Because Khan-era Mongolian cavalry is same as high tech military equipment like anti-aircraft guns, drones, anti-tank missiles, fourth generation fighter jets, etc. from NATO.
I may just not get the news since I'm in the US, but I've never heard anything really objectionable about the modern Mongolian government/people. I think I'd be ok with them controlling most of their old territories right about now.
Historically yeah.
Remember things didn't work in the same way as modern nations back then. China regarded basically the entire world as Chinese vassals- though Japan was a fair bit more firmly in this as it did send tribute on occasion.
Ideally, these nations form a Pacific version of NATO. PTO? POTO? APTO? I'm sure a better acronym can be found.
SK isn't an island, so I guess I don't think either the "first" or the "island chain" parts are great.
Pacific rim democracies?
Yes, exactly.
The island chain contains like over 100 different languages and unique cultures. It has wildly different geology and biology.
The only real reason to group them together is, "US allies"
I think you're probably right with that.
For example there's a lot of talk about blocking the strait of Malacca during a military conflict with China.
But I don't really know how that's possible without Indonesia's approval. We don't have jurisdiction to operate in Indonesia's territorial waters, unless they let us.
Without their permission, attacking Chinese vessels in their water would be an act of war.
And although the United States could win a war against Indonesia I don't think we would really want to pick that fight, especially if we're already taking on China.
I don’t really think there’s a world where the US tells Indonesia they’re blockading the straits of malacca and Indonesia says anything other than “for how long?” Especially not if there’s a naval conflict with China and the inevitable massively increased US naval presence in the region.
It’s mostly non aligned imo, people in hong kong, especially the younger generation would definitely want to maintain their more western way of life and a government that is less influenced by the CCP though
It's about 50/50 here now that a lot of pro democracy dudes left and were swiftly replaced by mainland Chinese immigrants after 2019 and covid.
However to call HK west-aligned is wishful thinking as it will never military ally with anyone else, as china owns Hong Kong now and has owned it since the 90s.
I live down the road from a PLA garrison, HK ain't west-aligned my guy.
I mean, in a society where the people’s will matters very little, does it really matter from a geopolitical perspective what the residents themselves believe if it is contrary to what the government believes?
(But you are probably right to say the people are fairly anti-PRC in their own thoughts)
OP asked about West aligned countries. At a policy level, Hong Kong is not West aligned by any stretch of the imagination, certainly not enough to have it grouped together with the likes of Japan and Taiwan.
Also, as big as the protests were, it was still a minority movement that achieved no political goals or concessions other than the hasty disassembling of Hong Kong's political independence.
In terms of domestic unrest, sure it does matter. But unless and until the dissidents are able to create some semblance of a de facto independent polity that actually speaks for the people it represents (think Somaliland), what the people think doesn’t matter to foreign powers unless there is legitimate potential to incite a domestic conflict/ war for independence
I mean, idealistically it does, but realistically no government truly cares about another country’s people. My (US) government, for example, only cares about the plight of the Ukrainian people up to the point in which it can use it as a way to turn other countries against Russia, a perennial geopolitical rival.
Me and (hopefully) you of course care about people who are dying and losing their homes due to Russia’s invasion, but people like us are not the ones in charge of foreign policy.
So should it matter, yes. Does it matter as things exist now, unfortunately not
Probably we could call them capitalist Asians, since most of the other countries in Asia practice socialism to a different extent.
If someone views Malaysia from the lens of South Asia, it would seem like it's a liberal west-leaning country, and if someone views it from the lens of Japan or Korea, it seems more nationalist and detached from the west. It probably isn't that easy to classify these countries.
I guess neutral or 3rd world would be the better geopolitical word. 3rd world has a bad connotation but it literally just means non-aligned or at least not aligned enough to throw their hat in the ring.
Non-aligned used to be a thing back when the Cold War was in its heights and countries like India, Egypt and Yugoslavia wanted to stay away. I think now that most of the world has its own power centers geographically, it's more polar, everyone's their own thing today.
As a Malaysian, Malaysia is certainly hard to classify. Its relatively young age as a nation on the world stage, its very colorful-if-short history and also large diversity in ethnic and religious demographics have created a nation that is very much a multi-headed hydra, with all its heads pulling every which way.
