China-Japan future flashpoint?

[PainRack]

Why would China consider itself "boxed in"? Economic growth does not equal to greater military capabilities directly. Faster growth may rely on the civilian and often foreign-controlled enterprises (as it was with China before the last decade). This decade China is growing slower, but unlike the last decade, the Chinese state is rich and not cash-strapped: it can embark on ambitious programs that include building weapons in greater quantity and with greater quality than ever. So every new year of slow growth actually gives the Chinese state the time to build up its military.

Because the politics is creating an environment where China freedom of action is increasingly restricted?

And the ideology of nationalism and Chinese sovereignty over said lands is increasingly being pushed back by Asian countries relying on the US promise of freedom?

[K. A. Pital]

Because the politics is creating an environment where China freedom of action is increasingly restricted?

China's cooperation with other SEA nations is hardly being restricted. Resources are being secured from all over the place, Myanmar to Laos, and intellectual cooperation with, say, Singapore seems to grow. Compare that with Japan, which suffered from inability to secure these resources, up to an embargo.

And the ideology of nationalism and Chinese sovereignty over said lands is increasingly being pushed back by Asian countries relying on the US promise of freedom?

Is it really? I mean, other than Taiwan, which lands are we talking about?

[mr friendly guy]

AFAIK countries which have territorial disputes with China are pushing back by upgrading their military and turning up the rhetoric. No one has suggested trade with China should cease. Moreover the some of the political push back involves trying to get ASEAN to work as a group against China's claims. Now ASEAN was created for many reasons including a) not interfering with the affairs of members and b) fight communist ideology (which one would think isn't needed since China is communist in name only). Its hard to stretch it into arguing the territorial disputes of members against non ASEAN countries, and predictably ASEAN members who are either pro China or have no disputes with China don't want to get involve.

In short the restriction isn't in terms of economic freedoms aside from not being able to access resources around those disputed territories.

[Ralin]

ts hard to stretch it into arguing the territorial disputes of members against non ASEAN countries, and predictably ASEAN members who are either pro China or have no disputes with China don't want to get involve.

"China is this huge behemoth that we don't have any hopes of standing up to militarily and economically without cooperating" isn't much of a stretch. There's a reason why China refuses to discuss the disputed territories anyway other than with each individual country.

Really man, I'm as pro-China as anyone, but how the hell do you expect countries like Vietnam to react?

[PainRack]

China's cooperation with other SEA nations is hardly being restricted. Resources are being secured from all over the place, Myanmar to Laos, and intellectual cooperation with, say, Singapore seems to grow. Compare that with Japan, which suffered from inability to secure these resources, up to an embargo.

Who said anything about economics? The current flashpoint is over Chinese sovereignty, and in Chinese eyes, the defence of her realm.
Its..... not that difficult to see why they think that way. however, the reason why they're increasingly assertive is due to a combination of both Chinese strength and their perception of resistance in asserting their sovereign right over Chinese territories.

Is it really? I mean, other than Taiwan, which lands are we talking about?

All of them. To put it simply, Hilary Clinton remarks at APEC about not allowing unilateral resolution was followed by more assertive actions from Myanmar, Thailand, Phillipines, Vietnam and Japan in their territorial disputes with China.


The thing is, its a game of diplomats and politics and not anywhere remotely close to a Cold War conflict. But in the modern era where a reason for war could be quickly manufactured, i.e, Iraq, its easy to see why people are concerned that any potential mistake might erupt into a brushfire. No world war scenario sure, but a shooting incident where lives are lost? Most certainly.

Just look at what happened in Thailand vs Cambodia a few years back.

[PainRack]

ts hard to stretch it into arguing the territorial disputes of members against non ASEAN countries, and predictably ASEAN members who are either pro China or have no disputes with China don't want to get involve.

"China is this huge behemoth that we don't have any hopes of standing up to militarily and economically without cooperating" isn't much of a stretch. There's a reason why China refuses to discuss the disputed territories anyway other than with each individual country.

