opposite of optimistic.
i swear, that setting feels more and more inevitable as media narrows down the discussion of international relations to the US, China, and Russia.
It's only not optimistic if you're not one of the Inner Party.
1984's vision of world unity was utterly stupid. Fighting an endless war is unsustainable economically and agreeing to fight a war between Allies to maintain power would require some braindead leadership on all sides. And the idea that the "Proles" would be unregulated by INCSOC and they wouldn't care about their miserable conditions due to the war economy was even dumber.
@@Edax_Royeaux Wasn't it stated that the Thought Police do kill off smarter Proles and troublemakers among them, though? So they aren't unregulated.
@@Edax_Royeaux Brave New World was better by far.
Next video: What If Ukraine invaded Russia instead?
historically Ukraine failed to get anywhere in Russia, But Poland got as far as occupying Moscow
Russia: may I make a suggestion…..run
Ukraine: NET U
Seems plausible. Russia could undergo a civil war and Ukraine could’ve invaded.
@@Kunumbah1
Russia has nukes.
Nobody will ever invade it.
Poland & Lithuania 🇵🇱 🇱🇹 has a better chance on invading Russia 🇷🇺 & probably occupying Moscow for a while
There actually was a brief moment where Russia was considered to join NATO. The problem was that Russia wanted instant membership, they thought they would skip the onboarding process. NATO said no, you have to go through the whole process, you have to become NATO compliant, and Russia threw a bitch fit and it ended.
Also NATO REALLLLLY didn't want them to start with because they feared Russia would just use their position within NATO to do what they do on the UN Security Council and veto anything that wasn't beneficial to them, because NATO operations have to be unanimously voted upon.
Yeah how dare they vote against something that goes against their interests. Only US interests have value whether in NATO or UN.
Just to correct you. It was sort of jokingly suggested by Russians to allow them to join NATO , because they new they would not be accepted, as it would defeat the whole purpose of NATO. Basically, how can you make countries pay for protection, when there is nothing to protect them from? But with Russia around, you can make claims on how she is dangerous and sell weapons and receive money from members of NATO.
@@ReflKnight No.
@@tyrantsmisery k
I think Russia as a NATO member could have worked, if Russia had manage to become a functioning democracy. NATO is already too large for it's own good and includes several medium sized powers (France, Germany, Turkey) that pretty much just do their own thing. But for that to happen the Russians would have to admit that they aren't a world power anymore, just a regional power.
I feel like that idea of 2 superpowers being in one alliance lacks critical assumption. Whole argumentation is built upon assumption of Russia being and viewing herself as a superpower. As you said 2 superpowers will try to expand their sphears of influence but I feel like in the 90`s Russia was so poor and uncertain about her future (much more than nowadays), that idea of giving up superpower status and becoming just one of the european states could become reality. Of course in such reality Russia would not immediately become just like western europe, but at least took that path. Britain and France both were superpowers and rival and now they are in one alliance, some state in Germany also always seen themselves as a superpower, even Poland tried to be a superpower during the interbellum. All of them gave up at least some of ambitions and became just one of the european states after experiencing great disaster. So why again is it unthinkable in case of Russia?
Because Britain, France, and Germany all got their asses handed to them.
Rusia did not. Russia just lost an ideological debate
To this day Russians claim to be a superpower and that is the problem...
The Humility inflicted upon the French in the wars of the 19th century made them comfortably with an alliance with Britain
The Humility inflicted upon the Germans in the wars of the 20th century made them comfortably with an alliance with Britain and the French
The loss of all their empires and global influences made them all comfortable with subordination to the Americans who practically speaking have never suffered a major defeat (despite them losing decades-long wars, they all way do better than even the eventual victors)
It is this lack of failure the fact that Russia is simply too big of a state to ever see itself as anything less than an equal of the US is why they can never be allies.
All American allies to some extent have accepted American Hegemony as a fact of life, those who resist are the ones that The US is constantly in Contention with.
Russia basically just becomes something like Poland.
@@BasicLib When did the UK "get their ass handed to them"?
@@explodethebomb The collapse of the Empire
My country exists because of it actually
Despite the UK being one of the Big 3 and being the lynchpin that connect east and west to drive home an allied victory in WW2
The British Empire, for all its glory in its finest hour was at it final hour
Britain was a winner that lost
And lost bad
The debt, the economic strain, the political crisis, the international crisis all coupled to produce a British that in the 70s had a weaker economy than the western half of a bombed to rubble Germany
The precipitous Decline in British Power following their victory in world war 2 was a “victory” of consequences worse than any “defeat” say for example the US has has ever had.