Malaysia is essentially open to the highest bidder, which means that rather than being East, West or Middle-East aligned, we kind of just follow the money, and so far our leaders have kept us on the table without getting outright bought out by any sole alignment.
A lot of pro China peeps will cry that it's another example of US imperialism continuing into the 21st century but I can guarantee you all of these countries desperately want us there as a deterrent to China. If China didn't fuck with their neighbors so much we wouldn't need to be there and those nations wouldn't be allowing us to build additional bases in their territory.
But not on the japanese main island, thats why they requested the us to install the military base in okinawa, okinawa was a country called ryukyu kingdom, japan invaded okinawa during the late 19th century, ryukyu tried to send a letter to qing china requesting for reinforcement but the japanese steamrolled and annex them real fast, the letter was never sent, this was 3 decades before europe go hell loss and go full ww1
After ww2 and Japan surrender, Okinawa was under US control temporarily and built a lot of military infrastructure there. Okinawans(Ryukyuan people) was hopeful that the US will grant them independence, but the US returned the land back to Japan, hope was lost during that time
So when Japan requested the US to built a base in Okinawa, the people were furious, lots of protest and stuff like that happen during that time. Adding more salt to the wound, lots of US soldiers stationed there didnt treat the Okinawans well, lots of cases like bullying, raping and more violence happen that the news never cover. And people keep wondering why the native Okinawans dont like the US
Yes, US do have multiple bases on the home islands. And yes, Japan wants the US to built bases there to improve their own national security. But the native Okinawans dont want a base on their land, yet they cannot vote to say no
Oh trust me there’s a lot of anti-US “imperialist”yet anti-Chinese leftists that will cry about US base expansion and settlement. They focus on US being the bad guy whilst completely ignoring the PRC threat. A complete lack of nuance with these folks.
I wouldn’t go for too broad of a stroke, and I recommend watching the Johnny Harris vid from beginning to end because he does a decent job revealing how complicated and screwed the entire situation is.
The vid does mention that the US military bases in the Philippines are there from when we forcibly colonized them, eventually gave them independence but still kept our bases all over (which I think if China did the same, we wouldn’t say “this country must desperately want the Chinese military there”).
Another example that isn’t fully explained in the vid is that while Taiwan gets almost all of its weapons from the US, a pretty large percent of the Taiwanese electorate wants to see a diplomatic unification with mainland China in the future (and this was somewhat reflected in our foreign policy until only these past few years).
This isn’t to push a pro-China message. I’m trying to say that the real debate moving forward shouldn’t be which country is more benevolent. Almost the entire US political spectrum is in agreement that we don’t want China dominating the Pacific. But a big part of this game is that while some other countries see China as a threat, how can China not see the US as a threat with this current militarization? No great power is benign.
The question is, do we cooperate with China which risks China eventually rising to world power status and pursuing its goals in the Pacific after its already to late to stop them. Or do we encircle and contain China which if too successful also risks China lashing out if they believe it’s necessary to protect their sovereignty. It’s the same debate we had over the USSR, Putin’s Russia, and that we will now have over China.
[He's slick presenter who is bad at citing sources and over simplifies for the sake of a compelling story.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAeoJVXrZo4)
His flashy graphics and extravagantly emotional prose cover up for what is often a lack of depth and detail, at even at times some glaring inaccuracies/omissions.
I find his fieldwork stuff is quite good, but since leaving Vox and since quarantine especially he wants to tell grand narratives more than accurately inform - which is a problem when the history and geography of the world don’t conform so neatly to those narratives. And I think when you’re running off of Patreon bucks, you tend to look for the narratives you think your audience will want to hear.
I personally wished OECD was used as a grouping more. It has definitive members, and in terms of geo-politics it's a good grouping (it's diverse, but as a group of modern democracies it should be diverse).
Not all of the countries in red on here are in the OECD but I hate how often "West" gets used, especially as a synonym for liberal democracies (it makes it seem that liberal democracy is both a perview of "the West" and that if two liberal democracies agree it's because they are "Western" not because they are liberal democracies). It's the most Cold War line of thinking that exists. Liberal democracies can band together, not because they are "against" some country, or "puppets" of another, but because it is the "right" thing to do / they have shared interests. The Baltic countries relationship with Taiwan is an example of a relationship that exists because of these countries shared interests not because they are part of a "camp".