Really man, I'm as pro-China as anyone, but how the hell do you expect countries like Vietnam to react?

Its....... not even that actually. While there are newspaper talk about miltiary co-operation between say Vietnam and Japan, the real focus is on re-asserting sovereign right over said islands.

What people seems to have forgotten is that everyone in the nineties wanted to resolve said disputes through diplomacy and international courts. However, there's been a snafu. China has increasingly exercised sovereign rights over the disputed territories in the South China Seas, from building light houses to fishing. Give it a few more years and just like Pedra Banca or that Indonesian island I can't recall off hand, they WOULD win such a case in the ICJ. So, Vietnam re-asserted sovereign rights by backing oil exploration..... which China of course is rejecting. Phillipines did so via increasing its fishing and kicking out 'poachers'. Which China counter-push.......

They didn't dare to do it prior because China was the growing giant that everybody needed post fianicial crisis and their security weakness. Now, although their economies are more tightly linked, it is in a better situation and they're banking on US aid with their security concerns, in an attempt to improve their political situation in said territories so that when the case does eventually go to the courts, their position won't be fatally compromised.


What's disturbing is the potential rise of an increasingly nationalist generation of Chinese and military officers who's viewing this in a different light. Namely, their actions to exert sovereign rights is being restricted and of course, other nations are trying to exercise control in said disputed territories.

[mr friendly guy]

ts hard to stretch it into arguing the territorial disputes of members against non ASEAN countries, and predictably ASEAN members who are either pro China or have no disputes with China don't want to get involve.

"China is this huge behemoth that we don't have any hopes of standing up to militarily and economically without cooperating" isn't much of a stretch. There's a reason why China refuses to discuss the disputed territories anyway other than with each individual country.

Really man, I'm as pro-China as anyone, but how the hell do you expect countries like Vietnam to react?

The same way I expect all countries to react - in a manner to benefit their national interests. However I am pointing out that
a) some ASEAN countries will also react in their own national interest, which is not to get involve when they don't have a dispute with China. The obvious one is Cambodia.

b) since ASEAN wasn't created to be used in the manner say Vietnam wants it to be * its obviously going to run into problems. I mean when the UK joined the US military adventurism, can it also expect the entire EU to join in because they are a bloc?


* the purpose of ASEAN's founding are " so that its members’ governing elite could concentrate on nation building, the common fear of communism, reduced faith in or mistrust of external powers in the 1960s, and a desire for economic development."

[Ralin]

a) some ASEAN countries will also react in their own national interest, which is not to get involve when they don't have a dispute with China. The obvious one is Cambodia.

But it could easily be in their long-term best interests to have an ASEAN who can put up an united front for its members against unfavorable Chinese demands. Cambodia is benefiting from Chinese investment now. No telling what's going to happen in the future.

b) since ASEAN wasn't created to be used in the manner say Vietnam wants it to be * its obviously going to run into problems. I mean when the UK joined the US military adventurism, can it also expect the entire EU to join in because they are a bloc?


* the purpose of ASEAN's founding are " so that its members’ governing elite could concentrate on nation building, the common fear of communism, reduced faith in or mistrust of external powers in the 1960s, and a desire for economic development."

And NATO was formed as an anti-Soviet alliance. Do you really not see how the fear of communism and mistrust of external powers parts of that would logically develop into similar feelings towards Chinese military and economic power now?

[mr friendly guy]

But it could easily be in their long-term best interests to have an ASEAN who can put up an united front for its members against unfavorable Chinese demands. Cambodia is benefiting from Chinese investment now. No telling what's going to happen in the future.

If you are going down the "what if" route, I can simply say Vietnam is running into problems with China now over the dispute, but no telling what's going to happen in the future. They might even benefit from doing a deal with China like how Tajikistan ceded a small amount of land to China in their border dispute, kept most of the disputed land and now Chinese investment comes in without the political baggage from disputed land.

Again in the current situation, it certainly is in the best interest of certain ASEAN members to put up a united front, but not all of them. Which is the point.