And it is the reality of the position that made them, and continues to make them accept their role as a Junior partner to the Americans (as pretty much every one is).
And In my view it was very smart that they did.
That’s why I meant , I’m sorry if I want so clear earlier.
@@salahabdalla368 Yh,
The US has lost wars
But ask yourself for every war the US ever lost,
Who left worse.
I know im probably wasting my time with you but I’m not talking about morals here
I’m talking about power
Real power
The Americans by virtue of their power occupy a unique role and the wests understanding of that allows them to live under an imperial system that for those who submit, regardless of what they think about the Americans, are offered some of the best quality of life in human history form Japan to Canada to Saudi Arabia to Israel to Chile to South Korea to Botswana and those who resist … well just take a look at North Korea or Cuba or Iraq and Afghanistan.
If anything your emphasis on the power of the Americans to utterly ruin peoples lives is proof of my point that the best play is to willingly join the American Empire and reap it benefits or at the very least avoid getting in its way.
I wrote a research paper about US foreign policy for a composition class last semester. My scenario for Russia joining NATO: the US never invades Iraq. It was the Iraq war that made Putin begin to view the West, specifically the US, as “imperialists”. I believe that if Iraq was not invaded in 2003, Russia and the US could have put aside their differences.
Russia has viewed the us as imperialistic sense the start if the cold war
It seems that everyone forgot about the bombing and destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999. THIS is what showed Russia the danger of NATO, and Iraq only reinforced it. And then there was Libya. All this showed Russia that NATO is an aggressor, and that something needs to be done about it until NATO came to Russia.
putin began to view nato in a negative light once they broke the promise to not expand east into former warsaw pact members
@@hhhhhh-vi6sq No no
You wrote that shit and are still allowed on your campus?
15:40 not only do we not "rely entirely" on cheap Chinese products, China relies on us more than we do them.
The US is a net exporter of everything except consumer merchandise. China is a net importer of food, energy, raw materials, and all manner of strategic goods. China makes stuff we want, we make stuff they need.
I disagree with your assessment on relations with china, had Russia and the US normalized relations back in the 90’s, with an influx of Russian natural resources into Europe and the US, and worse relationships overall with the Chinese, the west would most likely rely less on china for finished goods as we do in this timeline, making sanctions much easier to implement
We would have opened more manufacturing in Russia. Russia should have been allowed to join but the US didn't want to lose dominance and the eastern countries had animosity.
Siberia's resources, not "russia's"
@@asbest2092 I know this is 3 months old, but just in case. Siberia is a region in Russia.
@@ReflKnight what I wrote is still the fact.
@@asbest2092 How is what you said a fact?
How did you get someone with no arms to give off such incredible T-pose energy at 8:14 😂😂😂😂😂
Could you make a video about if Italy, Austria and Hungary, went to war with Germany over the annexation of Austria? Mussoliny was probably considering it, but was eventually scared out by the Allies not doing anything about Hitlers violations of treaties.
No the Allies weren’t against him. Poland was for it actually but the Germans did everything possible to convince him they weren’t going to annex it. So they signed a treaty which the Germans violated anyway and removed Dolfus.
They're defending eachother, mutually, against the greatest threat to Humanity.. Emus! And their Cassowary Overlords! Also "Aliens... Man..."
Honestly, everyone in Europe coming together in a pan-European alliance that isn’t NATO would be pretty cool, and ironically, there’d be peace there. Double ironically, if countries like Russia weren’t so focused on their own interests, and instead achieving peace on the continent, this kind of thing might have happened already.
"The Peace of Dives".
And they all live happily ever after.
We Europeans would be happy to be in good relations with Russian people. We all are Europeans, but because of geopolitics we can’t achieve such peace. It’s very sad.
