In a recent interview with the Rossiya-24 channel, Russia’s Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu suggested that the West missed a crucial opportunity to neutralize Russia in the 1990s by failing to integrate it into Western institutions like the European Union (EU) and NATO. Shoigu, the former defense minister and an influential figure in Russia’s political and military landscape, highlighted how, at the time, Russia was in a fragile position and would have readily joined the Western fold if given the opportunity. His reflections shed light on a critical period in post-Soviet Russia’s history and offer an intriguing perspective on what might have been had Russia taken a different geopolitical path.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left Russia economically devastated and politically disoriented. The country’s economy contracted severely, and by the mid-1990s, it was heavily reliant on foreign aid to stay afloat. According to Shoigu, this period was one of intense hardship, with Russia struggling to meet basic financial obligations. In his role as head of the Emergencies Ministry during this time, Shoigu recalled frantically waiting for foreign subsidies to arrive in order to pay salaries.

This vulnerability, Shoigu argued, could have been exploited by the West. He recalled a significant moment in 1994 when then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin proposed that Russia should be the first country to join NATO during a conversation with US President Bill Clinton. While the suggestion was met with some interest, it never gained serious traction in the West.

Shoigu believes that had the US and its European allies embraced this idea, Russia might have been drawn into Western institutions like NATO and the EU. “If at that point they fast-tracked us into the European Union… I believe we would have lost our sovereignty by today,” Shoigu said, emphasizing that Russia, weakened and dependent on foreign aid, would have been vulnerable to external control. This integration, in Shoigu’s view, would have reduced Russia to a “docile client state” beholden to Western powers.

Shoigu’s comments suggest that Russia, had it been admitted into the EU or NATO, would have been forced to make significant economic and political concessions to Western powers. He argued that Russia’s vast natural resources and industrial potential would have been “redistributed and snatched” by Western interests, much like other EU members, whose policies are often influenced by external actors, particularly the US.

In this scenario, Shoigu believes Russia would have lost its autonomy and sovereignty, becoming just another EU state, beholden to decisions made in Washington and Brussels. He likened Russia’s potential fate to that of other European nations, which he views as too compliant with US interests. In his words, had Russia been integrated into the West, it would have been reduced to following “a command from across the ocean,” much like current EU members.

To illustrate his point about Western dominance over European affairs, Shoigu cited the 2014 Mistral helicopter carrier scandal, a key example of European compliance with US pressure. In 2011, Russia placed an order for two Mistral-class ships from France to bolster its navy. However, the deal was scrapped in the wake of the 2014 crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea. The cancellation of the contract, Shoigu claimed, was not a result of French decision-making but rather US pressure on Paris.

Shoigu pointed to the case of BNP Paribas, a French bank that, in June 2014, was fined $9 billion by US authorities for violating American sanctions. This penalty, according to Shoigu, was used as leverage by the US to force France into cancelling the Mistral deal, which would have strengthened Russia’s military capabilities. The decision to halt the sale of the Mistral ships, which were eventually sold to Egypt instead, came at a substantial financial loss for France. According to French authorities, the scrapping of the deal cost Paris approximately €409 million ($450 million).

For Shoigu, this incident exemplifies the degree of control the US exerts over its European allies, particularly when it comes to matters involving Russia. He suggests that had Russia been absorbed into the EU and NATO in the 1990s, it would have suffered a similar fate-subjected to US economic and political interests at the expense of its sovereignty.

Shoigu’s remarks reveal a key belief among some Russian officials: that the West, in its dealings with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, fundamentally misunderstood the country’s potential. Rather than integrating Russia into the Western fold and diminishing its influence, the US and its allies allowed Russia to remain an independent player, eventually regaining its strength and asserting itself on the global stage.

By failing to bring Russia into the EU or NATO in the 1990s, Shoigu argues, the West “made a mistake.” Russia, left outside the Western sphere of influence, was able to rebuild its economy and military, and eventually pursue its own independent foreign policy objectives. This includes actions such as the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict, both of which have brought Moscow into direct conflict with the West.

From the perspective of Russian officials like Shoigu, the West’s decision to keep Russia at arm’s length has backfired. Instead of neutralizing Russia, the US and its allies now face a resurgent power that is more determined than ever to defend its sovereignty and pursue its own national interests, even if that means opposing Western hegemony.

Sergey Shoigu’s reflections on Russia’s relationship with the West in the 1990s highlight a critical moment in post-Soviet history when Russia could have taken a very different path. By failing to integrate Russia into institutions like NATO and the EU, the West missed what Shoigu views as an opportunity to neutralize Russia and turn it into a compliant state. Instead, Russia was able to recover, reassert its sovereignty, and emerge as a global power in its own right. For Russia, this period of vulnerability could have marked the end of its independence; instead, it set the stage for its resurgence. The implications of that missed opportunity continue to shape Russia’s relationship with the West to this day.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel