@@yyyy-uv3po well if you follow the gundam series... the one that was dismantled is only the prototype made by extra parts. Better check what's beneath the ground level XD
It is not a military gear, it is a disaster relief vehicle. It's meant to wade through tsunamis and lift up collapsed buildings. If not, why would it be colored white?
> He describes himself as a Defence Otaku. Why am I imagining the concept of the Japanese Prime Minister binge-listening to Perun videos and why do I find that hilarious?
@@luffyland4996 It's a meme. It's been over 10 years since the release of GTA 5, so people remark on how long the next installment is taking by comparing it to IRL events that seemed like they were never going to happen.
The individual freedom US allies have should not be understated though. This isn’t what colonial spheres of interest looked like, this is new and modern. Belarus is not the same as the UK in terms of subservience to a great power.
@@fosibro4951 Of course. It's population is only 120 million-ish and its armed forces are underdeveloped. So nowhere near a super power, and don't have the armed forces for being a Great power.
They are better than offensive pacts but remember that WWI was started by a sequence of defensive pacts bringing more countries into what should have been a small conflict.
@@davegold Sure, but in retort I'd show you the long list of wars that didn't happen because of deterrence of defensive pacts, but we'll never know which wars those are. I'd say defensive pacts are still a net good compared to a lack of pacts
@@uninstaller2860 true, and also regarding WWI Germany just used the alliance as excuse to invade Russia & France, most countries would not voluntarily expend such vast resources just to support a country it has an alliance with
@@deadby15 What propaganda?This guy has been open about Japans actions in ww2.Almost every Japanese PM before him have been skittish at best and outright revisionists at worst
@@user-solarsurvival google "japan + apologies" and read for yourself. there's ZERO post-war japanese prime minister who denied japan's wartime atrocities themselves, becausd admission of them was the premise of the san francisco peace treaty. now, one should think why such obvious disinformation as "japan never apologized" fills the internet, and who is behind it.
Even if Asian NATO proposal gets the green flag from the US, the biggest hurdle it would face is convincing India to get onboard, we have historically stayed away from military alliances (as Republic of India). The closest we came to signing a military alliance was in 1971 which would have been with the Soviet Union, the only reason that idea was entertained was because of the Bangladesh Liberation War and the US had sided against India.
Just seem like they would be natural allies in the times to come. But I suppose if China or Iran did start getting more aggressive they could just form an alliance then.
Bringing in India into an alliance is not something that will happen. Delhi doesn't do alliances. They started the non-aligned movement. You can get them into some sort of strategic partnership but not into a NATO-style mutual defense treaty. At least, not unless there's a very fundamental shift in Indian politics, which isn't likely to happen soon.
It depends on the extent of eagerness and the scope of defense policies! India WILL join non world powers, such as EU/US/China, if it could guarantee in the event of a full-scale war they all would honour this treaty.
@@reck_er5003 "non world powers, such as EU/US/China" ??? ... Well being Indian, India will never Join any Military Alliances boz we don't need any . CHINA is only our Threat and CHINA will also will think 100Times before attacking INDIA a Nuclear Triad Country. As our FM Dr.Jaishankar had said "INDIA doesn't needs to takes sides boz we have our Own side and that is INDIA".. Most Importantly INDIA will never fully Trust USA that is the reason our NSA is in FRANCE now for Defense Deals.
Choosing the candidate that did not visit the Yasukuni Shrine is a wise move when it comes to foreign relations. It is important that South Korea and Japan manage to get as good relations as possible given the greater military threats in the neighborhood.
As a Japanese person, I agree with you. Whether it is right or not, it is necessary to pay respect to the soldiers who died defending our country, but we can do so without going to Yasukuni Shrine. In the first place, the Shinto view of them is "The souls of the dead remain in Japan and continue to protect their descendants." I do not reject the idea of visiting Yasukuni Shrine itself, but in light of the above, it is clear that the Prime Minister's visit to Yasukuni Shrine is a kind of performance. Personally, I don't want Yasukuni Shrine to be thought of as a negative legacy. Yasukuni Shrine is the resting place of all those who died for our country. These include not only those who died in the world wars, but also those who died in the conflicts that led to Japan's modernization.
@@なすび-l8l iam glad the Japanese people didn't view his decision not to visit negatively i thought that the reason why he lack support in his 5 previous attempt on prime minister
@@なすび-l8l then you also shouldn't think of the two Atom bombs dropping as a negative thing, as it was to save millions of lives from further casualties, ////
@@TheAmericanPrometheus Yes that fits better if India is a member, otherwise it should be PPTO (Pan-Pacific Treaty Organization) or just PTO or PATO for Pacific Treaty Organization if India or Pakistan don't become members.
@@VTh-f5x bull crap, geography is still king, and the pressure from china didn't exist in the time you reference. It's been a long time since then anyway
@@KamBar2020that is probably good in a way. Pakistan would need to behave. China would not be a kind master. I believe India and China can co exist peacefully. The border disputes may not be resolved but both India and China knows they can't be enemies forever. 0:01
good if there's no western permanent board member, imagine a strict asian "NATO" and the one's ordering everyone to attack is a US or Australian body lmao.
Yeah it's pretty good idea honestly. I think one of the main issues that is often abused by Chinese propaganda for example is the fact that a lot of security and stability in East Asia is dependent on the USA. (Personally I'm not super confident in America's ability these days anymore, but that's another matter...) A lot of people can also be persuaded into voting or acting against their interests by making them believe that they're just "American puppets". Having a Asian-led alliance where the west isn't directly involved would be great. Plus I guess it should be in our interests to make sure that these people can look after themselves, after all not everyone enjoys higher living costs in order to somehow support some country they don't know if. Only thing I'm worried about is it getting undermined by admitting countries such as, for example, the PRC. Personally I am hoping that it will happen, and that JP, HK and ROC (TW) end up becoming founding members. I'm hopeful for the future now...
@@MARIAS_ALAHTANOK china has backtracked for now....and India don't trust china...because they already backstabbed India in 1961... both USA and china can't be trusted...china keeps making problem for India in border areas and USA supports anti India forces and interferers in internal politics. . Only Russian and isreal are the one who supported India in difficult times and till now didn't interfere in internal politics
That India rejected the proposal of Asian NATO. But small countries or even bigger countries in Asia will have to understand that as long as Indian naval blockade is going on in the Indian Ocean, no country will have the courage to attack any country without India's approval and that country will never dare to do such a thing.
there was a nato version in asia it no longer exist Why does SEATO no longer exist? South Vietnam was defeated in war and annexed by North Vietnam and France withdrew financial support in 1975, and the SEATO council agreed to the phasing-out of the organization. After a final exercise on 20 February 1976, the organization was formally dissolved on 30 June 1977 during the Carter administration.
Also China flipped to the US after the sino-soviet split against the USSR making SEATO useless because SEATO where created mainly to oppose the communist China.
@@seauryakumar be it the ruling government or the opposition, nobody wants to join in alliance with the US. We do not want to fight the west's wars and we have ample reasons to believe they won't fight our wars.
@@Pain-zd5uo let me explain the Indian foreign policy and I personally don't like it but what the hell, India wants to trade with everybody and wants to join all conversations but doesn't want to join any alliance and will never fight for anyone else but itself. That about sums it up
LDP of Japan seems to have similar problems and patterns like the UK Conservative Party and to make matters worse the party has pretty much dominated Japanese politics since post WW2.
Japan also wants a guaranteed defense alliance to deal with the constant Daijkaijuu threat from the likes of Rodan and King Ghidorah, and of course their greatest enemy of all.... Godzilla!
To hell with what the PRC thinks, man. They made this hostile bed to lay in. Do you know how often wumao target and brigade us ethnic Han as race traitors or self-hating? They have zero love or understanding for us. Taiwan will be on the frontline of any war with the PRC and is a critical link in the First Island Chain. If the PRC breaks that, it suddenly becomes a more significant problem. Taiwan is a staunch American ally and a leader in liberal democracy. It can't be abandoned to the wolf.
WW2 and the events surrounding it play a big part of it. The historical memory of that era still sours the opinion of Japan in many of the neighboring countries, especially North Korea, South Korea and China. The Philippines actually have a pretty positive view of Japan currently. The view shifts when you ask people in South Korea about Japanese influence in the region, with more viewing it positively. Maybe I don't like you, but would rather you fight on my side is sometimes enough for an alliance. However as you mentioned they are all aligned in some way with the US. So they don't necessarily need to work with each other if the US ends up dragging them all into a regional war anyway. Most aligned with the US since the US liberated the region post WW2 and supported US aligned governments. Japan obviously capitulated and the US used the emperor to forcibly turn Japan into a Democracy. China and North Korea are the two exceptions since the US supported the opposition in their Civil Wars. That's all just East Asia though. South East Asia and India open up a completely different set of factors the US leadership attempts to account for in alliances and other pacts. In all if China were to actually begin a war with anyone it will be up to US diplomacy to try and bring as much as possible to bear against the hostilities.
An ‘Asian NATO’ already existed until the 70s: SEATO. It didn’t last partially for the reasons a new one isn’t likely now. Lack of unity over China policies, the fact that most countries other than japans new leader don’t want one, and because given all the other global challenges at the moment, trying to establish, fund and sustain such multilateral alliance isn’t practical for many. Plus we shouldn’t compare NATO to one in Indo-Pacific as they’d be very different in operations, size and scope. More likely you’ll more ‘minilateral’ efforts, like the trilateral security pact between USA Japan and South Korea or AUKUS.
