File talk:Current Major Military Alliances.png

Austria and Taiwan mistakes

Mistake:

in the picture, Austria is a NATO-member which is not the case

also, Taiwan is included, but it is not party to any multinational military alliance, certainly not on the side of the PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.216.7.186 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Austria is part of the ESDP.
Argentina, Morocco, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, Thailand, Philippines, South Korea, and Japan are MNNA (formal US Allies).
SCO is not a military alliance (unlike NATO, ESDP, MNNA, CSTO).
118.92.233.43 (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Major non-NATO ally is not an alliance, while Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is. Emilfaro (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

NATO - ESDP - The question of the status of non-NATO EU members (Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Finland, Cyprus, Malta) with respect to NATO has clarified and evolved in recent years. With the defeat of an EU constitution and with the move of France towards Atlanticism, the notion of an EU military outside of NATO has changed. Also the disaster of UN and non-NATO military/peacekeeping in Europe (the Dutch under the UN in Bosnia being the worst), it is unlikely that a non-NATO command will again be allowed to operate inside of Europe. Under the Berlin agreement, NATO and the EU's ESDP are "non-separate but separable" and the EU may act outside of NATO only if NATO declines to act. The reality is since the EU is a sui genesis partner of NATO, the non-NATO EU states are sui genesis de facto members of NATO. There are domestic political realities that preclude a formal recognition of this reality, but that does not make it any less real. All save Malta sent forces to Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.5.66 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

EU

Let me express my opinion about this map.

I HATE seeing EU member states without the boundaries between them. My country is definitely not the same as Belgium or Portugal. Thank you. --212.36.9.135 (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Really nice) The en:Treaty of Lisbon will soon make this a reality. Emilfaro (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For purposes here a single dark blue area for the EU is fine since the national borders (white) within the EU would make the map less clear. To be consistent the border between the UK and Ireland should be eliminated. 7o62x39 (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Kosovo

Please can saomeone add it Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 10:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the UN recognize Kosovo? Emilfaro (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

European Boundries

Why do European countries not have boundries? With the exception of Switzerland and a few others, there are no boundries for the countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.78.26 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed no boundaries, how could that happen? Emilfaro (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Switzerland is a signee on the Schengen Agreement, so why would the swiss boundries show when other schengen countries do not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.78.26 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan

why is Taiwan shaded as a member of the SCO, CSTO. Its defacto independent so it should be gray. Don't give any BS that it officially part of the PRC they have no control over it so in my mind its not a part of the PRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo1986 (talk • contribs)

I agree that Taiwan should not be labeled as part of the SCO, or at the very least, should be labeled as a disputed region. User:Emilfaro keeps marking Taiwan as part of the SCO, which makes no sense (the People's Republic of China claims but does not administer Taiwan, as described in the article "political status of Taiwan", which gives further background) and, if anything, is the opposite of reality (relations between Taiwan and mainland China are tense). User:Emilfaro overwrote, on multiple occasions, versions of the map by User:Jjhcap99 (in the deleted English Wikipedia, rather than Wikimedia Commons, image page history) and User:Kavo that corrected the Taiwan error. —Lowellian (reply) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have created this map, sort of)) Taiwan is not recognized by the UN. Emilfaro (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not if Taiwan recognized by the UN or not, the fact is Taiwan is not part of China nor joins SCO.

Why does it matter if they're recognized by the UN or not if they're more likely to fight a military conflict with the PRC than ally with them?Toady Mcgee (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan does not have a military in the first place so the possibility of them allying with or fighting against the PRC is 0%. I don't see why they are being mentioned at all.--76.121.253.141 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not only does Taiwan has a military, it's one of the best trained in the world with focus purely on defense. Compulsory military service is still in place but it's about to be phased out in the next few years. It will be very easy to mobilize an army if the situation calls for one. Currently, Taiwan can only join official international organizations as a region or a special member, or in very rare cases as ROC, but NEVER as a country called Taiwan or PRC. So unless SCO or NATO recognize anything other than a country, Taiwan simply cannot be considered. The best representation in the map should be no alliance whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.136 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

what is the principle of grouping here?