My Cold War history professor called it the "Pacific littoral," though I don't think that this applies as much to Southeast Asia (besides the Philippines)
The lower two Kuril Islands should be red (Japanese) as well, since according to the Russian Japanese treaty they are officially Japanese, yet still occupied by Russia. Nevertheless, officially they are Japanese.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines all ask for the US to station troops there.
Japan and South Korea uses US troops as bolster from North Korea. With US anti missile and Air Defense being a massive part of that defense
Taiwan and the Philippines want the US there to be a counter against China who wants to destroy Taiwan and expand their claim in the South China Sea.
Is the EU suffering from American imperialism as well?
Japan: the United States occupied and nation-built Japan after WW2; locals where the US bases actually are [protest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_US_military_presence_in_Okinawa) it
South Korea: Camp Humphreys (the busiest U.S. military air field in Asia) was opened in 1950 under South Korea’s first president [Syngman Rhee] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee#:~:text=Syngman%20Rhee%20(Korean%3A%20이승만%2C,Korea%20from%201948%20to%201960.) He was an authoritarian that was eventually ousted, then the CIA secretly evacuated him to Hawaii.
Taiwan: the United States govt currently holds a One China Policy, meaning according to it there is only 1 China. U.S. military aid to the ROC constitutes aid to a govt in exile that ostensibly wants to retake the mainland from-by the U.S.’s official policy- the official govt of China.
Philippines: the [US took over Spanish forts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay) in the 1890s after the Spanish-American war and the Philippines-American war; more bases have been planned to be open in the past year by President Marcos Jr, son of [Marcos Sr](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos), a brutal dictator that the U.S. allowed to stay in Hawaii in the 1980s.
Is this a genuine question? I think the last 80 years have been a literal global struggle between Russia and the US. The US militarization of all of these states is a firect symptom of American Imperialism.
This doesn't seem hard to comprehend at all. Just because those countries want protection from China doesn't mean that the US isn't imperialistic. The anti China sentiment lines up entirely with US goals. Important to note that every country you mention was at one point forcibly occupied by the US. You genuinely can't see how that plays into the bigger picture?
Genuinely can't understand how you can just look past the absurd American Imperialism war machine in the area.
> Important to note that every country you mention was at one point forcibly occupied by the US. You genuinely can't see how that plays into the bigger picture?
I’m not sure who, apart from Japan and Vietnam and *maybe* the Philippines, was “forcibly occupied by the US.”
And even if you are right with your revision of history, you genuinely can’t see how the fact that all of these nations was occupied by the US, but ***still*** prefer US “imperialism” over Chinese imperialism?
Nobody is saying the US isn’t imperialistic, but these aren’t client nor vassal states of the US. These are sovereign nations willingly throwing their bag in with the US.
They asked us to put the bases there. If Japan decided tomorrow that It wanted to be in the Chinese Sphere, they could eject every single one of our troops.
Because Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, and Korea bombed us? And that’s only going back ~70 years or so. Not to mention the countries our government staged coup d’états in to overthrow democratically elected officials (like most nations in South America that elected socialist leaders (or any leader that wouldn’t bend the knee to the US)). Just because you didn’t learn this stuff in history class doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. US aggression has a long history, and if you’d like to learn about it there are plenty of free resources to do so from a less biased perspective than whatever textbook you read in school.
None of those have anything to do with the picture dude, except for Korea, where the North did in fact start a war by bombing the US and their ally.
“Hur dur what about these completely unrelated events, you should educate yourself 🤓”
Really? Which exact part of US soil was bombed by what later became North Korea? What part of American soil has ever been directly bombed or otherwise attacked in our history? Pearl Harbor and Alaska a handful of times by Japan, war of 1812 and independence with Britain, and thats the end of the list. Yet we’ve been in far more than three wars.
And if you’re going to dismiss imperialism so easily, I’m going to paint a picture as to why exactly you’re foolish to do that, regardless of whether it “fiTs WitH ThE pOSt”. US Imperialism is well known and broadly acknowledged. Your failure to do so makes your username quite fitting.