SEATO was never intended to be a NATO like entity. It was not even really a military alliance per-se. Sec of State Dulles essentially wanted to use SEATO to revive the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" under the auspices of the US. It's association with NATO primarily came from contemporary news coverage and the use of the acronym which naturally invited comparison. Also, conditions in the region are very different now, and it is not totally outlandish to consider a multilateral alliance akin to NATO viable. Still, it seems that the era of large multilateral alliances is over for Americans.
There's definitely some room for a SK-Japan-Australia-US pact, but even then that's strained over Japan every now and then pissing off the South Koreans by honouring actual war criminals or going "some of the comfort women probably enjoyed it" you know, things that might annoy an occupied nation(s). But you're right, even keeping together the ANZUS pact is hard enough between the US and NZ not seeing eye-to-eye over nuclear weapons; You also have 'the Quad' (Japan+Inda+US+Aus) and 'Quad plus' (+Others) which aren't security pacts of any kind, but as you said, plagued with each nation having separate issues regarding China, & Aus (+Brazil) being heavily dependent on trade with the Chinese economy.
As a Japanese, I think it is not suitable to have such a military alliance in Asia. One thing I care about is how india behaves and reacts about this because one of the superpower in the region and it plays significant role in "Free Indo Pacific". That country behaves like neural power, if india won't part in this military alliance or even opposed to it, Japan definitely should pull the plug. And also, in Asia, most of the country kept relationships with both Japan (US) and China, its balance is so delicate that this alliance framework could unstabilize it.
Well can always join later when China comes to slice their border up with Russia's help after dealing with Ukraine. Really it's too early US? They have no sense of urgency and opportunity, Japan's leader is a visionary dearly needed... hopefully not ignored before the real costs come to bear.
@@V01DIORE lol keep dreaming India is not a small nation like S korea or Phillipines or even japan ... India have huge standing army, neuclear weapons and missile which cover every part of china ... And if you think Russia will help china against India you are stupid... Because Russia is also aware of rising chinese influence... Having India as close friend helps Russia in not becoming complete puppet of china and china also knows a war with India means destruction of both china and Ind and only USA will be the winner
What you described is US Whose alliance only bully lone nations or small nations Like lonely iraq iran and Ru Sure israel is alone too in middle east but it gets outside support as well
@@meteorknight999 None of those were alone, everyone is backed by someone. And just because they are alone doesnt make them a good country. Maybe just maybe there is a reason that the west dislikes them....
Absolutely impossible due to 4 reasons as a person who has been living in South Korea for just over a decade. 1. South Korea is experiencing a very bad political crisis right now that could lead to 15-20 years of pro-Russian and pro-Chinese government. Almost every American-friendly president in South Korea is proven to be a very inefficient domestic leader. Besides, South Korea is stronger than Japan in terms of military administrative capacity and it is not doing well in maintaining military alliances outside of America. 2. JSDF's lower ranked soldiers are less trained than 2 decades ago. This is a problem that the current South Korean miltiary analysts often say when discussing about Japan. 3. The US military logistics in South Korea and Japan is managed very badly right now for the past several years. 4. The Japanese political situation is still unstable right now even after Shinzo Abe's passing. There is a huge crack that is becoming noticeable in Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Japan's Civil Service personnels are also taking a huge toll due to this and since the JSDF is technically not a military, its functionnaries are still from the very inefficient Civil Service. If you're an American citizen who understands what is happening in South Korean and Japanese poltics right now, you'll definitely know that Asian NATO is impossible.
I'm a Korean citizen who understands what is happening in South Korean politics right now, and I have no idea what the first point is even referring to.
they are essentially defending their child nations such as Australia, New Zealand and all their other former pacific island colonies aswell as their allies there
@@desi-musk India is exploiting the russian war against Ukraine. Buying cheap oil from Russia. Nevermind that russians buying bombs to kill civilians in Ukraine. Indians don’t care about Ukraine. India only cares about itself. Cynical people with only one goal, to serve themselves. You can depend on India as much as a rabbit. But one day in the future, India will need the help of the world. And we will remember very well how India only cared about profits and cheap oil. We will not forget.
Decades ago, china isn't much of a threat, i mean they lose to a bunch of farmers before And in 2000's, they aren't aggressive. Its just these oast few years
well decades ago there wasnt any large country somwhere in asia that keeps harassing its neighbor also, so theres no purpose to create it yet 😂 use your brain come on hahahaha
Korea wouldn't need Japanese troops with it's current (and future) military. The actual question is, could Japan tolerate Korean troops on ITS' soil!? Japan is more likely to be invaded by China than Korea. Also, South Korea along with the US could probably repulse a North Korean invasion without any ground help from Japan.
South Korea is already economically and militarily formidable so I doubt that's in major consideration. They are also close enough that if in the worst case scenario that SK needs reinforcements and can't be picky about their choices, Japan can ship their forces quickly. It's like how you don't exactly see German forces on stand-by in Poland but they'll be there when needed. Really, only the US needs foreign bases in their allies. I doubt Japan would have some sort of overlordship over South Korea this time around and it's gonna turn out to be a more equal standing in the alliance.
I also think the lingering tensions over Japan's colonial past will continue to serve as a barrier to any deeper military relations between Japan and S. Korea. With that being said, Ishiba has been much more conciliatory towards both China and S. Korea in the past. He refused to visit Yasukuni Jinja as defense minister, acknowledges that the Nanjing Massacre happened, and recognizes that the comfort women were forcefully "recruited" by the Japanese military/government. There's a good reason why he is LOATHED by the far right elements in the LDP, with many having called him a "traitor" for his historical views. Now whether this will actually translate to better relations with Seoul and Beijing is yet to be seen. However, if his opponent Takaichi Sanae (Japan's Margret Thatcher wannabe) had been elected, relations with those two countries would have absolutely been in the gutter.
Happy for Japan and this guy that he won. From a foreign diplomacy stand point these seem like the type of people we need leading our world. As an Australian, I am not sure how this will effect us for better or for worse, but good people in charge is always best long term.
He seems to be quite a solid statesman with well thought out policies. He has the potential to increase stability in the pacific while also furthering domestic interests. Need more people like him winning elections
Tbh I don’t think Australia will become independent from the USA anytime soon, it needs the USA navy to protect its shipping lanes, especially for its raw material exports, Australia simply needs the USA military capabilities
@@danix4883Australia needs China market eh ? see what already happens on wheat, corn, soybean, pork and Beef ? LNG and Petroleum ? 😂😂😂 BRICS + and BRI is solution for increased trade.
As an American, I’m like fully onboard with the idea of Japan being a full partner of the USA like the United Kingdom. That will be a long and difficult road to walk though, I think more so for the Japanese than Americans. I think recently the Japanese have stopped liking Americans, and certainly our military bases have always strained relations. We are culturally far apart and don’t speak the same language, unlike the Brits. I’m also onboard with Asian NATO. As it stands the USA is already the backstop of global security, so I think the USA benefits the most from such an alliance.
Japan is already an errand boy of Washington DC. We in majority of ASEAN countries are never interested . We like to maintain our good relation with China and Russia. A zero sum game in South China sea , WPS and North Natuna Sea should be preserved at all cost to be a peaceful area which had avoided major conflicts for for 50 years now.
@@aizseeker3622 the United States has literally NEVER worked that way, except during war. That’s what happens when you take people from all over the world and stick them together, and allow them to think and speak and act freely. We’re all different, we all have differences of opinion on the path forward. Our enemies pray for American isolationism. Our friends pray for American interventionism.
Will it be as toothless as the actual NATO? At least he knows that Japan isn't fully independent. I wonder when the German political class will realise that, too.
@@univeropa3363 You do know that in the end, it is more of a bureaucracy problem than equipment problem, right? Hence why i said sharp teeth but too shy to bite.
@@univeropa3363Of course. Europe is obviously not willing to turn into a war economy over a proxy war on its border. This supply situation is also rather irrelevant given that in the short term the alliance possesses massive numerical and qualitative advantage over any and all potential enemies and in the long term can ramp up an industrial base for said war economy.
@@darnit1944 No, I don't, because it's been demonstrated conclusively for nearly three years that NATO has no surge capacity. The EU attempted to precure a million shells for Ukraine this year and fell absolutely short of that. Didn't even get close to that. That's not even covering the news articles explaining the production goals of different NATO countries for the coming years which are still far behind what Russia is doing today.
I mean its kinda unlikely cause 1. Besides the US views on such a thing theres also the views of other nations like india. India said they dont want to participate in a « Asian Nato » recently preferring to remain neutral in the region. Afterall they have good ties with russia and somewhat okayish with china, despite the skirmishes. Theres also the you know the participation in the US cause the us would be the main country of such organization and considering the amoung of problems they have to deal with already it might complicate things
It's REALLY not too early. US is already knees deep in Ukraine and Israel, and with escalating situation in Middle East, US has barely any bandwidth left. You can be sure that China is just choosing the perfect time for Taiwan now.
@@elmouto3883china needs to act soon, their population issue will catch up with them within the next 30 years, and their military age population will fall drastically
@@matrixgaming3906 tech can't sit in a trench and hold the line. Tech can't occupy buildings and make urban warfare a nightmare. Tech can reduce manpower burden, but it can never remove it in a cost effective manner, especially because of electronic warfare. A single man in a building has to be killed, the 3-1 ratio for a prepared defensive position exists. An automated turret in the same building can be jammed by ECM, hacked, EMP'd, you can take out the power, or just bypass it entirely because it can't move. A guy can relocate and attack your supply lines, forcing you to deal with him before moving on
I don't think Japan can take the lead in this. Japan and South Korea have territorial disputes, and South Korea's left wing and Japan's right wing hate each other. And both are dominated by political parties that hate each other. It will be difficult to realize this vision unless America takes the lead.