America would never allow that to happen. At the end of the day, America cares bout merica and a strong independent Europe that needs no merica, is not good
Well that's just it. From the Russian perspective, that is achieving peace, in regards to their interests. A Russia that feels safe in Europe, can reorient its foreign policy away from it. As ironic as it sounds, probably the only real scenario where we get that non-intrusive peaceful Russia, would come as a result of the USSR never happening, and Russia never losing control over its western territories. The best case scenario being: No communist revolution, heavy reforming of the Russian Empire to a model similar to the UK's where the monarchy just becomes increasingly irrelevant and more of a symbol, than an actual monarch, the same setup Finland had within the Russian Empire, extended to the baltic territories (autonomous domestic policies) but we don't get to have that because of Germany lol. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk screwed everything up, and they also sent Lenin back to Russia at the worst possible time lmao thanks germany...
"A house divided, where the family is constantly fighting and trying to upstage one another, many regretting why they ever moved in or where even born."
I feel personally attacked.
One thing I’d point out, in a scenario where the US and Russia come to an agreement and create a peaceful or even friendly relationship would probably create much more investment in Russia and there wouldn’t be one factory of the world. Instead Russia and China would share that as Russia has the manpower, resources, education, and terrible economy while China has the artificially deflated currency and even tighter restrictions on its population to attract companies. This might make it easier to sanction a bellicose China and also give Russia a boost to seriously challenge china in Central Asia.
This is basically what the Tsarist Russia was trying to do before WW1 ruined everything and crippled them for generations.
China's population is 10x Russia's. They don't have the manpower to match China. They also don't have as many coastal cities and China does, and railways are a lot more expensive than ships. I think Vietnam or Indonesia would do a better job. India might, but India industrializing enough to beat Japan or SK let alone China would be its own Alt-History.
@@crocfighter.1322 Ya and america had like 1/100th of chinas population when it was the factory of the world? You need a large population but you don’t need the largest, unless you’re making things out of people having 600 million starving peasants in the countryside isn’t exactly a bonus. The costal cities would be an issue if their main consumer base isn’t literally next door. China has been trying to expand its rail access to Europe and areas of Asia for decades now and they are much further away from Germany and France than Russia is.
Vietnam and Indonesia ARE going to become the next global factory but that’s because we live int he timeline where Russia and the west did not kiss and make up at the end of the Cold War.
Khrushchev: "You're going to talks about an defense-alliance with our ideological archenemy".
Molotov: "Again ?"
"And don't just say China!"
*"...India? Maybe Japan?"*
Pls don't hurt me
US: *spamming weapons*
Russia: *spamming weapons*
China: *autoclicking "SWITCH TEAM"*
"We're not letting you join because we need an enemy to justify our bloated defense budget"
Honestly your taking out the initial Russian perspective of that generation because you still see this today because one thing that didn't change in Russia was this general district with the West even thinking about joining NATO made Boris Yeltsin very unpopular by Russians because it was perceived defeat by many Russians. Now Russia has been going through a generational change the younger generation don't have that same view and you can see that reflected today with majority of the anti war protestors come from the younger generation.
However this younger generation is minority because Russia's declining birth rates this has been true for the past decade and half experiencing a negative brith to death ratio second maybe only to Japan and China.
Russians desperately wish they were as relevent as China is as a rival to the west once again, i see
copium "drop Your weapons so it's easier for us to invide You!"
10:18 "Two superpowers that opposed one another would never want to come together in the same alliance."
The Soviet Union and China were not rivals per se. However, they were considered to be two superpowers that came together during the Cold War. Even today, Russia and China are very close.
P.S. I already know that Russia is no longer a superpower.
This current climate has been great for History TH-camrs
The whole america kicked out of nato idea actually sounds alright for the American people. No cold war spending while being owed billions from Europe and we’re chilling with a significantly stronger economy. But also with that America still had global bases given to America from GB
Good for America but not so good for Europe, while capitalism isn’t perfect communism is much worse.
@@connorh2215 except when you are the colony and being work to death for other "liberal democracy" in another continent
@@quanghuyvo6112 Realistically, no matter what economic system, that was gonna happen anyway as long as colonial empires existed. It wasn't like the Soviets suddenly stopped exploiting the peoples outside of Moscow.
@@stephenjenkins7971 You make a fantastic point.
In short term it would work better for USA. But in long term USA would be left without any allies. Whatever economic boost you would get out of this would never be worth it. Having entire Europe turned red would be distater for USA. It would practicaly reverse current roles. It would be USA that would be absolutely isolated and with only few countries willing to trade with them.