And NATO was formed as an anti-Soviet alliance. Do you really not see how the fear of communism and mistrust of external powers parts of that would logically develop into similar feelings towards Chinese military and economic power now?

In answer to your points
1. So what?
2. Yes its possible, but
a) if that was true right now, then all ASEAN nations would automatically side against China and
b) what's that got to do with my point that ASEAN is being asked to do something it wasn't created for.

If ASEAN wanted to change its purpose / charter etc etc and this new purpose included what Vietnam is asking it to do (stand as a bloc for the territorial disputes of all its members against a non ASEAN nation), then yeah they can. Of course that would require more nations willing to reform ASEAN in this manner and changing a charter would just be a formal recognition of what they want to do anyway.

Edit - Again when nations join a bloc like ASEAN there are certain expectations and benefits from it. In the interest of fairness these must be known so a nation can be informed about whether they want to join or not. I am unaware asking ASEAN members to negotiate as a block in territorial disputes involving some of them with a non ASEAN member was one of the expectations of members.

[K. A. Pital]

Who said anything about economics? The current flashpoint is over Chinese sovereignty, and in Chinese eyes, the defence of her realm. Its..... not that difficult to see why they think that way. however, the reason why they're increasingly assertive is due to a combination of both Chinese strength and their perception of resistance in asserting their sovereign right over Chinese territories.

But is there a problem that could spiral into a large war? Japan and China have a history of tensions, nothing changes here. Also: Chinese sovereignity does not extend to Myanmar, Thailand et cetera, although they are drawn into China's orbit economically and it is clear that they will be more and more reliant on China's economic cooperation. The one territory that China is very seriously concerned about is Taiwan. The other territories (disputed islands) are not worth fighting a major war over, so a "hot spot" shooting a-la Damansky is the most that one could imagine arising from these disputes. Without serious economic problems, there is no incentive for small incidents to spiral into grand wars.

All of them. To put it simply, Hilary Clinton remarks at APEC about not allowing unilateral resolution was followed by more assertive actions from Myanmar, Thailand, Phillipines, Vietnam and Japan in their territorial disputes with China.

I am not sure that these disputes are big enough for China to risk a big war. specially with Japan, which is the thread subject. Your Thailand-Cambodia example is noted, but that's precisely why a huge conflict between China and Japan is unlikely in my view.

[PainRack]

But is there a problem that could spiral into a large war? Japan and China have a history of tensions, nothing changes here. Also: Chinese sovereignity does not extend to Myanmar, Thailand et cetera, although they are drawn into China's orbit economically and it is clear that they will be more and more reliant on China's economic cooperation. The one territory that China is very seriously concerned about is Taiwan. The other territories (disputed islands) are not worth fighting a major war over, so a "hot spot" shooting a-la Damansky is the most that one could imagine arising from these disputes. Without serious economic problems, there is no incentive for small incidents to spiral into grand wars.

Like I said, I honestly doubt that any of this will spiral into a grand war barring some diplomatic FUBAR scenario, well, save for Taiwan as you noted. However, the initial point was whether China felt it was being boxed in and the tensions with regards to that.

I am not sure that these disputes are big enough for China to risk a big war. specially with Japan, which is the thread subject. Your Thailand-Cambodia example is noted, but that's precisely why a huge conflict between China and Japan is unlikely in my view.

To be frank, my fear would be more along the lines of a potential mini Cold War scenario, where politics and military posturing starts to get involved but the economics didn't, since a 1960s type China embargo is now impossible.

Such a scenario unfortunately doesn't prevent the possibility of a shooting incident.

[K. A. Pital]

The actual Cold War was a string of very serious embargos. Trade and technology transfer between the First and Second World was extremely limited - some parts, like Cuba, have special mega-embargoes against them until this day, the USSR had a major industrial goods trade embargo with only select types of trade being possible (like sellling oil or gold to the West). So if it's economically impossible to impose something like the anti-Japanese embargo or anti-Soviet embargo against modern China... I kinda wonder if the "cold war" thing would really work.