@@pigwank8234 South Korean leftists are in control of political parties by criticizing Japan. The current South Korean president has not done anything like that and has shown good relations with Japan, but there is a high possibility that the president will be left-wing again.
As south korean, i can definitely say that japan and korea cannot make Nato things at all Cause still japan hasn’t showed any regrets to S.K for their war crime during WW2. Japanese politician still go to yasukuni shrine annually for commemorating war criminals who mascre many koreans(they literally used koreans for their biological experiments. Search for maruta experiments:731 units) Above all, Everytime i watch that kinds of news, i just feel so desperate and think that i cannot believe japan as alliance of south korea. For these historical backgrounds, We south koreans only consider U.S as our alliance.
@@shdbwns111142 There are several things that are wrong. Japan has provided South Korea with aid amounting to 70 trillion yen to date. Prime Minister Nakasone gave much of Japan's technology to South Korea in the 1990s, when economic development was still not significant. He apologized to South Korea when he was a member of the Democratic Party. They just think they haven't done anything because they took a tough stance when Abe was Prime Minister.
It's probably from the Japanese perspective. Due to economics and scale, the U.S. has the upper hand in the UK relationship regarding soft power. However, militarily, the UK and the U.S. are closely linked in their coordination. The reality is that the U.S. and Japan are also militarily coordinated. It's Just structured differently than the UK / U.S. setup. There are some critical differences that Japan would also like to have. The relationship between the UK and the U.S. is more ironclad, and the integration between the forces is much more coordinated.
It's Russian Chinese bots that don't like the prospect of a defensive alliance, because obviously we should listen to warmongerers to decide democratic interests.
If Japan fails to get South Korea on board, this “Asian NATO” will not be very different from already existing current military alliance between Japan and America. There are actually very few countries with formidable military capacity in the Pacific region: South Korea, Japan, and Australia. Other nations are not militarily ready to take on the Chinese. This is evident in the conflict in South China Sea. So if Japan really wants to make this work, bringing in South Korea will be the most important part along with getting US’s permission and support.
I might sound like yer another hyperproud indonesian but i'll say it regardless They need to step up their diplomatic and economic game in Indonesia (and ASEAN in general). We're just too big, no way you can ignore our existence. Any of China's major diplomatic victory in Indonesia can negate the benefits of this 'Asian NATO' so much to the point that having it doesnt really matter.
The current Asian NATO idea sounds too much like an Association of former Colonial Powers. The Anglosphere except Canada and including France. The Philippines have always been seen in ASEAN as a de facto US colony. Japan is seen either as too right-wing or too pro-US. Unlikely Indonesia wants any involvement. Why should Indonesia support Taiwan independence when Indonesia fought a prolonged was against secessionism in Acheh? Furthermore a considerable portion of the Anglosphere establishment still think West Papua should not really be part of Indonesia. They do not make much noise but somehow it does feel like a grudging acceptance.
Just imagine if my country Indonesia decided to give both Russia and China military bases , do you think that they are going to celebrate and gave Indonesia anything we want ? 😂😂😂 Both Russia and China already discussed about Nuclear Research 😂😂😂😂
Just gonna say, I don't think South Korea would be super pleased that Japan would be the spearhead of the "Asian NATO." Especially considering how some could argue there is a closer relationship between the US and SK than the US and JP.
Whenever there is a dispute, the US either doesn't take sides or always sides with Japan. Recently the US moved a ton of important military assets to Japan as well. I would not call that a "closer" relationship
Ishiba is absolutely right that the Japan / US relationship is too much of a one-sided "Washington is in charge" relationship. He is right that both Washington and Beijing are likely to ignore Japan if it cannot demonstrate some independence ans strength of will. That goes part-in-parcel with their postwar status as a defeated nation made to play a pacifist role, but it is high time that penance comes to an end. And if he can offend people like his LDP rival and apologize for what Japan did in WW2, then countries like South Korea will be able to stomach Japan having a normal military once again, and be more eager to join Japan as allies. (China will cry foul in public anyway, but under the surface, would they rather have a Japan which decides things independently based on its own interests, or simply acts to fulfill the wishes of China's true superpower rival, the USA?) If Japan wants to do this, that need to make sure the US is not as overtly "in charge of everything" as they are with NATO. (Don't become submissive yes-men like the UK; the assessment that the UK is a more equal partner with the USA is incorrect..) The US does not like the idea of Japan creating an alliance like this, because the US can more easily be "the decider" in its 1 on 1 treaty relationships with Japan. S. Korea, Phillpines, etc., but is also able to keep them from being allies of each other. Such alliances are not just military propositions, but defense industry integration, and the US military industrial complex does not want any rivals making weapons system that do not depend on American companies' involvement. But a Japanese led initiative might draw in more of Asia's other nations, like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia. (Taiwan, who knows - might be a "special friend" rather than a member.) What the Asian nations face is needing a way to curtail China's hegemony, but relying on a USA that might turn isolationist or else demand too much control, is not the way to go. They must stand together whether the USA is there with them or not. PS: I can also suggest Canada might do better joining this alliance than getting tacked on as a late entry to AUKUS. Canada is in the Commonwealth, so Australia and New Zealand will always have Canada as an ally. This Asian NATO, or just an alliance with Japan, is a key link we need to develop across the north Pacific.
Look at the comments on this video lol. Some still brought up WW2 to blame Japan. Asia will never be together, they really love to compete and conflict with each other.
Despite WWII ending in 1945, it's still a very recent event. Give it some time. Newer generations have a different political stance than the older folks.
China is surrounded by Quad, Aukus , 5 eyes cyber intelligence and so much more. Underneath the table, they call themselves SETO. US is recruiting all the mutual countries one by one to side with them. It will take time and slowly but surely SETO will come to a fruition. By that time, China wont do a damn thing about it. An attack on one, is an attack on all.
Sounds good to me tbh, if the Japanese public is alright with it though. The main reason Japan isn't respected in military alliances as much as the UK for example is because of the public's anti-militarization attitude. Look for example at the Japanese contributions to the UN peace corp and the statements given by those from other countries stationed with them. Only 7 of them sent, and no weapons allowed, and even that was controversial for being too militaristic in Japan. Right now, Japan basically pays the US to be its military, so it can circumvent public scrutiny, but that means being considered junior to the US. I'm really curious about how he's gonna tackle this issue, and look forward to what he does!
Japanese are very alright with this, except the far right. After losing 3m persons in a 14 year rampage, the Japanese people are not interested in another round. Furthermore, they understand China isn't going to invade Japan due to various reasons, including geographical reasons. The Japanese also do not see Taiwan as part of them. The Senkakus are an irritant but due to Japan's geographical position, it is hardly a big issue. Furthermore, Japan receives no external support regarding its maritime disputes with other nations. Why should Japan help these nations?
@@tkm238-d4r Japan is the most eager one to build this asian nato. Many of the other countries aren't very interested. Some countries like India outright rejected the proposal. So who's helping who here exactly?
geographically centered asia nato, or asian nato focused primarily on that region. learn to read between the lines. do you need things spelled out for you?
India shouldn't join it. She has good relationship with The Russian federation and the US, Japan, Iran and now improving relationship woth China. This will not beneficial to India.
They possess two of the world's three blue-water navies and global militaries: other than the US, they're just about the only countries which could reasonably be part of any alliance on Earth.
We're worried about the fate of our fellow citizens in the Pacific for us (french here). China isn't a very reassuring presence. That's why we're also doing our best to strengthen India btw and support their power projection in the indian ocean too.
“Enhanced” in the sense that the us is a part of it now. All this alliance is, is just the us and its friends, I mean for gods sake, why are the uk, France, Canada, and Australia there?
An Asian NATO alliance will never happen in the current situation, because there is no good answer for how to treat Taiwan. The USA, Japan, SK, Philippines, Australia, NZ, even Britain and France can join a NATO style full alliance without any problems, but for Taiwan there are only three options: 1. Leave them out of the alliance and just continue Taiwan's US defensive partnership 2. Admit them as the "Republic of China" (on Taiwan) 3. Admit them as simply "Taiwan" Option 1 would make a major war more likely, as starting a big western defensive alliance (against china) but leaving Taiwan (as china's most likely target) out, gives the impression that the western commitment to defend Taiwan is weaker than for anyone else, or that Taiwan is not a 'real country'. Option 2 would be even more likely to start a war, as it would require every member state to officially recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of China, which implies that the PRC is not China, and that Taiwan's claims on the mainland are valid. This would certainly lead to the PRC invading Taiwan. This option is so hawkish that it would also be a very hard sell to most of the alliance members. Option 3 would be impossible to sell to Taiwan itself, as that would require them to remake themselves not as the Nationalist Chinese Government, but instead as just "Taiwan", and abandon all claims to the mainland in the process. No Taiwanese government would ever agree to this, and besides, the KMT claims are a diplomatic bargaining chip the west would be throwing away. A final non-option is option 2 but without recognizing Taiwan as the ROC or requiring Taiwan to drop their claims. This is impossible because it would make the alliance contradictory on what territory it will or will not protect, which is downright dangerous. As for the benefits, compared to the status quo, an Asian NATO would guarantee collective security against China to the pacific, but that is already certain via the existing US alliances with all of the proposed Asian NATO member states. It would foster more cooperation between member states' militaries, but the Japanese, South Korean, and Philippine militaries are already modeled after and deeply integrated with the USA through existing alliances, while Britain, France, Australia and NZ are also already deeply integrated with the USA and each other via NATO and the Commonwealth of Nations. This is on top of any other difficulties the alliance may face during detailed negotiations. In short, an Asian NATO would only hurt the western position in Asia and increase tensions with China, while providing no new benefits in return.
yep exactly, and also when the probability of "sanctions" against china will backfire intensely as most of the SEA countries are heavily reliant on chinese production industry, if for some miracle the US could replace all of that then sure, but it's impossible and it would completely drain any resource/treasury if china will got sanctioned trade. There's a reason why Amazon isn't big in here even though we're informed by western tools. It's because the west won't invest in the poorer areas unless it's 1st world standards unlike china who will invest even farming. So basically (US) Commercial vs (CN/RU) Industrial.