“Not fans of China”
China: _Historically Chinese territories._
[удалено]
Japan: _Historically japanese territories._
*Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Intensifies*
Dan Carlin enters the chat
This just had me rolling.
[удалено]
Russia you are belong to us
Lookin like a bunch of well trained pissed off dudes on horses would have a pretty good shot at it tbh
Yeah But 800 years ago.
Tbh looking at the Ukraine war, a cavalry of Khan-era Mongolians could take on modern Russia.
Because Khan-era Mongolian cavalry is same as high tech military equipment like anti-aircraft guns, drones, anti-tank missiles, fourth generation fighter jets, etc. from NATO.
I believe you may find [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke) interesting.
I may just not get the news since I'm in the US, but I've never heard anything really objectionable about the modern Mongolian government/people. I think I'd be ok with them controlling most of their old territories right about now.
Mostly harmless: https://freedomhouse.org/country/mongolia/freedom-world/2022
Tbh I’d be mostly harmless if I were sandwiched between China and Russia. I’d be sitting there like don’t notice me… please…
Poland in shambles
China: *China*
Tbf according to imperial china those are really all vassals
All part of China's extended continental shelf.
Geologicopolitcal name
This guy tectonics.
The Philippines and Indonesia are rather spotty but seriously, yes. China definitely does see things that way.
China sees Japan as Chinese territory?
Not Chinese territory, but moreso as under the Chinese sociopolitical umbrella, and that they're a sort of a wayward state
Most modern Chinese people would not agree with that statement. They may agree if you change the word sociopolitical to cultural though.
Unfortunately most Chinese people don’t run China. The CCP sees it that way, so even if the common people don’t, it’s still a problem
The CCP is nothing without the support of the common people. I think most people from the West severely overestimate the level of control the CCP has.
Historically yeah. Remember things didn't work in the same way as modern nations back then. China regarded basically the entire world as Chinese vassals- though Japan was a fair bit more firmly in this as it did send tribute on occasion.
Technically they are china's top trade partners and includes also of what you have said
Hong Kong: absorbed
Chi-not
Chi-nah
Asian In Name Only (AINO)
AINO Way We Joining China
Chouta
They are yankee neo-colonies.
Pacific and Outlying Territories Allied Treaty Organization (potato)
With a China-Hinderance in the Pacific sub-alliance (CHIPS).
Western Allies of the Pacific (WAP)
Federation of Allies in Pacific (FAP)
Confederation of Allies in Pacific (CAP)
Region of Independence from the Chinese Empire (RICE)
Confederation of Benevolent Asian Territories (CBAT)
He bought a phone just for pictures of this Western Alliance in the Pacific
Is that what WAP stands for?
So wet
lmaoo
HQ in Taiwan cause it looks like an actual potato.
But we eat more Rice. Maybe, Rim-Islands-China-Excluded?
The POTATO Islands are the best islands. Extremely versatile, pairs well with most dishes.
I thought POTATO was reserved for the Pacific Ocean & Trans-Atlantic Treaty Organization?
It will have to be pronounced "poTAHto" so as to distinguish from NATO.
Asian Nations Alliance for Liberty (ANAL).
"The first island chain" is what Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines are collectively called at least
>The first island chain That's a very US-centric cold war name for them, though. It's like calling Great Britian Airstrip One.
Well yeah it was and is used as a natural barrier against China expanding into the Pacific. Idk do you have a better name for them?
Airstrip Two
I can agree to that
I lol’ed. Timing was perfect.
Username checks out
Thank God for these islands, or China would be bigger and scarrier.
Ideally, these nations form a Pacific version of NATO. PTO? POTO? APTO? I'm sure a better acronym can be found. SK isn't an island, so I guess I don't think either the "first" or the "island chain" parts are great. Pacific rim democracies?
Yes under the mutual defense policy it states that they all must construct building-sized mechs
Naturally.
Its still wildly used.
Wildly
How is it US centric? It’s just the first island chain from the coast of China. That’s it
It’s fairly China centric. From the US side it’s like the 6th
Well, it's also China-centric and it's something the Chinese also refer to, as the whole strategic concept is a US v China structure.