At the same time, by spending a lot on oposing Soviets, they ensured that their economy will be much healthier in long term due to massive trade. They also ensured that lot of European countries do tend to not make too much of a fuss when USA sticks their nose somewhere they should not. As was mentioned here, USA would probably ended up back in isolationism.
Yes I have been waiting for this video.
how dare you.
meet me at your nearest store, we will settle this with fists!
Honestly, the likelihood of Russia/the USSR ever joining NATO is so low, I'd say the best case scenario would be something like Tom Clancy's The Bear and the Dragon, where surveyors discover the world's largest gold and oil reserves in Siberia, just north of the Chinese border with Russia, and an overzealous, expansionist China decides to acquire those resources by force, thus leaving Russia no choice but to join NATO so that the world can collectively Article Five China back to the edges of its own borders.
But I digress. :D
Little European states and even little Japanese islands can be overzealous and expansionist for resources too.
I want a story set in the first timeline you later out so badly. It would be such a fun setting for absolutely absurd cold war spy movies
9:53
Cody: "So... Sue me!"
Putin: "Challenge Accepted."
Cody: Oh no.. NO... NO!
Bill Wurtz: "You can make a religion out of this."
Emperor Tigerstar: "Anywho... The Nato border line is kinda shady in my opinion.."
ReaLifeLore: "You can line up 200 thousand Toyota Corollas to make up the absurd border of Nato."
Cody: "Hey Now!"
They would be able to undermine NATO from the inside. Get access to their technology, learn about their logistics and strategy, and exploit that later on when they inevitably attack Chechen, Georgian or Ukrainian territory.
I would really like a take on what would have happened if Italy joined the central powers side in ww1
Central powers win
Same thing that happens in WWII. They fall upon the Little Maginot Line and get slaughtered. The Royal Navy will reduce the Italian Navy to cinders. Italian Government destabilizes.
Not a bad suggestion. What do you think? No Gallipoli, but Anzio? Lawrence is "Lorenzo of Tuscany" so no Arab uprising, Ottomans barely hang on and the Levant isn't greedily chopped up between Brit and French? Aus-Hun devotes more to the Russia fight who lose a year earlier, so no Lenin? Brit and French have to defend more, so no Somme? List goes on. Not much would happen at the French-Italian border due to terrain, and I think the Allies would still win, though not as big. Versailles treaty would be a lot different, for sure. I hope Cody takes up your suggestion.
The central powers still loses but way quicker.
@@questerperipatetic4861 allies have to defend another 120 divisions also France would be screwed taking the Iran Liam Austria Hungary front Italy lost 1 million man say they replicate that I don’t think France could have taken another million causlities
Russia: Joins NATO
World: Implodes.
Tiberium is found on the Tiber River, a source of limitless energy and the Brotherhood of Nod takes control of most of it sparking the 1st Tiberium War
One other scenario I can think of had the USSR been allowed into NATO in 1953, is that both sides could put aside their differences in favor of mutual benefit. In this timeline you'd still have the east vs west rivalry, but it could be expressed in other less violent ways on the grounds that both sides would at least be working towards an overall mutually beneficial position, even if one side seeks to benefit more from it than the other. Wishful thinking, I know, but it's a best case scenario.
I agree with you. This great video shows how mind-bogglingly difficult it is for us to find the scenario where it works (think Groundhog Day or Edge of Tomorrow, try, fail again, fail better, as Samuel Beckett once wrote).
...yet at the same time it narrows down where the leak is coming from in the plumbing. So somehow, there IS hope. Except not via sheer wishful thinking.
Gandhi: "If we are serious in waging war against war, we should begin with children"
(And I don't think he meant declaring war to kids ;p )
i think one of the mass effect fanfics I've read used something like this as a base, relations didn't cool nearly as much post WW2 and both countries turned into somewhat friendly rivals, less military buildup and much more funneled into the space race as the two used it as a way to one-up each other. this leads to more orbital habitats and much earlier colonies on the moon and mars.
only way this could work is if things remained friendly between them post-WW2 instead of falling apart
@@burp2019
Well, that's the thing. One of the big contention points between the US and Russia _is_ NATO. If Russia had been allowed to join, US relations with them would have been significantly less tense.
The real reason NATO didn't let the Soviet Union join is because they wanted James Bond movies.
because the scoop didn't want to join anybody it wanted its dictatorship over the world. This is the main comunism's target.
Just change Russia with China or other rogue states