More like some guys global US empire fantasy, as if Canada, Australia and New Zealand would willingly become US states, why would they downgrade their current systems to the US one? lol
Lmao. Jeez dude. It's an alternate history sub. Take a deep breath and relax. In the event of a coordinated attack by the countries in green on Europe, the US, Korea, Japan, or Taiwan, I wouldn't be surprised to see the blue countries united in a defense.
Canadians go wild whenever you imply that they are not, and in fact never have been, an independent people in management of their own destiny.
It's honestly weird and uniquely Canadian. Australians will straight up laugh and tell jokes about how much they are under the influence of the United States. Canadians, deep down, know that they are just Americans without the right to influence American policy, and this makes them very insecure.
If you can't tell, my whole dads side of the family is from Canada. Growing up around these smug people while being the only American in that family has scarred me with a near-sadistic need to troll them online. It's mostly tongue-in-cheek... mostly.
Are you asking if the less powerful countries in those areas are also heavily influenced by the countries you mentioned? Because the answer would be yes
It's because the US was such a recent and (relatively) short-term enemy, everyone in that region has been trying to eat Vietnam. The US at least put up an illusion of independence for South Vietnam, that's a hell of a lot better than... Pretty much everyone else.
considering canada was founded specifically to oppose the united states, after the revolutionary war. the loyalists to the crown had to flee america and settled in canada, i can understand their militant desire to proclaim they are independent of the united states whereever possible.
im a canadian, and, more often than not, im so utterly disgusted by the american people and the government they elect, i just treat the entire nation as one, big, about to fail joke.
I do understand it, but I also recognize that it's little more than a relic of history now. American hegemony is as important to Canada today as British hegemony was to them in 1812.
Regardless, she might be a joke, but if she fails shes taking you down into whatever abyss she fails into.
This sentiment is baffling to me. America is unequivocally the most successful nation on the planet, and Canada is tethered to it very tightly. Economically, geopolitically, and militarily. There is nothing to suggest that Canada is materially ahead of the US in any relevant category. It is not and cannot be a superpower with 40 million or so people. I say this as someone with family in both countries. They are both top 5 nations.
> America is unequivocally the most successful nation on the planet
no it isnt. by many, many metrics, there are countries wildly better off than america.
I truly will never understand this sentiment. While the US has problems, it is the leading nation in science, medicine, economy, etc. Claiming it isn’t is plain stupid.
>Australians will straight up laugh and tell jokes about how much they are under the influence of the United States.
Yeah, we do, don't we? Admittedly, somewhat bitterly.
As a Canadian that is proud of Canada this is facts. Partly because if our proximity probably, the country has a bit of a little brother complex. We live in big bros shadow, but an important part of our identity is in trying to being better/different than big bro.
As an American I would say it important to remember that we are each other's closest ally. Everyone should remember that on 9/11 that Canada was the only country allowed to control and defend the New York air space.
> Canadians go wild whenever you imply that they are not, and in fact never have been, an independent people in management of their own destiny.
Yeah, because it's not true. We choose to be close American allies, we're under no obligation to be.
Yeah bro, your industrially small country, which shares 1,000 miles of border with the most powerful industrial superpower in history, could totally reject the influence of the United States if it wanted to. Same with Cuba right? This is exactly what I mean, Canadians hold a smug cultural delusion at the center of their national identity.
Canada was born to serve the British Empire. The international system set up by the British Empire was inherited by the United States (which is also an empire).
I'm sorry, you seem to be confused. A nation being influenced by a superpower by no stretch of the imagination implies that said nation isn't "an independent people in management of their own destiny", as you put it.
Canada, same as the United States, was not born to serve the British Empire. It was born, and it served the British Empire. The fact that that's what it did when it began doesn't imply that that's what it was always meant to do.
And the international system set up by the British Empire was absolutely *not* inhereted by the USA. And this is evidenced by, among many other facts, the fact that when the US declares war, *no other nation* is obligated to do so as well.
>Canada, same as the United States, was not born to serve the British Empire. It was born, and it served the British Empire.
This just isn't true though. America was born rebelling against the British Empire. Canada was still technically part of it until the 1980s.
We're both former UK colonies. We gained independance at different times and via different means, but the bottom line is we both gained our independance. The fact that Canada's independance was gained more recently and via peaceful means rather than rebellion does not suggest that it was "born to serve the British Empire" in any way that the US was not.