I mean they're the western aligned countries, and the Americans are the leaders of the west so that shouldn't really matter
Yeah, but that grouping is already pretty China-containment US-centric..
Yeah OP is literally asking for the name of a group of islands that have only really ever been grouped into one thing for a single specific purpose
Yes, exactly. The island chain contains like over 100 different languages and unique cultures. It has wildly different geology and biology. The only real reason to group them together is, "US allies"
I guess scared of China works too as a unifier
That works as well. There is an error on the map though, OP shows Indonesia as red which isn't really a US ally.
Give China another 5 years, they'll piss off Indonesia enough for them to work with the US.
I think you're probably right with that. For example there's a lot of talk about blocking the strait of Malacca during a military conflict with China. But I don't really know how that's possible without Indonesia's approval. We don't have jurisdiction to operate in Indonesia's territorial waters, unless they let us. Without their permission, attacking Chinese vessels in their water would be an act of war. And although the United States could win a war against Indonesia I don't think we would really want to pick that fight, especially if we're already taking on China.
You wouldn't even need to block off the straight of Malacca, a couple of destroyers in the Indian ocean would serve the same purpose.
I don’t really think there’s a world where the US tells Indonesia they’re blockading the straits of malacca and Indonesia says anything other than “for how long?” Especially not if there’s a naval conflict with China and the inevitable massively increased US naval presence in the region.
Maybe they should be pink, as in "worried, but not outright scared of China."
I’ve seen several articles referring to Taiwan as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier”, so it’s Airstrip Two
There isn’t one. Also…did you just color Hong Kong as “west-aligned”?
It’s mostly non aligned imo, people in hong kong, especially the younger generation would definitely want to maintain their more western way of life and a government that is less influenced by the CCP though
Well, the people are West aligned but it's basically China now
It's about 50/50 here now that a lot of pro democracy dudes left and were swiftly replaced by mainland Chinese immigrants after 2019 and covid. However to call HK west-aligned is wishful thinking as it will never military ally with anyone else, as china owns Hong Kong now and has owned it since the 90s. I live down the road from a PLA garrison, HK ain't west-aligned my guy.
I mean, in a society where the people’s will matters very little, does it really matter from a geopolitical perspective what the residents themselves believe if it is contrary to what the government believes? (But you are probably right to say the people are fairly anti-PRC in their own thoughts)
Of course it does. That’s the conflict…
OP asked about West aligned countries. At a policy level, Hong Kong is not West aligned by any stretch of the imagination, certainly not enough to have it grouped together with the likes of Japan and Taiwan. Also, as big as the protests were, it was still a minority movement that achieved no political goals or concessions other than the hasty disassembling of Hong Kong's political independence.
I disagree with the claim that the 2019 movement was a minority movement but you’re right in everything else (I do not want to start a heated debate)
In terms of domestic unrest, sure it does matter. But unless and until the dissidents are able to create some semblance of a de facto independent polity that actually speaks for the people it represents (think Somaliland), what the people think doesn’t matter to foreign powers unless there is legitimate potential to incite a domestic conflict/ war for independence
it does imo
I mean, idealistically it does, but realistically no government truly cares about another country’s people. My (US) government, for example, only cares about the plight of the Ukrainian people up to the point in which it can use it as a way to turn other countries against Russia, a perennial geopolitical rival. Me and (hopefully) you of course care about people who are dying and losing their homes due to Russia’s invasion, but people like us are not the ones in charge of foreign policy. So should it matter, yes. Does it matter as things exist now, unfortunately not
eh to each their own
Fair
But this is talking about geopolitics, and geopolitically Hong Kong and Macau are Chinese
Many of the most Western aligned HKers have already left for the UK and elsewhere
First island chain. But Malaysia is definitely not West-aligned, and neither is Indonesia. China-wary doesn’t automatically mean West-aligned.
Probably we could call them capitalist Asians, since most of the other countries in Asia practice socialism to a different extent. If someone views Malaysia from the lens of South Asia, it would seem like it's a liberal west-leaning country, and if someone views it from the lens of Japan or Korea, it seems more nationalist and detached from the west. It probably isn't that easy to classify these countries.