Besides the question if SCO, PSC and SADC are comparable to NATO, ESDP and CSTO in terms of relations and activities I think there is a problem with the "combo" groups "NATO, ESDP" and "SCO, CSTO". Again NATO-ESDP and CSTO-SCO cooperations are at pretty different level and scale, but the factual problem is this:

• if "," means "AND" then Norway, Iceland, Turkey, Denmark, Albania, Croatia (outside ESDP) should be gray and China (outside CSTO) should be gray
• if "," means "OR" then Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria (ESDP) should be blue and Belarus, Armenia (CSTO) should be cyan.

Alinor (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You just love to speculate) How can you determine if SCO is comparable to NATO? This map indeed tries to recognize notable regional groupings related to en:Collective security. You are welcome to make your own version of the map and upload it to commons. Intrnet is a free country)) Emilfaro (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort Emilfaro but what is your definition of "Major Military Alliances"? I see none from this map. I agree with Alinor. When you post a map onto wiki you have responsibility not simply brushed off with "go make your own map."

The OAS with its collective security under the Rio Treaty is a far more influencial grouping than the embryonic SADC. The ANZUS alliance, the defensive compacts of the various pacific island nations with the US, NZ and Australia, along with the web of mutual defense pacts chiefly the USA-Japan, USA-Korea, USA-Philippines, Australia-Papua New Guinea, along with Singapore create a de facto second NATO in the East. Ignoring the existence of the Republic of China (Taiwan) by an appeal to recognition by the UN renders this map an ideological opinion rather a study of "major military alliances."

Azerbaijan is not an SCO member or Observer. Sri Lanka and Belarus are currently being extended observer status. The Chinese are building a naval base there and China and Russia backed Sri Lanka in its civil war against the Tamils.

The SADC is a loose council for discussions of continental security from external threats. It is nothing like or even comparable to NATO. Columbia is a military ally of the USA and joined SADC merely to have a place at the table and control its development and purpose. Venezuela and possibly Ecuador are currently sponsoring proxy war against Columbia and perhaps Peru.

NATO - If SCO observer Belarus is designated with the same color as members then NATO should include Macedonia and Montenegro (Membership Action Plan), Ukraine and Georgia (Promised Invitation), and Bosnia (Intensified Dialogue). The OAS has 61 "observers".

AU - Eritrea has been suspended from the AU. The AU is not a mutual defense military alliance of any significant cohesion. They send some troops in lieu of foreign troops mostly under the UN peacekeeping missions. The AU is an organization not an alliance.

The only recent comparable organization to NATO was the Warsaw Pact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7o62x39 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Additional Comments - The ANZUS alliance is far older, better established, more formally organized and more powerful than all the alliances on your map save NATO.

"Observer" status has very little to do with anything. India observes at the SCO for a variety of reasons, mostly to be assured that its not directed at them. The SCO invites India to observe to assure them that they, India, are not the primary focus of the group. India would sooner join ANZUS or NATO than the SCO as a military ally of China.

Japan, Korea (Rep), Australia have military attaches at NATO HQ and have de facto observer status. By virtue of ANZUS and the mutual defense pacts of Japan, Korea and Philippines with the USA, they are more of a NATO "observer" than the mutual military commitments of many you list in SCO. The SADC is absolutely silly to list as a major military alliance. Its own members are at war with each other through proxy armies (FARC and the Shining Path) in Columbia and Peru. Columbia has a defense pact with the USA.

Here's a test ... which countries sent forces to Afghanistan in defense of the USA? There are 41 national forces deployed under NATO-ISAF. India, Columbia and Mongolia are joining these forces this year. If you add to that nations that sent forces there under NATO-ISAF but currently have none, the number gets up to around 50. If you add those nations that sent troops to the original invation and occupation under Enduring Freedom, the number is around 60 nations. Japan, under the limitations of its pacifist constitution, deployed its largest naval force since WW2.