Its pretty clear that Japan is acting as a proxy for the US in the region. Look at all the bases the US has in the country. Theyre gargling US balls and this asian NATO business is just another excuse for American imperialism in the region as always. The US wants to control Chinas coastline so they can threaten their trade routes with embargo like how the Brits colonised China during the col9nial period. China is not going to allow this to happen. And good for them. The US has no business controlling people 10,000 miles away from them through neo colonialism.
Asian NATO or APTO (Asia Pacific Treaty Organization) would be a great counter to China. Any nation who opposes China-Russia-North Korea should be free to join. (US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Palau, Tonga, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands would be a good starting core). Hopefully Indonesia and Vietnam could join too if they can shake off Chinese and Russian influence respectively
As Malaysia, we will not join this alliance. It be better to rip all the benefits once this conflict end to fix our own economy. Seeing how India and turkey playing two face in Russia and Ukraine conflict kind of nice tactic if we ignore the morality.
Pacific Ocean Trust And Treaty Organization or POTATO
Up against the Russia Iran China Korean Reclamation Organization League (RICKROL)
POTATO its just more iconic
@@resbalosa True, Po-tay-toes*! Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a *stew*! Lovely big, golden... chips with a nice piece of fried fish.
No-no, POTATO is reserved for NATO + Asian NATO as Pacific Ocean and TransAtlantic Treaty Organization
NeATO Northeast Asia Treaty Organization, but POTATO is winner by default, obviously
Article 9th doesn't say anything about building Gundam and since he is a military otaku, I believe he will initiate the project secretly.
He arrived too late, the giant Gundam statue has already been dismantled 😞
Now he has to start from scratch.
This comment gave me a brain anurism ahahah
@@yyyy-uv3po dont worry, that's just a prototype.
@@yyyy-uv3po well if you follow the gundam series... the one that was dismantled is only the prototype made by extra parts.
Better check what's beneath the ground level XD
It is not a military gear, it is a disaster relief vehicle. It's meant to wade through tsunamis and lift up collapsed buildings. If not, why would it be colored white?
died 1977 born 2024
welcome back, SEATO
The Phoenix bird rises 🐦🔥
Died, 1945
Born, 2024
Welcome back Greater East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere!
@@coldsoulanimation7412SEATO!
@@coldsoulanimation7412not without manchuria
@@kubli365Taiwan can be the honorary Mengkukuo, and South Korea can be the honorary Manchuria
> He describes himself as a Defence Otaku.
Why am I imagining the concept of the Japanese Prime Minister binge-listening to Perun videos and why do I find that hilarious?
we love the powerpoint man
@@playyourturntodieatvgperson Every self-respecting defense otaku does.
If his English is good enough, he may well do it in his off time!
Slava SAMURAI 🗾 Geroyam Yakuza 🦾
I can't unsee it.
Ain't no way we got NATO 2 before GTA 6 god damnit 😭😭
What is with people and GTA6? Literally every video I see had we getting this before GTA 6
@@luffyland4996 It's a meme. It's been over 10 years since the release of GTA 5, so people remark on how long the next installment is taking by comparing it to IRL events that seemed like they were never going to happen.
NATO 2?
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere V 2.0 💀
Something is starting to tell me we aint gonna be here for GTA6 😞
@fatboyRAY24 we ain't going to be here for Elder Scrolls 6 😅
In a multipolar world, the only hope for mid and small countries are alliances.
The individual freedom US allies have should not be understated though.
This isn’t what colonial spheres of interest looked like, this is new and modern.
Belarus is not the same as the UK in terms of subservience to a great power.
Japan is a mid sized country now?
@@lighting7508 I very much agree. I would choose US ally over Russian/Chinese sphere of influence any day.
@@fosibro4951 Of course. It's population is only 120 million-ish and its armed forces are underdeveloped. So nowhere near a super power, and don't have the armed forces for being a Great power.
Mid and small countries only hope is neutrality. Ukraine is an example of desire to have an alliance while Vietnam is an example of neutrality
I'm all for defensive pacts!
They are better than offensive pacts but remember that WWI was started by a sequence of defensive pacts bringing more countries into what should have been a small conflict.
@@davegold Sure, but in retort I'd show you the long list of wars that didn't happen because of deterrence of defensive pacts, but we'll never know which wars those are. I'd say defensive pacts are still a net good compared to a lack of pacts
@@uninstaller2860 true, and also regarding WWI Germany just used the alliance as excuse to invade Russia & France, most countries would not voluntarily expend such vast resources just to support a country it has an alliance with
@@davegoldIf it had been defensive pacts only, then it wouldn't have turned into a world war. Some allies took offensive action too.
@@davegold
But then defensive pacts are also the reason that Axis forces lost WW2.
The guy is also someone who doesn't do justifying and denial Japanese ww2 actions.Its a rarity
Completely incorrect. Just google abit by yourself rather than believing propaganda.
@@deadby15 what propaganda?.
@@deadby15 What propaganda?This guy has been open about Japans actions in ww2.Almost every Japanese PM before him have been skittish at best and outright revisionists at worst
@@deadby15you weebs look at jp thru rose colored glasses.
@@user-solarsurvival
google "japan + apologies" and read for yourself.
there's ZERO post-war japanese prime minister who denied japan's wartime atrocities themselves, becausd admission of them was the premise of the san francisco peace treaty.
now, one should think why such obvious disinformation as "japan never apologized" fills the internet, and who is behind it.
Even if Asian NATO proposal gets the green flag from the US, the biggest hurdle it would face is convincing India to get onboard, we have historically stayed away from military alliances (as Republic of India). The closest we came to signing a military alliance was in 1971 which would have been with the Soviet Union, the only reason that idea was entertained was because of the Bangladesh Liberation War and the US had sided against India.
India should be more worried about the Muslim countries surrounding it and not East Asia.
Lol what india literally shares a border with China and has had issues with them for decades@@rcbrascan
@@rcbrascan True, up until recently it was just Pakistan with it’s terror funding but after the recent coup Bangladesh is also a headache now.
South Korea won’t join
Just seem like they would be natural allies in the times to come. But I suppose if China or Iran did start getting more aggressive they could just form an alliance then.
Bringing in India into an alliance is not something that will happen. Delhi doesn't do alliances. They started the non-aligned movement. You can get them into some sort of strategic partnership but not into a NATO-style mutual defense treaty. At least, not unless there's a very fundamental shift in Indian politics, which isn't likely to happen soon.
It depends on the extent of eagerness and the scope of defense policies! India WILL join non world powers, such as EU/US/China, if it could guarantee in the event of a full-scale war they all would honour this treaty.
Doesn't matter. In the end interests will always trump politics, and right now the interest in India is to get allies against China.
@@reck_er5003 "non world powers, such as EU/US/China" ??? ... Well being Indian, India will never Join any Military Alliances boz we don't need any . CHINA is only our Threat and CHINA will also will think 100Times before attacking INDIA a Nuclear Triad Country. As our FM Dr.Jaishankar had said "INDIA doesn't needs to takes sides boz we have our Own side and that is INDIA".. Most Importantly INDIA will never fully Trust USA that is the reason our NSA is in FRANCE now for Defense Deals.
@@reck_er5003I don't see China and India joining anything together, ever.
USA will lead “Asian NATO” if it does become a thing. India will not become a junior ally to America
Choosing the candidate that did not visit the Yasukuni Shrine is a wise move when it comes to foreign relations. It is important that South Korea and Japan manage to get as good relations as possible given the greater military threats in the neighborhood.
As a Japanese person, I agree with you.
Whether it is right or not, it is necessary to pay respect to the soldiers who died defending our country, but we can do so without going to Yasukuni Shrine.
In the first place, the Shinto view of them is "The souls of the dead remain in Japan and continue to protect their descendants."
I do not reject the idea of visiting Yasukuni Shrine itself, but in light of the above, it is clear that the Prime Minister's visit to Yasukuni Shrine is a kind of performance.
Personally, I don't want Yasukuni Shrine to be thought of as a negative legacy.
Yasukuni Shrine is the resting place of all those who died for our country.
These include not only those who died in the world wars, but also those who died in the conflicts that led to Japan's modernization.
@@なすび-l8l iam glad the Japanese people didn't view his decision not to visit negatively
i thought that the reason why he lack support in his 5 previous attempt on prime minister
@@なすび-l8l then you also shouldn't think of the two Atom bombs dropping as a negative thing, as it was to save millions of lives from further casualties, ////
@@lotcam4046アメリカは日本の意見を全て受け入れて真珠湾で降伏すべきでした。そうすれば犠牲者はもっと少なく済んだでしょう
@@lotcam4046 Plenty sure only Americans make a big deal out of that.
As a defense Otaku myself, I can't wait to see my kankore girls in action 🥹
Kancolle, Magnificent Kotobuki and Girls und Panzer otakus eating good
He better be funding the season 3 of GATE.
@烏梨師斂 real
Thanks for showing us how SxTxUxPxIxD people who follow Japanese culture are. Even war is a 2D related issue.
He is a GuP fan, he sent video message for GuP event in Ibaraki, it's on RUclips
You better call it NPTO and this reminds me of the failed cold-war era SEATO
IPTO, Indo-Pacific Treaty Organization
Pacific defense pact, PDP
Yeah but half the proposed member countries ain't in the North Pacific...