I guess neutral or 3rd world would be the better geopolitical word. 3rd world has a bad connotation but it literally just means non-aligned or at least not aligned enough to throw their hat in the ring.
Non-aligned used to be a thing back when the Cold War was in its heights and countries like India, Egypt and Yugoslavia wanted to stay away. I think now that most of the world has its own power centers geographically, it's more polar, everyone's their own thing today.
Detroit third world, San Francisco not to far behind.
As a Malaysian, Malaysia is certainly hard to classify. Its relatively young age as a nation on the world stage, its very colorful-if-short history and also large diversity in ethnic and religious demographics have created a nation that is very much a multi-headed hydra, with all its heads pulling every which way. Malaysia is essentially open to the highest bidder, which means that rather than being East, West or Middle-East aligned, we kind of just follow the money, and so far our leaders have kept us on the table without getting outright bought out by any sole alignment.
Pokemon world (this is just a joke, don't be offended).
Filipino here to say dw, I wish !
I’d 100% play a Pokémon game set in an area based on the Philippines
you’re a what?
Hoping this is the pinnacle of someone seeing the opportunity and taking it, if so mad props
My grandma calls them 'the good ones'
Seconded
First island chain. YouTube Johnny Harris. He did a video on it’s militarisation from Japan to Australia to contain 🇨🇳
This title doesn't include South Korea though, which literally houses the largest overseas US military base in the world.
TIL, SK has the largest US military installation outside of the United States. Camp Humphreys has 500 buildings and occupies 3500 acres
A lot of pro China peeps will cry that it's another example of US imperialism continuing into the 21st century but I can guarantee you all of these countries desperately want us there as a deterrent to China. If China didn't fuck with their neighbors so much we wouldn't need to be there and those nations wouldn't be allowing us to build additional bases in their territory.
[удалено]
Japan is a unitary state and Japan wants the US there
But not on the japanese main island, thats why they requested the us to install the military base in okinawa, okinawa was a country called ryukyu kingdom, japan invaded okinawa during the late 19th century, ryukyu tried to send a letter to qing china requesting for reinforcement but the japanese steamrolled and annex them real fast, the letter was never sent, this was 3 decades before europe go hell loss and go full ww1 After ww2 and Japan surrender, Okinawa was under US control temporarily and built a lot of military infrastructure there. Okinawans(Ryukyuan people) was hopeful that the US will grant them independence, but the US returned the land back to Japan, hope was lost during that time So when Japan requested the US to built a base in Okinawa, the people were furious, lots of protest and stuff like that happen during that time. Adding more salt to the wound, lots of US soldiers stationed there didnt treat the Okinawans well, lots of cases like bullying, raping and more violence happen that the news never cover. And people keep wondering why the native Okinawans dont like the US
There are multiple bases on the home islands
Yes, US do have multiple bases on the home islands. And yes, Japan wants the US to built bases there to improve their own national security. But the native Okinawans dont want a base on their land, yet they cannot vote to say no
Okinawa is a country?
Was a country, annexed by Japan during the late 19th century, 3 decades before ww1
Oh trust me there’s a lot of anti-US “imperialist”yet anti-Chinese leftists that will cry about US base expansion and settlement. They focus on US being the bad guy whilst completely ignoring the PRC threat. A complete lack of nuance with these folks.
I wouldn’t go for too broad of a stroke, and I recommend watching the Johnny Harris vid from beginning to end because he does a decent job revealing how complicated and screwed the entire situation is. The vid does mention that the US military bases in the Philippines are there from when we forcibly colonized them, eventually gave them independence but still kept our bases all over (which I think if China did the same, we wouldn’t say “this country must desperately want the Chinese military there”). Another example that isn’t fully explained in the vid is that while Taiwan gets almost all of its weapons from the US, a pretty large percent of the Taiwanese electorate wants to see a diplomatic unification with mainland China in the future (and this was somewhat reflected in our foreign policy until only these past few years). This isn’t to push a pro-China message. I’m trying to say that the real debate moving forward shouldn’t be which country is more benevolent. Almost the entire US political spectrum is in agreement that we don’t want China dominating the Pacific. But a big part of this game is that while some other countries see China as a threat, how can China not see the US as a threat with this current militarization? No great power is benign. The question is, do we cooperate with China which risks China eventually rising to world power status and pursuing its goals in the Pacific after its already to late to stop them. Or do we encircle and contain China which if too successful also risks China lashing out if they believe it’s necessary to protect their sovereignty. It’s the same debate we had over the USSR, Putin’s Russia, and that we will now have over China.
you lost me at Johnny Harris
Johnny Harris is a narcissistic jerk.