[Ralin]

If you are going down the "what if" route, I can simply say Vietnam is running into problems with China now over the dispute, but no telling what's going to happen in the future. They might even benefit from doing a deal with China like how Tajikistan ceded a small amount of land to China in their border dispute, kept most of the disputed land and now Chinese investment comes in without the political baggage from disputed land.

Again in the current situation, it certainly is in the best interest of certain ASEAN members to put up a united front, but not all of them. Which is the point.

In answer to your points
1. So what?
2. Yes its possible, but
a) if that was true right now, then all ASEAN nations would automatically side against China and
b) what's that got to do with my point that ASEAN is being asked to do something it wasn't created for.

If ASEAN wanted to change its purpose / charter etc etc and this new purpose included what Vietnam is asking it to do (stand as a bloc for the territorial disputes of all its members against a non ASEAN nation), then yeah they can. Of course that would require more nations willing to reform ASEAN in this manner and changing a charter would just be a formal recognition of what they want to do anyway.

Edit - Again when nations join a bloc like ASEAN there are certain expectations and benefits from it. In the interest of fairness these must be known so a nation can be informed about whether they want to join or not. I am unaware asking ASEAN members to negotiate as a block in territorial disputes involving some of them with a non ASEAN member was one of the expectations of members.

Now you're just running your mouth and splitting legalist hairs, and I'm not interested in that. It's very clear why ASEAN should want to be able to present an united front against Chinese territorial demands and no they don't need to restart the entire thing from scratch to do that.

[Patroklos]

Is it really? I mean, other than Taiwan, which lands are we talking about?

Vietnam and te Phillipines for starters.

[mr friendly guy]

Now you're just running your mouth and splitting legalist hairs, and I'm not interested in that. It's very clear why ASEAN should want to be able to present an united front against Chinese territorial demands and no they don't need to restart the entire thing from scratch to do that.

Yet you totally ignore the fact as pointed out that not all of them want to present a united front or else they would have done so already. The fact that some of them have a good reason for united front is not in dispute. The claim that ALL of them have a good reason (even those that aren't in a dispute with China) is not proven and merely stated by yourself.

You also ignore my point about the reasons for a nation joining a bloc and hand wave it as legalist. Sorry, but if someone joins an organisation based on certain premises, and then the organisation wants to change what it does, is that person not entitled to point out I didn't sign up for this? Are they not entitled to argue not to change?

BTW - I love how its ok to engage in speculation and say "no telling whats going to happen in the future" but when I do the same trick even though its just to illustrate how stupid that tactic is, it becomes a case of me "running my mouth".

[PainRack]

Its not that ASEAN doesn't want to present a front against territory grabbing. They do.

What they disagree on is the measures involved. Singapore and Thailand doesn't want aggressive, military actions to prevent territory grabbing. ASEAN was NEVER intended to be a military alliance anyway.

Singapore is also hesitant to step into the diplomatic fracas of saying "this is Myanmar territory, this is Vietnam, this is Chinese".

The Association itself was always intended to be a diplomatic gathering to discuss such disputes in a multilateral setting. As long as China doesn't actively start a war of conquest, its not going to do anything like present a united front against Chinese aggression because the members disagree on the actions that should be taken.

[mr friendly guy]

So some ASEAN nations want military actions which was not the intentions of ASEAN when it was formed. I am partially right about some members wanting ASEAN to be used in a manner it wasn't intended.

Actually scratch that. Singapore is pretty much neutral aside from saying the usual hope it can resolved peacefully spiel. While Cambodia is also accused to helping China. So that pretty much rules out a united front given the present circumstances. This of course can change in the future depending on what China does or doesn't do.

[Ralin]

You also ignore my point about the reasons for a nation joining a bloc and hand wave it as legalist. Sorry, but if someone joins an organisation based on certain premises, and then the organisation wants to change what it does, is that person not entitled to point out I didn't sign up for this? Are they not entitled to argue not to change?

Again, NATO. Organizations their purpose and goals over time. Deal with it.