Here's another test, if war breaks out in Korea, who comes to the aid of the Republic of Korea and who backs the North Koreans? The Republic of Korea for sure gets joined by the USA, Japan (probably acting fully under a self-defense clause), Australia, Canada and the UK. I would expect the other NATO allies to all contribute to the defense of Korea. The alliance that would likely defend Korea represents something greater than 80% of all defense spending on the planet. That's a "major" military alliance. You think SCO is going to defend or aggress with North Korea? That's absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7o62x39 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

CSTO Treaty Alliance precludes SCO as a Military Alliance

The CSTO military treaty specifically precludes members from joining other military alliances. The SCO's only security element is an anti-terrorism program called RAT. China would have to join the CSTO for there to be a military alliance of mutual defense between Russia and China. This map should be removed from Wikipedia, it is far too flawed to meet any reasonable standard of accuracy. At the very least, the SCO should be replaced by the CSTO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7o62x39 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

NATO - Contact Countries

NATO has four contact countries in the East; Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand. While not formally NATO members all four countries have a defined formal relationship with NATO. Here's the acid test of the four eastern allies with NATO - to what extent did these four participate in each of the recent NATO operations. All four contributed to NATO-ISAF Afghanistan, with the Japanese pushing at the edge of their constitution with a massive Indian Ocean naval deployment in support of allied combat units. Australian combat forces operated under NATO command in the former Yugoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.5.66 (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

GUAM

The GUAM alliance is at least as much of a miltary alliance as SADC and SCO, see Ukraine's move to form a GUAM peacekeeping force and various initiatives on security. GUAM members are Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Georgia. Turkey and Estonia are observers (although I think listing observers within these alliances is dubious as they may observe for a variety of reasons beyond any intention to join. 7o62x39 (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

GCC-PS

The GCC's Penninsular Shield is a formal military alliance of the Gulf States, members are Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait with Yemen in process to join eventually. 7o62x39 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

FPDA

The Five Powers Defense Agreement binds the UK, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and New Zealand to the defense of Singapore, Malaysia and the Straights. 7o62x39 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

India

India's foreign policy and geopolitical strategy is ideosyncratic, complex and evolving. They begin with realism and nationalism, acting in self-interest under realpolitik. India's view towards Asia and the Indian Ocean are similar to the UK's 500 year old strategy with respect to Europe - they act as the player which balances power. India during the Cold War sided with the USSR as the USA went with Pakistan. Indian nationalism made it difficult for India to align itself for a generation with the UK. Today, India has a major initiative with the USA and France on nuclear technology. India is preparing to sending forces to aid the USA in Afghanistan. The Indians are none-too-keen on the Chinese naval base being built in Sri Lanka. India is seeking stability in and reproachment with Pakistan and a de-militarization of Kashmire. They have communist insurgencies in East Bangal and the eastern India and are well aware of who supplies them with support. India is also concerned with developments in Nepal and the Maoists there (along with Chinese influence). On economics, India works with Brazil, Russia and China (along with others) to tilt the balance of power towards the "South" against the "North". But in military matters they are tilting slightly towards the USA/Canada/EU/East Asian/AUS-NZ "allies". India will not soon join any major power's military alliance (Russia, China, EU/USA/Japan), rather they would sooner build an alliance of their own of nations around the Indian Ocean basin with whom they share national interests. India sees itself correctly as an emerging world power, an ancient civilization and rightfully as a UN Security Council member as a victorious allied partner in WW2 and now a nuclear power. 7o62x39 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Brazil

Like India, Brazil's foreign policy is evolving and complex. Understanding Brazil starts with WW2. Brazil had a complex internal debate about what to do. They sought an allied victory but with a limit on any expansion of US influence in the Americas. But most importantly they sought industrialization. The USA and Brazil came to a complicated and inconsistent "understanding". The relationship worked particularly well in naval cooperation in the South Atlantic. The air elements of the army cooperated well too, in creating the Brazil-Senegal trans-Atlantic air link. In the 1930s, both the USA and Brazil had substantially de-militarized and at the outbreak of war in 1939 had very limited miltary power to project other than naval assets. The USA had to supply its own rapidly expanding army while keeping the British allies and Chinese supplied in the field (at this time Germany and the USSR were allies having started WW2 in the West with the invasion of Poland). The USA's number one priority was the defense of the Americas even before the defense of the UK. The OAS and its mutual defense elements derive from this project.