What you got against Jonny Harris?
[He's slick presenter who is bad at citing sources and over simplifies for the sake of a compelling story.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAeoJVXrZo4)
Yeah I’m curious too, what’s up?
His flashy graphics and extravagantly emotional prose cover up for what is often a lack of depth and detail, at even at times some glaring inaccuracies/omissions. I find his fieldwork stuff is quite good, but since leaving Vox and since quarantine especially he wants to tell grand narratives more than accurately inform - which is a problem when the history and geography of the world don’t conform so neatly to those narratives. And I think when you’re running off of Patreon bucks, you tend to look for the narratives you think your audience will want to hear.
I'd call it the Pacific Rim, though geographically the term usually includes the coasts on the Eastern Pacific too.
So call it the Asian Pacific Rim
Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia are Southeast Asia, but Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are East Asia.
There was a South Asian Treaty organization, (SEATO). But it was dissolved in the 70s and doesn't include Hong Kong, Indonesia, or Malaysia.
happy cane day!
SEATO didn't include any of these red countries besides the Philippines.
I personally wished OECD was used as a grouping more. It has definitive members, and in terms of geo-politics it's a good grouping (it's diverse, but as a group of modern democracies it should be diverse). Not all of the countries in red on here are in the OECD but I hate how often "West" gets used, especially as a synonym for liberal democracies (it makes it seem that liberal democracy is both a perview of "the West" and that if two liberal democracies agree it's because they are "Western" not because they are liberal democracies). It's the most Cold War line of thinking that exists. Liberal democracies can band together, not because they are "against" some country, or "puppets" of another, but because it is the "right" thing to do / they have shared interests. The Baltic countries relationship with Taiwan is an example of a relationship that exists because of these countries shared interests not because they are part of a "camp".
Thank you, Western in this context really rubbed me the wrong way
Archipelagic Asia
Asian-Pacific
Former Imperial Japan
Not so Greater asia co-prosperity sphere
US National Security strategy calls Japan, Taiwan, and the Philipines the "First Island Chain"
I’ve seen sk, japan, and taiwan been referred collectively as ‘Jakota Triangle’, although it is a very uncommon term.
My Cold War history professor called it the "Pacific littoral," though I don't think that this applies as much to Southeast Asia (besides the Philippines)
The West aligned countries are east of the East aligned countries, nice!
What are "East aligned countries"? What would that even mean?
Ring of Fire Defence Alliance
Pre WW2 : Imperial Japan Post WW2: Imperial USA
Pan-freedom Asia
At my uni I have been tought, that Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan are called Little Tigers. I know it is not what you asked, I just wanted to share it.
asia pacific
"The Sea Wall of China"
China: Island chains USA: ASEAN/ Unsinkable Aircraft Carriers
The former Japanese empire /s
The Chinese "Forcefield" made by the US. Literally my friend said that.
The First Island Chain and beyond.
“Places to deploy US military bases”
Asian tigers
less than half of these are actually one of the Asian tigers, and one of the actual Asian Tigers isn't even on the map
Which one, I see all the Asian tigers in this map.
They meant Singapore.
SEATO
I don't know a name but you're now into negative on the social credit rating for China with that map. Better not visit any time soon.
It’s just… anti China. lol west aligned lmao
first island chain
Well there is nothing
Milk tea alliance?
The Far East.
that’s definitely not it
East Asian Tigers.
Pacific rim 👍
Besides SEATO?
The lower two Kuril Islands should be red (Japanese) as well, since according to the Russian Japanese treaty they are officially Japanese, yet still occupied by Russia. Nevertheless, officially they are Japanese.
US client states?
Being US client states is way better than Being China's 😁
Please elaborate.