BTW - I love how its ok to engage in speculation and say "no telling whats going to happen in the future" but when I do the same trick even though its just to illustrate how stupid that tactic is, it becomes a case of me "running my mouth".

Are you seriously so stupid that you can't tell the difference between "It's in ASEAN member nations' best interest to have each others back when China starts throwing their weight around" and your example?

[mr friendly guy]

Again, NATO. Organizations their purpose and goals over time. Deal with it.

I dealt with it several posts ago you dyslexic fuckwit. By pointing out there are members who aren't interested at the present time of changing purpose. Deal with it. Oh wait you can't, aside from stating all NATO members wanted to change their purpose, therefore all ASEAN members also want to. I am in awe of your reasoning ability. We got a regular genius here.

Are you seriously so stupid that you can't tell the difference between "It's in ASEAN member nations' best interest to have each others back when China starts throwing their weight around" and your example?

What's that line again? Oh yeah justify it. All this time you have not been able to justify why its in ALL ASEAN member's interest other than to state it with authorial fiat. If its so obvious why can't you justify it? Heck, you can't even bother to explain why its in the interest of members who don't have a territorial dispute with China to get involve beyond say, making public statements about how it should be resolved peacefully. Oh wait. You will just say its obvious and people who can't see it are stupid, which includes the leaders of several ASEAN nations who disagree with you.

[K. A. Pital]

Again, NATO. Organizations their purpose and goals over time. Deal with it.

NATO always was a superimperialist bloc. The demise of its adversaries is irrelevant.

[Kane Starkiller]

This is untrue. NATOs purpose was quite specifically to oppose USSRs westward expansion into Europe. Nor was NATO a homogenous group since the interests and threats faced by countries were not the same.
For Germany, half of which was under de facto occupation, the threat posed by USSR was overwhelming. It could either accept any and all conditions imposed by USSR or it could engage 100% with US. Germany decided to oppose USSR and was thus one of the closest US allies during the Cold War. German preocupation was the Fulda Gap not restoration of influence in Tanganyka.

UK, on the other hand, was pretty much secure from any land invasion attempt by USSR. For them this was a continuation of the Great Game and maintaining balance of power on the European continent. Alliance with US wasn't as critical for UK as it was for Germany during the Cold War but at the same time the risks weren't as great either. Therefore UK too had a close alliance with US.

France, located behind Germany and Rhine, was just secure enough to have options in Cold War but not secure enough to believe it can risk US being late for WW3 as it was for WW2 and WW1. Therefore it tried to chart a more independent course within NATO: being able to retaliate against USSR attack alone but at the same time not being a part of NATO command so that it can choose not to get involved in a USSR invasion of Germany if they suspect US will not get involved or will be late to the party.

There was no real desire for either country to support each other outside of the context of central european theater. Certainly France, Germany or even US showed no enthusiasm to support UK during the Falklands.

NATO lost much of its cohesion after collapse of USSR regardless of the fact that there was no official proclamation of the end of NATO. Support for war in Iraq being the prime example.

[K. A. Pital]

This is untrue. NATOs purpose was quite specifically to oppose USSRs westward expansion into Europe. Nor was NATO a homogenous group since the interests and threats faced by countries were not the same.

Since the USSR didn't really expand into Western Europe beyond the demarcation lines and even basically sold off Greece in a cynical deal with Churchill, the purpose of NATO was most certainly not that. At various points NATO countries engaged in wars with countries that are not in Europe.

For Germany, half of which was under de facto occupation, the threat posed by USSR was overwhelming. It could either accept any and all conditions imposed by USSR or it could engage 100% with US. Germany decided to oppose USSR and was thus one of the closest US allies during the Cold War. German preocupation was the Fulda Gap not restoration of influence in Tanganyka.

Germany was a demilitarized occupied territory with hardly a semblance of self-government at first. Therefore its inclusion into NATO was not so much political as it was territorial. Core independent NATO powers (US, UK, France) were and remained imperialistic. At the point of the bloc's creation two of the three were formal true empires having real colonies and corresponding colonial wars, for Pete's sake!