@@TheAmericanPrometheus Yes that fits better if India is a member, otherwise it should be PPTO (Pan-Pacific Treaty Organization)
or just PTO or PATO for Pacific Treaty Organization if India or Pakistan don't become members.
My country was part of SEATO
🇵🇰❤️🔥🇺🇸🇬🇧🇫🇷🇹🇭🇵🇭🇦🇺🇳🇿
I'm Japanese, and I'm cautiously optimistic that this all works out...
Question, why cautious?
This will work out as wll as plaza accords for you.😂
@@VTh-f5x bull crap, geography is still king, and the pressure from china didn't exist in the time you reference. It's been a long time since then anyway
Stronger together 🇺🇸🤝🇯🇵
Plenty of people in the US support a stronger Japan myself included. This is possible
WHERE IS NEW ZEALAND ON THE THUMBNAIL?
many such cases
Who?
And at 0:29, we have the Australian flag placed over New Zealand
@@finnharris6779that’s an Australian flag, on Australia.
New Zealand is not real
Oh god, Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere having a sequel 💀💀
A good version of it 😁
@@catalinturcanu8698with the same flag
@@catalinturcanu8698 Depend on what side you are.
SEATO*
So long as there’s no master race or imperial B.S., I’ll run with it.
China casually speedrunning the category: "How fast can I antagonize all my neighbours?"
More like USA speedruinning how can I go into WW3?
@@triceratops7084 Last I checked the US doesn't have plans to "reclaim" a nearby country
@@triceratops7084 How many RMBs were you paid to post that?
@@arbalestarethebest7071 Taiwan isn't a country
@@ekulgarDe facto, it is regardless of what anyone says. The question is if they want to remain as ROC or Taiwan.
These people are fools if they think they can bring India into a multilateral (or even bilateral) military alliance.
True, knowing India tactic, they alway win by making a deal from both side with Russian oil and western trade. 😅
True, India has no integrity, why even attempt anything with them
🇨🇳 buys Pakistanis Ports and places 🤯
@@KamBar2020that is probably good in a way. Pakistan would need to behave. China would not be a kind master. I believe India and China can co exist peacefully. The border disputes may not be resolved but both India and China knows they can't be enemies forever. 0:01
Yes saar people are fools when they lose their nuclear submarines because they forgot to close the door 🥰
India has already announced that it will not participate in it.
India is a strange country that has friendly relations with Russia, China and the United States.
@@ワイン-t8it The only strange country is United States that wants to push countries into wars because it's loosing it's hegemony and imperialism 😅
@@ワイン-t8i they don’t choose sides it’s a new Cold War, taking sides isn’t beneficial in the long run.
@@ワイン-t8i Friendly with none, enemies with.. China?
@@erikaeric8313なのにずっと貧乏な国😢
一度も成功せず人だけ増えて貧乏です
Indo-Pacific Treaty Organization.
IPTO? Doesn't sound as nice as NATO but it'll work
Pacific Ocean & Trans-Atlantic Treaty Organization (POTATO)
Indo-Pacific Security Alliance (IPSA)
India will Never join such an Alliance. So just a Pacific Treaty Organisation.
@@homelessoreo5118 or could be under seato Pacific rim
This was a clarifying, insightful episode. Warmest compliments. Thank you.
This was an interesting watch, I kinda like the idea of an "Asian NATO".
@@iamgats9216 it’s basically SEATO, but Japan has a visionary approach kudos to the new leader
@@davinxi5926America lets Japan think it has the reins, but in the background the CIA is always steering everything in its Empire.
No one else going to like that except those in NA which wont experience increase in tensions and hardships
good if there's no western permanent board member, imagine a strict asian "NATO" and the one's ordering everyone to attack is a US or Australian body lmao.
Yeah it's pretty good idea honestly. I think one of the main issues that is often abused by Chinese propaganda for example is the fact that a lot of security and stability in East Asia is dependent on the USA. (Personally I'm not super confident in America's ability these days anymore, but that's another matter...) A lot of people can also be persuaded into voting or acting against their interests by making them believe that they're just "American puppets". Having a Asian-led alliance where the west isn't directly involved would be great. Plus I guess it should be in our interests to make sure that these people can look after themselves, after all not everyone enjoys higher living costs in order to somehow support some country they don't know if. Only thing I'm worried about is it getting undermined by admitting countries such as, for example, the PRC. Personally I am hoping that it will happen, and that JP, HK and ROC (TW) end up becoming founding members. I'm hopeful for the future now...
Could be possible but I don’t think India will take part in it, as it enjoy friendly relationships with both US, and Russia.
Also China, India will stall the border issue with China and work with them.
@@joyid Definitely not China man, I don't see them getting close in the near future.
@@Haru_FujimiyaIn the Past 6 months, 60% of the Border issues between India & China were Resolved. Said by Indian FM
India and China border dispute is kinda resolved for now lol. Modi and Xi shaked hands in the BRICS summit.
@@MARIAS_ALAHTANOK china has backtracked for now....and India don't trust china...because they already backstabbed India in 1961... both USA and china can't be trusted...china keeps making problem for India in border areas and USA supports anti India forces and interferers in internal politics.
.
Only Russian and isreal are the one who supported India in difficult times and till now didn't interfere in internal politics
That India rejected the proposal of Asian NATO. But small countries or even bigger countries in Asia will have to understand that as long as Indian naval blockade is going on in the Indian Ocean, no country will have the courage to attack any country without India's approval and that country will never dare to do such a thing.
The Pacific Treaty Organization?
The PTO (paid time off😭)
China: Launches invasion
America: “Parent-Teacher Organization ASSEMBLE🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅“
@@Zeta4 lmao imagine🤣
India already said "No"
Filipino here, I'm all for a new SEATO, though APTO (Asia-Pacific Treaty Organization) also works
Watch out ur islands will wipe out from the maps..
@@Spysith Spoken like a Disney Villain
Your plastic islands are nothing in front of China 😂🐒
Fellow Filipino here they better not do what they did in WW2 my great grandmother is still traumatized by their occupation.
Oh look an Indio speaking about Defense Pacts
Aliens are setting us up for the coolest WW3 movie.
there was a nato version in asia it no longer exist
Why does SEATO no longer exist?
South Vietnam was defeated in war and annexed by North Vietnam and France withdrew financial support in 1975, and the SEATO council agreed to the phasing-out of the organization. After a final exercise on 20 February 1976, the organization was formally dissolved on 30 June 1977 during the Carter administration.
Also China flipped to the US after the sino-soviet split against the USSR making SEATO useless because SEATO where created mainly to oppose the communist China.
India which is core member of QUAD officially criticized japanese praposal
India or rather the current indian administration is not going to join any alliance
If you say so that rejected the proposal if you take as a criticizing then it's ok for us 😂😂😂
@@seauryakumar be it the ruling government or the opposition, nobody wants to join in alliance with the US. We do not want to fight the west's wars and we have ample reasons to believe they won't fight our wars.
And the next day, Japanese media took negative stance about India's foreign policy. 😂😂😂
@@Pain-zd5uo let me explain the Indian foreign policy and I personally don't like it but what the hell, India wants to trade with everybody and wants to join all conversations but doesn't want to join any alliance and will never fight for anyone else but itself. That about sums it up
LDP of Japan seems to have similar problems and patterns like the UK Conservative Party and to make matters worse the party has pretty much dominated Japanese politics since post WW2.
So bring back Southeast Asia Treaty Organization?
SEATO! I'm down let's do it haha
It requires willing participate btw but it’s doable and can be prosperous for everyone involved as a ASIAN NATO seato member
Japan also wants a guaranteed defense alliance to deal with the constant Daijkaijuu threat from the likes of Rodan and King Ghidorah, and of course their greatest enemy of all.... Godzilla!
Whatever happens, it's unlikely to include Taiwan because so many countries are afraid of upsetting China...
To hell with what the PRC thinks, man. They made this hostile bed to lay in. Do you know how often wumao target and brigade us ethnic Han as race traitors or self-hating? They have zero love or understanding for us.
Taiwan will be on the frontline of any war with the PRC and is a critical link in the First Island Chain. If the PRC breaks that, it suddenly becomes a more significant problem. Taiwan is a staunch American ally and a leader in liberal democracy. It can't be abandoned to the wolf.
Lol no, the point of the this nato is China containment
I don't understand why is it hard to form asian nato because japan, South Korea, taiwan and the Philippines are already an us ally?
WW2 and the events surrounding it play a big part of it. The historical memory of that era still sours the opinion of Japan in many of the neighboring countries, especially North Korea, South Korea and China. The Philippines actually have a pretty positive view of Japan currently. The view shifts when you ask people in South Korea about Japanese influence in the region, with more viewing it positively. Maybe I don't like you, but would rather you fight on my side is sometimes enough for an alliance.
However as you mentioned they are all aligned in some way with the US. So they don't necessarily need to work with each other if the US ends up dragging them all into a regional war anyway. Most aligned with the US since the US liberated the region post WW2 and supported US aligned governments. Japan obviously capitulated and the US used the emperor to forcibly turn Japan into a Democracy. China and North Korea are the two exceptions since the US supported the opposition in their Civil Wars.
That's all just East Asia though. South East Asia and India open up a completely different set of factors the US leadership attempts to account for in alliances and other pacts. In all if China were to actually begin a war with anyone it will be up to US diplomacy to try and bring as much as possible to bear against the hostilities.
Guess who reaped and pillaged through asia in the past century?
@@alejandrotuazon4831 only SK has issues with Japan. Philippines, USA, and Australia already moved on.
@iceteazen You have but real patriots have not.