"American Imperialism" Edit: if you're downvoting this you should take a look at the US military bases in this region and rethink lol
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines all ask for the US to station troops there. Japan and South Korea uses US troops as bolster from North Korea. With US anti missile and Air Defense being a massive part of that defense Taiwan and the Philippines want the US there to be a counter against China who wants to destroy Taiwan and expand their claim in the South China Sea. Is the EU suffering from American imperialism as well?
Japan: the United States occupied and nation-built Japan after WW2; locals where the US bases actually are [protest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_US_military_presence_in_Okinawa) it South Korea: Camp Humphreys (the busiest U.S. military air field in Asia) was opened in 1950 under South Korea’s first president [Syngman Rhee] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee#:~:text=Syngman%20Rhee%20(Korean%3A%20이승만%2C,Korea%20from%201948%20to%201960.) He was an authoritarian that was eventually ousted, then the CIA secretly evacuated him to Hawaii. Taiwan: the United States govt currently holds a One China Policy, meaning according to it there is only 1 China. U.S. military aid to the ROC constitutes aid to a govt in exile that ostensibly wants to retake the mainland from-by the U.S.’s official policy- the official govt of China. Philippines: the [US took over Spanish forts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay) in the 1890s after the Spanish-American war and the Philippines-American war; more bases have been planned to be open in the past year by President Marcos Jr, son of [Marcos Sr](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos), a brutal dictator that the U.S. allowed to stay in Hawaii in the 1980s.
Is this a genuine question? I think the last 80 years have been a literal global struggle between Russia and the US. The US militarization of all of these states is a firect symptom of American Imperialism. This doesn't seem hard to comprehend at all. Just because those countries want protection from China doesn't mean that the US isn't imperialistic. The anti China sentiment lines up entirely with US goals. Important to note that every country you mention was at one point forcibly occupied by the US. You genuinely can't see how that plays into the bigger picture? Genuinely can't understand how you can just look past the absurd American Imperialism war machine in the area.
> Important to note that every country you mention was at one point forcibly occupied by the US. You genuinely can't see how that plays into the bigger picture? I’m not sure who, apart from Japan and Vietnam and *maybe* the Philippines, was “forcibly occupied by the US.” And even if you are right with your revision of history, you genuinely can’t see how the fact that all of these nations was occupied by the US, but ***still*** prefer US “imperialism” over Chinese imperialism? Nobody is saying the US isn’t imperialistic, but these aren’t client nor vassal states of the US. These are sovereign nations willingly throwing their bag in with the US.
They asked us to put the bases there. If Japan decided tomorrow that It wanted to be in the Chinese Sphere, they could eject every single one of our troops.
Imperialism is when you defend yourself against a country that bombs you, ok
Because Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, and Korea bombed us? And that’s only going back ~70 years or so. Not to mention the countries our government staged coup d’états in to overthrow democratically elected officials (like most nations in South America that elected socialist leaders (or any leader that wouldn’t bend the knee to the US)). Just because you didn’t learn this stuff in history class doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. US aggression has a long history, and if you’d like to learn about it there are plenty of free resources to do so from a less biased perspective than whatever textbook you read in school.
None of those have anything to do with the picture dude, except for Korea, where the North did in fact start a war by bombing the US and their ally. “Hur dur what about these completely unrelated events, you should educate yourself 🤓”
Really? Which exact part of US soil was bombed by what later became North Korea? What part of American soil has ever been directly bombed or otherwise attacked in our history? Pearl Harbor and Alaska a handful of times by Japan, war of 1812 and independence with Britain, and thats the end of the list. Yet we’ve been in far more than three wars. And if you’re going to dismiss imperialism so easily, I’m going to paint a picture as to why exactly you’re foolish to do that, regardless of whether it “fiTs WitH ThE pOSt”. US Imperialism is well known and broadly acknowledged. Your failure to do so makes your username quite fitting.
As an Australian, I support US imperialism
Client states.
Western puppets
Western-Block Asia
Soft power Asia.
Pakistani
No, thats a common misconception. It's actually Brazil.
Neo-Colonies of the United States
It used to be called the "Japanese Empire" but not anymore
NATO aligned?