For them this was a continuation of the Great Game

I dislike the bullshit obfuscating term "Great Game" and prefer the term imperialism. Great Game implies something interesting and funny, kind of like a harmless game of chess. Imperialism implies a killfuckerous "game" where people's lives are put on the board like pawns.

Alliance with US wasn't as critical for UK as it was for Germany during the Cold War but at the same time the risks weren't as great either. Therefore UK too had a close alliance with US.

The UK was bankrupt after World War II and its Empire was disintegrating. Seriously, Kane. That's not a point where an alliance with the largest and most badass industrial power on Earth is "not critical".

There was no real desire for either country to support each other outside of the context of central european theater. Certainly France, Germany or even US showed no enthusiasm to support UK during the Falklands.

None of the countries really interfered with the colonialist slaughter by others. UK and US didn't bomb France because of Algeria, and the US only diplomatically pressured France and Britain very softly during the invasion of Egypt to secure their colonialist "property".

NATO lost much of its cohesion after collapse of USSR regardless of the fact that there was no official proclamation of the end of NATO. Support for war in Iraq being the prime example.

Being a superimperialistic bloc doesn't mean all nations blindly follow into war. Some nations in WARPAC refused to lend forces for Czechoslovakian intervention, for example. It doesn't mean WARPAC was not a superimperialistic bloc at least in capabilities, but perhaps also very much so in intent during the later years. NATO allows its members (France, UK, US) to conduct imperialistic invasions and do imperialistic shit in Africa and all across the world with impunity. That's enough. All nations stand neutral when another NATO nation does something like this and sometimes send forces.

Kind of like Franco helped Hitler and Mussolini at little bit, while remaining fomally neutral in World War II. Doesn't really change the fact all fascists were together in that European boat in the 1930s.

[Kane Starkiller]

Since the USSR didn't really expand into Western Europe beyond the demarcation lines and even basically sold off Greece in a cynical deal with Churchill, the purpose of NATO was most certainly not that. At various points NATO countries engaged in wars with countries that are not in Europe.

Are you saying that France and Germany should have waited for USSR to start crossing their borders before joining an alliance? This is cut and dried. No such alliance between UK, Germany, France and US was ever contempleted before WW1 and was obviously a direct reaction to Red Army reaching the center of Germany. NATO was formed for a very specific purpose. That members also engaged in other activities hardly disproves that fact. Nor does using small countries like poker chips mean that USSR wasn't considered a primary threat.

Germany was a demilitarized occupied territory with hardly a semblance of self-government at first. Therefore its inclusion into NATO was not so much political as it was territorial. Core independent NATO powers (US, UK, France) were and remained imperialistic. At the point of the bloc's creation two of the three were formal true empires having real colonies and corresponding colonial wars, for Pete's sake!

At first yes. Later Germany became an active and willing participant in its own right. Again: the fact that France and UK had colonies in no way means that NATO was formed for the purpose of expanding or maintaining those colonies. France and UK were perfectly fine with being each others competitors for most of their colonial reign. Formation of NATO is a glaringly obvious reaction to the USSRs arrival at the center of Europe.

The UK was bankrupt after World War II and its Empire was disintegrating. Seriously, Kane. That's not a point where an alliance with the largest and most badass industrial power on Earth is "not critical".

You put quotation marks around "not critical" as if you are quoting me however I haven't wrote anything of the sort. I said that it wasn't as critical. UK fared better than both France and Germany and there was no overland link to the USSR. Hence the alliance with US wasn't as critical for its survival. The alliance did however prove to be more enduring than that with France and Germany because of enduring alingment of geoplitical intersts (keeping anyone from dominating Europe and Eurasia) and cultural and economic similarities.

None of the countries really interfered with the colonialist slaughter by others. UK and US didn't bomb France because of Algeria, and the US only diplomatically pressured France and Britain very softly during the invasion of Egypt to secure their colonialist "property".

Which again doesn't mean that NATO was formed for the goal of imperial expansion.