@@iceteazenPhilippines has been conquered 1000s of times. They are used to it.
An ‘Asian NATO’ already existed until the 70s: SEATO. It didn’t last partially for the reasons a new one isn’t likely now.
Lack of unity over China policies, the fact that most countries other than japans new leader don’t want one, and because given all the other global challenges at the moment, trying to establish, fund and sustain such multilateral alliance isn’t practical for many. Plus we shouldn’t compare NATO to one in Indo-Pacific as they’d be very different in operations, size and scope.
More likely you’ll more ‘minilateral’ efforts, like the trilateral security pact between USA Japan and South Korea or AUKUS.
Third world south east Asia nations are too corrupt and dysfunctional.
SEATO was never intended to be a NATO like entity. It was not even really a military alliance per-se. Sec of State Dulles essentially wanted to use SEATO to revive the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" under the auspices of the US. It's association with NATO primarily came from contemporary news coverage and the use of the acronym which naturally invited comparison.
Also, conditions in the region are very different now, and it is not totally outlandish to consider a multilateral alliance akin to NATO viable. Still, it seems that the era of large multilateral alliances is over for Americans.
There's definitely some room for a SK-Japan-Australia-US pact, but even then that's strained over Japan every now and then pissing off the South Koreans by honouring actual war criminals or going "some of the comfort women probably enjoyed it" you know, things that might annoy an occupied nation(s).
But you're right, even keeping together the ANZUS pact is hard enough between the US and NZ not seeing eye-to-eye over nuclear weapons;
You also have 'the Quad' (Japan+Inda+US+Aus) and 'Quad plus' (+Others) which aren't security pacts of any kind, but as you said, plagued with each nation having separate issues regarding China, & Aus (+Brazil) being heavily dependent on trade with the Chinese economy.
@@benisboop viable is quite open ended term. Course it has viability, but the appetite to upkeep such an entity just isn’t there
China was poor back then. That's why it failed. Now they actually have a reason to exist.
As a Japanese, I think it is not suitable to have such a military alliance in Asia.
One thing I care about is how india behaves and reacts about this because one of the superpower in the region and it plays significant role in "Free Indo Pacific".
That country behaves like neural power, if india won't part in this military alliance or even opposed to it, Japan definitely should pull the plug.
And also, in Asia, most of the country kept relationships with both Japan (US) and China, its balance is so delicate that this alliance framework could unstabilize it.
なんで中国人って日本人の真似するんや？アカウント作成日10年前のおっさん中国人が日本人気取ってるのキツすぎやろ
@@للغةالعربية-ث3ه あん？尻から突っ込んで奥歯ガタガタ言わせんぞ？ゼェニチがよぉ
Well can always join later when China comes to slice their border up with Russia's help after dealing with Ukraine. Really it's too early US? They have no sense of urgency and opportunity, Japan's leader is a visionary dearly needed... hopefully not ignored before the real costs come to bear.
India has official denied taking part and I think it's a good decision from our countries perspective
@@V01DIORE lol keep dreaming India is not a small nation like S korea or Phillipines or even japan ... India have huge standing army, neuclear weapons and missile which cover every part of china ... And if you think Russia will help china against India you are stupid... Because Russia is also aware of rising chinese influence... Having India as close friend helps Russia in not becoming complete puppet of china and china also knows a war with India means destruction of both china and Ind and only USA will be the winner
It’s necessary so small nations don’t get bullied, reduced and picked off one by one. Hitler did this and Russia does it in spades.
What you described is US
Whose alliance only bully lone nations or small nations
Like lonely iraq iran and Ru
Sure israel is alone too in middle east but it gets outside support as well
@@meteorknight999 this has got to be a joke right?
@@klanox-uq1lt tell me a lonely small nation that didnt get picked on ?
Altho Ru isnt small it was alone until Iran other asian countries came
@@meteorknight999 None of those were alone, everyone is backed by someone. And just because they are alone doesnt make them a good country. Maybe just maybe there is a reason that the west dislikes them....
@@meteorknight999 imagine calling iran and russia "lonely small nations" lmaooo
Absolutely impossible due to 4 reasons as a person who has been living in South Korea for just over a decade.
1. South Korea is experiencing a very bad political crisis right now that could lead to 15-20 years of pro-Russian and pro-Chinese government. Almost every American-friendly president in South Korea is proven to be a very inefficient domestic leader. Besides, South Korea is stronger than Japan in terms of military administrative capacity and it is not doing well in maintaining military alliances outside of America.
2. JSDF's lower ranked soldiers are less trained than 2 decades ago. This is a problem that the current South Korean miltiary analysts often say when discussing about Japan.
3. The US military logistics in South Korea and Japan is managed very badly right now for the past several years.
4. The Japanese political situation is still unstable right now even after Shinzo Abe's passing. There is a huge crack that is becoming noticeable in Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Japan's Civil Service personnels are also taking a huge toll due to this and since the JSDF is technically not a military, its functionnaries are still from the very inefficient Civil Service.
If you're an American citizen who understands what is happening in South Korean and Japanese poltics right now, you'll definitely know that Asian NATO is impossible.
Agreed. 😢
Kim Jong Un must be talked too.
This crushes me but you have listed very valid concerns to consider. This is definitely a time of uncertainty for everyone involved.
😴
I'm a Korean citizen who understands what is happening in South Korean politics right now, and I have no idea what the first point is even referring to.
The idea that the UK should be tied by international treaty to defend areas in Asia seems completely crazy.
He never said that though
@@Sho7_ that's what NATO means
they are essentially defending their child nations such as Australia, New Zealand and all their other former pacific island colonies aswell as their allies there
UK is irrelevant.
India rejected asian nato proposal
they love pootin 💩
They’ll change their mind once China attacks Taiwan
@@AnjaliApta-qt1iw We don’t want India in it.
India stands with US
@@desi-musk India is exploiting the russian war against Ukraine. Buying cheap oil from Russia. Nevermind that russians buying bombs to kill civilians in Ukraine. Indians don’t care about Ukraine. India only cares about itself. Cynical people with only one goal, to serve themselves. You can depend on India as much as a rabbit. But one day in the future, India will need the help of the world. And we will remember very well how India only cared about profits and cheap oil. We will not forget.
It's not happening....it was just a proposal, but looks like no one is really interested. Not even his own ministers believe firmly in it.
PISSED: Pacific-Indian Southern Security Emergency Defense
😅
I can say this Japanese new PM is delusional 😂 if Asian NATO was possible, Asia would have already done it decades ago
People said the same thing with the Entente Cordiale and later NATO and yet here we are.
Decades ago, china isn't much of a threat, i mean they lose to a bunch of farmers before
And in 2000's, they aren't aggressive. Its just these oast few years
I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, but "if it was possible, then It'd be done already" is rarely ever a proper argument
well decades ago there wasnt any large country somwhere in asia that keeps harassing its neighbor also, so theres no purpose to create it yet 😂 use your brain come on hahahaha
an interesting proposal, but south Korean membership will be tricky. there's no way Seoul would accept Japanese Troop presence on its soil.
Korea wouldn't need Japanese troops with it's current (and future) military. The actual question is, could Japan tolerate Korean troops on ITS' soil!? Japan is more likely to be invaded by China than Korea. Also, South Korea along with the US could probably repulse a North Korean invasion without any ground help from Japan.
South Korea is already economically and militarily formidable so I doubt that's in major consideration. They are also close enough that if in the worst case scenario that SK needs reinforcements and can't be picky about their choices, Japan can ship their forces quickly. It's like how you don't exactly see German forces on stand-by in Poland but they'll be there when needed. Really, only the US needs foreign bases in their allies. I doubt Japan would have some sort of overlordship over South Korea this time around and it's gonna turn out to be a more equal standing in the alliance.
I also think the lingering tensions over Japan's colonial past will continue to serve as a barrier to any deeper military relations between Japan and S. Korea.
With that being said, Ishiba has been much more conciliatory towards both China and S. Korea in the past. He refused to visit Yasukuni Jinja as defense minister, acknowledges that the Nanjing Massacre happened, and recognizes that the comfort women were forcefully "recruited" by the Japanese military/government.
There's a good reason why he is LOATHED by the far right elements in the LDP, with many having called him a "traitor" for his historical views. Now whether this will actually translate to better relations with Seoul and Beijing is yet to be seen. However, if his opponent Takaichi Sanae (Japan's Margret Thatcher wannabe) had been elected, relations with those two countries would have absolutely been in the gutter.
But that's not required. Not in peacetime at least.
SK is a paranuclear power so they have little need for Japan at the moment unless Kim losses his mind
We had it in 60s. It was called SEATO.
Happy for Japan and this guy that he won. From a foreign diplomacy stand point these seem like the type of people we need leading our world. As an Australian, I am not sure how this will effect us for better or for worse, but good people in charge is always best long term.
There was once a real South East Asian Nato. It was called SEATO
Bro said he's puttin together a team 🔥🔥🔥
Wow nice editing!
He seems to be quite a solid statesman with well thought out policies. He has the potential to increase stability in the pacific while also furthering domestic interests. Need more people like him winning elections
i just hope he got the wits to pull stuff though the diet
Indian FM : we dont need asian nato
The world: you cant keep sht out of your food. You need any help you can get
@@GrandTerrthat's why India doesn't want alliance , it can help itself and don't need foreign intervention.
@@sarathmanoj04mytube Is that why last time China invaded and India did nothing at all.
@@sarathmanoj04mytubehe’s making fun of how Indians eat cow poop
EAM
as an australian, becoming more independent from america may have its issues.