The British Commonwealth and the divided Chinese stood alone (the Chinese nationalists having to fight both the Japanese and the opportunistic ChiComs who were content to avoid major engagements with the Japanese). The arming of Brazil was slow and Brazil's infantry division wasn't deployed into Italy until late in the war (where it operated as an integrated unit in the US army). Brazil was a victorious power in WW2 contributing as they could at the time. But most importantly for Brazil was the Americans did help them complete their initial industrialization. Brazil's claim for a Security Council seat at the UN, begins with this fact, that Brazil is the 9th largest economy in the world, it contributes significantly to UN peacekeeping operations, and would represent the Latin American civilivation.

During the Cold War, Brazil operated as a non-aligned nation with a dual goal of precluding communist expansion into the Americas while also seeking to thwart American imperialism. Today, Brazil is governed by former Marxists who are now democrats and somewhat market oriented although not liberals. The Global Economic Crisis has moved Brazil somewhat left and economics now dominates over military concerns. Brazil needs free and fair trade to continue its economic growth and increase of its standard of living. Their orientation is much more economic North-South than military East-West. The greatest military concern for Brazil is peace in South America and a multitude of insurgencies that could easily expand into state on state wars or civil war - Bolivia - (where the USA would likely intervene at some level on behalf of states or forces aligned with the West). While sympathetic with the South American Far Left they are not interested in a spread of Communist dictatorships. Brazil believes that radicalism is a product of proverty, injustice and racism and must be contained by addressing these root causes. Brazil's relationship with the USA may improve with President Obama's center-left and internationalist global vision from that of the neocon and nationalist President Bush. But Brazil's North-South world view and hostility towards a unipolar world under a too powerful and expansionist USA will keep Brazil seeking partners to diverify political, economic and military power more evenly across the world. 7o62x39 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

AU Membership errors, Western Sahara not recognized by the UN, Republic of China et al.

Mauritania, Guinea, Madagascar and Eritrea have been suspended from the AU.

Western Sahara is a not recognized by the UN as a nation although it is recognized by the AU, which is why Morocco is not in the AU. To be consistent with your UN nations per Taiwan and Kosovo, Western Sahara should not be included in your map (I know delisting your Marxist Polisario pals will hurt but consistentcy does matter). Russia recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia and has championed their inclusion into the CSTO. So if the AU recognizes Western Sahara but the UN doesn't how does it get listed on your map? If NATO recognizes Kosovo but the UN doesn't how does that get recognized on your map? If the CSTO recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia but the UN doesn't how does thta get recognized on your map? If France/USA and others recognize the Republic of Korea as the sole government of Korea - that is a "one Korea" policy how does this differ from your treatment of the PRC-ROC? 7o62x39 (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

European States

Why are there no borders between the SOVEREIGEN STATES of Europe???

The European Union is no state, it is an economic and monetary union!!!

I am proud to be an citizen of the sovereign Republic of Austria and my heart hurts every time when I see such maps!!!

A single dark blue area for the EU is not fine and it makes the map not less clear.

If you don't believe me look at this:

File:Current Major Military Alliances New.PNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.129.36.45 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How about map of all current military alliances?

Hello, I am just wondering if such a map exists on Wikipedia. This would also include overlapping military alliances. For example, the CSTO (not included in this map) includes part of the membership of the SCO, as well as some members not in the SCO. I think such a map would be extremely useful to understanding global politics. Esn (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, a follow-up question. Is the SCO actually a military alliance, or just a military "cooperation" organization? I note that in both NATO and the SCTO, aggression against one signatory is perceived as aggression against all (which one would naturally think is the definition of a military alliance). Is that also the case for the SCO? In other words, should the SCO even be included here? Esn (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)