Being a superimperialistic bloc doesn't mean all nations blindly follow into war. Some nations in WARPAC refused to lend forces for Czechoslovakian intervention, for example. It doesn't mean WARPAC was not a superimperialistic bloc at least in capabilities, but perhaps also very much so in intent during the later years. NATO allows its members (France, UK, US) to conduct imperialistic invasions and do imperialistic shit in Africa and all across the world with impunity. That's enough. All nations stand neutral when another NATO nation does something like this and sometimes send forces.

Kind of like Franco helped Hitler and Mussolini at little bit, while remaining fomally neutral in World War II. Doesn't really change the fact all fascists were together in that European boat in the 1930s.

WARPAC wasn't a superimperialistic bloc. It was mostly a colonial empire of the USSR fully occupied by the Red Army and their goverments installed and maintained in power by the USSR. The exceptions being Romania and Albania, the countries which opposed the intervention into Czechoslovakia.
US wasn't doing anything about French and UK colonial empire before NATO. US didn't much after NATO. (Although I'll note you are downplaying the extent of US opposition to France and Germany during Suez crisis and how much that signaled to both countries that the days of their global empires are pretty much over). Perfectly consistent with the fact that NATO wasn't about colonial empires but primarily about confronting USSR.

[K. A. Pital]

NATO was formed for a very specific purpose. That members also engaged in other activities hardly disproves that fact. Nor does using small countries like poker chips mean that USSR wasn't considered a primary threat.

I prefer to judge by the actions instead of judging by statements. All great powers' statements have rung hollow in the past, and believing known liars is just stupid.

France and UK were perfectly fine with being each others competitors for most of their colonial reign. Formation of NATO is a glaringly obvious reaction to the USSRs arrival at the center of Europe.

I never said that the existence of a rival did not matter. However, France and Britain were in an alliance which preceded the USSR's existence. Same for the US ties to France and Britain. The super-imperialist bloc was already emerging before World War II. The utter destruction of a rival bloc (Axis) further solidified its position.

UK fared better than both France and Germany and there was no overland link to the USSR. Hence the alliance with US wasn't as critical for its survival. The alliance did however prove to be more enduring than that with France and Germany because of enduring alingment of geoplitical intersts (keeping anyone from dominating Europe and Eurasia) and cultural and economic similarities.

You meant that Europeans wanted to dominate Asia and Africa themselves. Because Europe was obviously dominated by the US after the war - ravaged and aid-reliant.

Which again doesn't mean that NATO was formed for the goal of imperial expansion.

Imperial maintenance is more like it. The USSR was a primary source of anti-colonial funding in the post-WWII period. Once again real actions against declarations.

WARPAC wasn't a superimperialistic bloc. It was mostly a colonial empire of the USSR fully occupied by the Red Army and their goverments installed and maintained in power by the USSR. The exceptions being Romania and Albania, the countries which opposed the intervention into Czechoslovakia.

US forces stand in Germany and Japan until this day - and during the formation of NATO, most of Western Europe was just occupied land. Your high horse just died, sorry. WARPAC was a super-imperialist bloc. It allowed its nations to do what they will. Vietnam was allowed to run its own wars, the USSR was not supported directly in the Afghanistan intervention, etc. Much like the US and other powers in US orbit basically did whatever they wanted with little comments from other members of the alliance.

US wasn't doing anything about French and UK colonial empire before NATO. US didn't much after NATO. (Although I'll note you are downplaying the extent of US opposition to France and Germany during Suez crisis and how much that signaled to both countries that the days of their global empires are pretty much over). Perfectly consistent with the fact that NATO wasn't about colonial empires but primarily about confronting USSR.

Like I said, the superimperialistic bloc started forming before NATO. You are right, the US did not do shit about European colonial Empires, because before WWII it slaughtered the Philippine people then annexed the place as a colony and ruled it directly. It was just another brutal colonial Empire with a republican order in the metropole. NATO was the natural evolution of the pre-WWII collusion of France, Britain, US and some lesser European powers. The USSR was a convenient pretext to unite the most economically developed territories of Europe and America into a gigantic military union and exclude the chance of rivalry between members of the bloc. This untied the hands of imperialist powers for the duration of Cold War and well after it ended.