Tbh I don’t think Australia will become independent from the USA anytime soon, it needs the USA navy to protect its shipping lanes, especially for its raw material exports, Australia simply needs the USA military capabilities
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia
@@danix4883Australia needs China market eh ? see what already happens on wheat, corn, soybean, pork and Beef ? LNG and Petroleum ? 😂😂😂 BRICS + and BRI is solution for increased trade.
Great video TLDR team. Some feedback to warn of flashing images before they appear, not during. Thanks for all your work.
Defense Otaku.. Thats my new favorite term
I don't know, but It's OCTO or ASEAN version of NATO
What does the OCTO stands for?
Out of Touch 😂😂😂😂
As an American, I’m like fully onboard with the idea of Japan being a full partner of the USA like the United Kingdom. That will be a long and difficult road to walk though, I think more so for the Japanese than Americans. I think recently the Japanese have stopped liking Americans, and certainly our military bases have always strained relations. We are culturally far apart and don’t speak the same language, unlike the Brits.
I’m also onboard with Asian NATO. As it stands the USA is already the backstop of global security, so I think the USA benefits the most from such an alliance.
Japan is already an errand boy of Washington DC. We in majority of ASEAN countries are never interested . We like to maintain our good relation with China and Russia. A zero sum game in South China sea , WPS and North Natuna Sea should be preserved at all cost to be a peaceful area which had avoided major conflicts for for 50 years now.
I think you should focus on healing your divided country first to prevent collapse instead of supporting another war in Asia.
@@aizseeker3622 the United States has literally NEVER worked that way, except during war. That’s what happens when you take people from all over the world and stick them together, and allow them to think and speak and act freely. We’re all different, we all have differences of opinion on the path forward. Our enemies pray for American isolationism. Our friends pray for American interventionism.
Will it be as toothless as the actual NATO? At least he knows that Japan isn't fully independent. I wonder when the German political class will realise that, too.
I won't say NATO is toothless. They have sharp teeth, but they are too shy to bite
@@darnit1944 It can't even properly supply Ukraine. You think it can supply itself in sustained conventional war?
@@univeropa3363 You do know that in the end, it is more of a bureaucracy problem than equipment problem, right? Hence why i said sharp teeth but too shy to bite.
@@univeropa3363Of course. Europe is obviously not willing to turn into a war economy over a proxy war on its border. This supply situation is also rather irrelevant given that in the short term the alliance possesses massive numerical and qualitative advantage over any and all potential enemies and in the long term can ramp up an industrial base for said war economy.
@@darnit1944 No, I don't, because it's been demonstrated conclusively for nearly three years that NATO has no surge capacity. The EU attempted to precure a million shells for Ukraine this year and fell absolutely short of that. Didn't even get close to that.
That's not even covering the news articles explaining the production goals of different NATO countries for the coming years which are still far behind what Russia is doing today.
Now THIS is damn amazing
Hey, where is New Zealand
SEATO is back baby!
in your dream Bro 😂😂😂
Long overdue.
Can easily see a Pacific Rim Alliance, but not anything bigger than that. Though I greatly admire the new PM's determination to make Japan stronger.
This is a wonderful idea. I REALLY LIKE THIS.
I mean its kinda unlikely cause 1. Besides the US views on such a thing theres also the views of other nations like india.
India said they dont want to participate in a « Asian Nato » recently preferring to remain neutral in the region. Afterall they have good ties with russia and somewhat okayish with china, despite the skirmishes.
Theres also the you know the participation in the US cause the us would be the main country of such organization and considering the amoung of problems they have to deal with already it might complicate things
It's REALLY not too early. US is already knees deep in Ukraine and Israel, and with escalating situation in Middle East, US has barely any bandwidth left. You can be sure that China is just choosing the perfect time for Taiwan now.
Nah, China is letting it cook. When ahead, get more ahead. Only difference is that this is real life so there's no 200 food limit.
Slava 🇹🇼 Heroyam TAIWANese 🦾
@@elmouto3883china needs to act soon, their population issue will catch up with them within the next 30 years, and their military age population will fall drastically
@@ironboy3245The wars of the future are won with technological and economical superiority. Man power will be far less decisive
@@matrixgaming3906 tech can't sit in a trench and hold the line. Tech can't occupy buildings and make urban warfare a nightmare. Tech can reduce manpower burden, but it can never remove it in a cost effective manner, especially because of electronic warfare. A single man in a building has to be killed, the 3-1 ratio for a prepared defensive position exists. An automated turret in the same building can be jammed by ECM, hacked, EMP'd, you can take out the power, or just bypass it entirely because it can't move. A guy can relocate and attack your supply lines, forcing you to deal with him before moving on
I don't think Japan can take the lead in this. Japan and South Korea have territorial disputes, and South Korea's left wing and Japan's right wing hate each other. And both are dominated by political parties that hate each other. It will be difficult to realize this vision unless America takes the lead.
It's more of an emotional hate.
Like the relationship of Biden and Trump. Trump hates biden more than China.
@@pigwank8234 South Korean leftists are in control of political parties by criticizing Japan. The current South Korean president has not done anything like that and has shown good relations with Japan, but there is a high possibility that the president will be left-wing again.
The US will probably take the lead, there is no way Japan has will lead th US in anything.
As south korean, i can definitely say that japan and korea cannot make Nato things at all
Cause still japan hasn’t showed any regrets to S.K for their war crime during WW2. Japanese politician still go to yasukuni shrine annually for commemorating war criminals who mascre many koreans(they literally used koreans for their biological experiments. Search for maruta experiments:731 units)
Above all, Everytime i watch that kinds of news, i just feel so desperate and think that i cannot believe japan as alliance of south korea.
For these historical backgrounds, We south koreans only consider U.S as our alliance.
@@shdbwns111142 There are several things that are wrong. Japan has provided South Korea with aid amounting to 70 trillion yen to date. Prime Minister Nakasone gave much of Japan's technology to South Korea in the 1990s, when economic development was still not significant. He apologized to South Korea when he was a member of the Democratic Party. They just think they haven't done anything because they took a tough stance when Abe was Prime Minister.
US and UK are equal partners???
It's probably from the Japanese perspective. Due to economics and scale, the U.S. has the upper hand in the UK relationship regarding soft power. However, militarily, the UK and the U.S. are closely linked in their coordination. The reality is that the U.S. and Japan are also militarily coordinated. It's Just structured differently than the UK / U.S. setup. There are some critical differences that Japan would also like to have. The relationship between the UK and the U.S. is more ironclad, and the integration between the forces is much more coordinated.
it's called "SEATO". We tried it. It didn't really work all that great.
the former junior wants a seat with the master. Good luck with that.
I’m seeing a bunch of comments proposing names for the organization
But is there a name that has a good ring to it like NATO?
Whatever the case, the clear enemy is the Russia Iran China Korean Reclamation Organization League (RICKROL)
There was a similar organization in the past called SEATO.
what is this like to dislike ratio wtf
Seems like a collection of bots got triggered by some keyword in the title
559 likes to 2 dislikes atm. Seems that the botting got resolved
It's Russian Chinese bots that don't like the prospect of a defensive alliance, because obviously we should listen to warmongerers to decide democratic interests.
If Japan fails to get South Korea on board, this “Asian NATO” will not be very different from already existing current military alliance between Japan and America. There are actually very few countries with formidable military capacity in the Pacific region: South Korea, Japan, and Australia. Other nations are not militarily ready to take on the Chinese. This is evident in the conflict in South China Sea. So if Japan really wants to make this work, bringing in South Korea will be the most important part along with getting US’s permission and support.
Why don't they include Taiwan? I know the Philippines will be included
I was thinking ... PAcific treaty organization... In other words PATO which means duck...
I can't hear "Defence Otoku" without images of Gendo Ikari from evangelion doing his war room pose poping into my head.
korea japan taiwan ally is kinda impossible…
I might sound like yer another hyperproud indonesian but i'll say it regardless
They need to step up their diplomatic and economic game in Indonesia (and ASEAN in general). We're just too big, no way you can ignore our existence.
Any of China's major diplomatic victory in Indonesia can negate the benefits of this 'Asian NATO' so much to the point that having it doesnt really matter.
The current Asian NATO idea sounds too much like an Association of former Colonial Powers. The Anglosphere except Canada and including France. The Philippines have always been seen in ASEAN as a de facto US colony. Japan is seen either as too right-wing or too pro-US.
Unlikely Indonesia wants any involvement. Why should Indonesia support Taiwan independence when Indonesia fought a prolonged was against secessionism in Acheh?
Furthermore a considerable portion of the Anglosphere establishment still think West Papua should not really be part of Indonesia. They do not make much noise but somehow it does feel like a grudging acceptance.
We give the credentials to the Philippines
@@babangteo2853 the rest?
Just imagine if my country Indonesia decided to give both Russia and China military bases , do you think that they are going to celebrate and gave Indonesia anything we want ? 😂😂😂 Both Russia and China already discussed about Nuclear Research 😂😂😂😂
@@Steve-so7uk man, you're taking this way too far in the wrong
Pacific Oceand And Transatlantic Treaty Organization
P. O. T. A. T. O
Russia Iran China Korean Reclamation Organization League (RICKROL)
Funny acronym although adding transatlantic wouldn’t make any sense since there’s already NATO
@@foobarf8766meanwhile we indian adjusting in boths sides because of peace policy
They had SEATO once; it was one of the reasons the United States got involved in the Vietnam war.
Just gonna say, I don't think South Korea would be super pleased that Japan would be the spearhead of the "Asian NATO." Especially considering how some could argue there is a closer relationship between the US and SK than the US and JP.