The actual power of the USSR was a good solidifying threat, but even after it was gone, NATO did not stop existing and, in fact, expanded. Imperialistic interventions did not stop.

[Kane Starkiller]

I prefer to judge by the actions instead of judging by statements. All great powers' statements have rung hollow in the past, and believing known liars is just stupid.

Well then judge them by their actions. How many tanks, cruise missiles, soldiers and radars did NATO amass in Europe? Compared with the amount of money they spent on colonial adventures? Why did Netherlands allow US to station nuclear weapons on its soil? To recover Indonesia? Your interpretation of events is completely ahistorical.

I never said that the existence of a rival did not matter. However, France and Britain were in an alliance which preceded the USSR's existence. Same for the US ties to France and Britain. The super-imperialist bloc was already emerging before World War II. The utter destruction of a rival bloc (Axis) further solidified its position.

This superimperialistic block of yours is fiction. Great Powers were competing for power for hundreds of years. Alliances formed, were broken and switched depending on circumstances. When French were strong under Napoleon Britain fought on Prussias side. When Prussia formed German Empire it fought on French side. The goal always the same: prevent one country to dominate the European continent. In the aftermath of WW2 imperial power known formerly as Russian Empire but now as USSR became overwhelmingly powerful compared to France and Germany. So UK sided with France and Germany. US joined in because it also had a vital interest in not allowing any one power from dominating Eurasia. In 2003 France and Germany sided with Russia over Iraqi war because USSR collapse left Russia to weak to engage Germany and France. US economy meanwhile grew twice larger than Russia, Germany and France combined. So there was more of an incentive to curb US expansion than to oppose Russia.

You meant that Europeans wanted to dominate Asia and Africa themselves. Because Europe was obviously dominated by the US after the war - ravaged and aid-reliant.

They certainly tried to retain some of their Empire in the first decade of the Cold War. They pretty much gave up afterwards other than few small enclaves.

Imperial maintenance is more like it. The USSR was a primary source of anti-colonial funding in the post-WWII period. Once again real actions against declarations.

Of course. Almost all of the colonies were held by France and Britain. Every new independent colony eroded their influence and expanded that of USSR.

US forces stand in Germany and Japan until this day - and during the formation of NATO, most of Western Europe was just occupied land. Your high horse just died, sorry. WARPAC was a super-imperialist bloc. It allowed its nations to do what they will. Vietnam was allowed to run its own wars, the USSR was not supported directly in the Afghanistan intervention, etc. Much like the US and other powers in US orbit basically did whatever they wanted with little comments from other members of the alliance.

They were not occupied other than Germany. All were sovereign states with their governments not installed by US and were free to chart their own policy even up to leaving joint NATO command.
While US still maintains forces in Germany those numbers shrunk from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. German forces themselves have also shrunk. France, Germany and UK continued to reduce the size of their forces since 1990s. Not surprisingly since the primary threat imploded.

Like I said, the superimperialistic bloc started forming before NATO. You are right, the US did not do shit about European colonial Empires, because before WWII it slaughtered the Philippine people then annexed the place as a colony and ruled it directly. It was just another brutal colonial Empire with a republican order in the metropole. NATO was the natural evolution of the pre-WWII collusion of France, Britain, US and some lesser European powers. The USSR was a convenient pretext to unite the most economically developed territories of Europe and America into a gigantic military union and exclude the chance of rivalry between members of the bloc. This untied the hands of imperialist powers for the duration of Cold War and well after it ended.

The actual power of the USSR was a good solidifying threat, but even after it was gone, NATO did not stop existing and, in fact, expanded. Imperialistic interventions did not stop.

It doesn't matter how many US crimes you list. There still isn't any such thing as "superimperialistic block" nor did NATO form to maintain colonial empires.