Whenever there is a dispute, the US either doesn't take sides or always sides with Japan. Recently the US moved a ton of important military assets to Japan as well. I would not call that a "closer" relationship
Bro why's your studio so dark
As an American, I'm all in favor of Ishiba's proposals. 🇺🇲🇯🇵
Ishiba is absolutely right that the Japan / US relationship is too much of a one-sided "Washington is in charge" relationship. He is right that both Washington and Beijing are likely to ignore Japan if it cannot demonstrate some independence ans strength of will.
That goes part-in-parcel with their postwar status as a defeated nation made to play a pacifist role, but it is high time that penance comes to an end. And if he can offend people like his LDP rival and apologize for what Japan did in WW2, then countries like South Korea will be able to stomach Japan having a normal military once again, and be more eager to join Japan as allies. (China will cry foul in public anyway, but under the surface, would they rather have a Japan which decides things independently based on its own interests, or simply acts to fulfill the wishes of China's true superpower rival, the USA?)
If Japan wants to do this, that need to make sure the US is not as overtly "in charge of everything" as they are with NATO. (Don't become submissive yes-men like the UK; the assessment that the UK is a more equal partner with the USA is incorrect..)
The US does not like the idea of Japan creating an alliance like this, because the US can more easily be "the decider" in its 1 on 1 treaty relationships with Japan. S. Korea, Phillpines, etc., but is also able to keep them from being allies of each other. Such alliances are not just military propositions, but defense industry integration, and the US military industrial complex does not want any rivals making weapons system that do not depend on American companies' involvement.
But a Japanese led initiative might draw in more of Asia's other nations, like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia. (Taiwan, who knows - might be a "special friend" rather than a member.) What the Asian nations face is needing a way to curtail China's hegemony, but relying on a USA that might turn isolationist or else demand too much control, is not the way to go. They must stand together whether the USA is there with them or not.
PS: I can also suggest Canada might do better joining this alliance than getting tacked on as a late entry to AUKUS. Canada is in the Commonwealth, so Australia and New Zealand will always have Canada as an ally. This Asian NATO, or just an alliance with Japan, is a key link we need to develop across the north Pacific.
Hope this will work out better than the last attempt that collapsed due to members constantly tugging into different directions.
Look at the comments on this video lol. Some still brought up WW2 to blame Japan. Asia will never be together, they really love to compete and conflict with each other.
Japan should just join NATO, those asian country could take care of China by themself , Lets see what would happen🤭🤭
Despite WWII ending in 1945, it's still a very recent event. Give it some time. Newer generations have a different political stance than the older folks.
With under China influence, Asian nato is tough to create
China is surrounded by Quad, Aukus , 5 eyes cyber intelligence and so much more. Underneath the table, they call themselves SETO. US is recruiting all the mutual countries one by one to side with them. It will take time and slowly but surely SETO will come to a fruition. By that time, China wont do a damn thing about it. An attack on one, is an attack on all.
Sounds good to me tbh, if the Japanese public is alright with it though. The main reason Japan isn't respected in military alliances as much as the UK for example is because of the public's anti-militarization attitude. Look for example at the Japanese contributions to the UN peace corp and the statements given by those from other countries stationed with them. Only 7 of them sent, and no weapons allowed, and even that was controversial for being too militaristic in Japan.
Right now, Japan basically pays the US to be its military, so it can circumvent public scrutiny, but that means being considered junior to the US.
I'm really curious about how he's gonna tackle this issue, and look forward to what he does!
Japan is not "junior" to America, it's subservient. As is the case with all America's "allies" with the possible exception being Britain.
Japanese are very alright with this, except the far right. After losing 3m persons in a 14 year rampage, the Japanese people are not interested in another round.
Furthermore, they understand China isn't going to invade Japan due to various reasons, including geographical reasons.
The Japanese also do not see Taiwan as part of them. The Senkakus are an irritant but due to Japan's geographical position, it is hardly a big issue.
Furthermore, Japan receives no external support regarding its maritime disputes with other nations. Why should Japan help these nations?
@@arkyark8Britain is no exception. It has become subservient ever since the Suez Crisis. America destroyed our Empire and pretends to be our friend.
@@tkm238-d4r Japan is the most eager one to build this asian nato. Many of the other countries aren't very interested. Some countries like India outright rejected the proposal. So who's helping who here exactly?
Close enough, welcome back SEATO
@7:36 that thinking would make the Us invalid Japan 😂😂😂
“Asian NATO” but 5 out of 9 countries are not located in Asia
geographically centered asia nato, or asian nato focused primarily on that region. learn to read between the lines. do you need things spelled out for you?
@@birdstwin1186 i think you are expecting too much from them
Australia can stay because it's an Asia-Pacific nation and geopolitically influenced by what happens in Asia but the US, Canada, UK and France?? No.
@@birdstwin1186 we don’t need small brains like you. By the time a UK warship reaches China, it would break down or get hit by a missiles or drone.
The uk and France have colonies in Asia.
India shouldn't join it. She has good relationship with The Russian federation and the US, Japan, Iran and now improving relationship woth China. This will not beneficial to India.
This should be an anime.
Oh no we get Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere V 2.0 before gta 6 💀
my AB detected the ad at the end and just skipped the whole vid xD
Why is France and the UK a part of this 😂😂
Because both have colonies in the region still (French Polynesia and Diego Garcia)
@@redfrostblazersince when was Diego Garcia in the Pacific Ocean 😭
They possess two of the world's three blue-water navies and global militaries: other than the US, they're just about the only countries which could reasonably be part of any alliance on Earth.
They are influenced by Chinese imperialism 😂
We're worried about the fate of our fellow citizens in the Pacific for us (french here). China isn't a very reassuring presence. That's why we're also doing our best to strengthen India btw and support their power projection in the indian ocean too.
An "Asian NATO" ...... guys remember SEATO??? are we just repeating historical story beats again??
Enhanced version of each, they have commonalities
“Enhanced” in the sense that the us is a part of it now. All this alliance is, is just the us and its friends, I mean for gods sake, why are the uk, France, Canada, and Australia there?
An Asian NATO alliance will never happen in the current situation, because there is no good answer for how to treat Taiwan. The USA, Japan, SK, Philippines, Australia, NZ, even Britain and France can join a NATO style full alliance without any problems, but for Taiwan there are only three options:
1. Leave them out of the alliance and just continue Taiwan's US defensive partnership
2. Admit them as the "Republic of China" (on Taiwan)
3. Admit them as simply "Taiwan"
Option 1 would make a major war more likely, as starting a big western defensive alliance (against china) but leaving Taiwan (as china's most likely target) out, gives the impression that the western commitment to defend Taiwan is weaker than for anyone else, or that Taiwan is not a 'real country'.
Option 2 would be even more likely to start a war, as it would require every member state to officially recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of China, which implies that the PRC is not China, and that Taiwan's claims on the mainland are valid. This would certainly lead to the PRC invading Taiwan. This option is so hawkish that it would also be a very hard sell to most of the alliance members.
Option 3 would be impossible to sell to Taiwan itself, as that would require them to remake themselves not as the Nationalist Chinese Government, but instead as just "Taiwan", and abandon all claims to the mainland in the process. No Taiwanese government would ever agree to this, and besides, the KMT claims are a diplomatic bargaining chip the west would be throwing away.
A final non-option is option 2 but without recognizing Taiwan as the ROC or requiring Taiwan to drop their claims. This is impossible because it would make the alliance contradictory on what territory it will or will not protect, which is downright dangerous.
As for the benefits, compared to the status quo, an Asian NATO would guarantee collective security against China to the pacific, but that is already certain via the existing US alliances with all of the proposed Asian NATO member states. It would foster more cooperation between member states' militaries, but the Japanese, South Korean, and Philippine militaries are already modeled after and deeply integrated with the USA through existing alliances, while Britain, France, Australia and NZ are also already deeply integrated with the USA and each other via NATO and the Commonwealth of Nations.
This is on top of any other difficulties the alliance may face during detailed negotiations.
In short, an Asian NATO would only hurt the western position in Asia and increase tensions with China, while providing no new benefits in return.
yep exactly, and also when the probability of "sanctions" against china will backfire intensely as most of the SEA countries are heavily reliant on chinese production industry, if for some miracle the US could replace all of that then sure, but it's impossible and it would completely drain any resource/treasury if china will got sanctioned trade.
There's a reason why Amazon isn't big in here even though we're informed by western tools. It's because the west won't invest in the poorer areas unless it's 1st world standards unlike china who will invest even farming. So basically (US) Commercial vs (CN/RU) Industrial.
Nz isn’t deeply integrated with the US at all.
Finally. An Asia Pacific leader with enough guts to stand up against both China and the US. Not just one or the other.
Its pretty clear that Japan is acting as a proxy for the US in the region. Look at all the bases the US has in the country. Theyre gargling US balls and this asian NATO business is just another excuse for American imperialism in the region as always.
The US wants to control Chinas coastline so they can threaten their trade routes with embargo like how the Brits colonised China during the col9nial period. China is not going to allow this to happen. And good for them. The US has no business controlling people 10,000 miles away from them through neo colonialism.
Is there a video that explains the U.S. and England equal partnership? Also how is U.S. and Japan partnership different?
Asian NATO or APTO (Asia Pacific Treaty Organization) would be a great counter to China. Any nation who opposes China-Russia-North Korea should be free to join. (US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Palau, Tonga, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands would be a good starting core). Hopefully Indonesia and Vietnam could join too if they can shake off Chinese and Russian influence respectively
US and Canada are not Asian countries. They would be allies not members
As Malaysia, we will not join this alliance. It be better to rip all the benefits once this conflict end to fix our own economy. Seeing how India and turkey playing two face in Russia and Ukraine conflict kind of nice tactic if we ignore the morality.
As Kiwi, I hope this BS dream team doesn't stick. Let the elephants fight on their own.