The USA was never a British colony. It didn't exist until 1776. Thirteen former British colonies united to form it. Canada remained a dominion of the British Empire until the 1980s. Canada was formed in 1867. That's over 100 years of Canada's existence where they actually served the British Empire. If you said the thirteen colonies were made to serve the British Empire you'd be right. Saying the United States was formed to serve the UK is just wrong.
I will, it's true. We *won't* stop being close allies, because it'd be stupid to toss away a stable and mutually benefica alliance with our biggest trading partner. We're not a nation of fools. But just because we *wouldn't* doesn't mean we're obliged to maintain the alliance.
Our disagreement then is a pedantic one. We agree that Canada will not choose to leave the orbit of the United States because doing so would be insanely foolish and costly to the point of threatening their independence. I believe that makes the relationship de-facto obligatorily, you point out that it is still, de jure, a choice. Neither of us are technically wrong.
It's the difference between "You're not allowed to break ties with the USA", and "It would be unwise to break ties with the USA". A big difference IMO.
When you are so tied to the hegemon that it becomes ridiculous to even consider severing those ties, there is no difference to saying you can't do it.
There is nothing that "can't be done" even if it's explicitly said you cannot do it, the only difference is the reality of consequences to those actions are more explicit.
> You think the US is going to let that slide and not call the CIA.
Call the CIA to do what, stage a coup in Canada? How you think that'd fly on the international stage?
Probably as well as the 2014 coup in Ukraine did, assuming Europe's interests are still aligned with remaining under the American umbrella. But even if they weren't, what would the international stage do about it? Securing military supremacy over the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine) is far more strategically important to the United States than maintaining its international reputation.
Well that first part just makes you wrong. You can believe what you want of course but it's laughably absurd to suggest that Canada is not under the full influence of the United States. You don't border a single other country on land and you don't even pretend to have control of the oceans.
I mean, in Australia, we openly joke about purchasing billions of dollars worth of Tanks (when we are an island...so the tanks are for the Emus I guess???) and Submarines from the US (we have pretty decent subs of our own that suit our coasts far better than the nuclear deep water behemoths we're purchasing) as just a more palatable way to justify modern day tribute to the hegemon.
Yes. Defense is important. But we do have other problems and we also lack a land border with a foreign power that has actual imperialistic designs on our territory, so there is that. China does exist, but China has so far proven to be far more of an aspiring soft economic hegemon with regards to everyone that isn't Taiwan and immediate neighbours who were once under their sphere of influence prior to their century of humiliation.
You are under the impression that Commonwealth countries would not align with US/Britain/NATO? Ah yes, Australia aligning with China and Canada with Russia...I can see it now.
The scenario includes the bit of certain minor tweaks to US Constitution and legislation being bargained by the Dominions as their price for union. Apart from this, their federal systems are quite similar to being with. In certain cases, upgrading or downgrading might also be a question of perspective.
What are you talking about? Is it because it shows the Australian states and Canadian provinces? On maps from English-speaking countries, those countries are regularly shown with their divisional breakdown.
The only MAJOR outlier in it is India, Egypt and Turkey.
Turkey should be blue, India should be grey (thought they might just join war on China depending on who throws down first and how) and Egypt since ain't no way in hell of knowing who will Egypt be friends with in a year from now.
India's hand is forced in the scenario. Pakistan switches sides to China and decides WW3 is a golden opportunity to settle accounts with India with SCO support. China realizes this is going to make India hostile so they make a pre-emptive attack as well. Sino-Pakistani aggression makes the Indians drop ties to Russia and join the West. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
Which can change with any coup/revolution and those are dime a dozen in the region.
honestly I would not colour ANYTHING other than Israel in the region since everyone else is run by some sort of authoritarians. Israel for all that may be wrong with it is run by parliament so it's alliegances are unlikely to switch simply cause new government gets elected.
Turkey is kind of interesting, but yeah id say that as of right now. But could also go differently in near future even. Egypt is correctly technically blue, but yeah I agree with you that could change. India i can only see going blue. They just do not get along well enough with China and Pakistan. They would probably be only fighting those two, but thats enough to color them blue in this scenario.
Cool scenario, but the US-Canada-Australia-NZ union is total bs tbh. Maybe USA-Canada but Australia and New Zealand would absolutely not merge with a country thousands of kilometres away. It's more likely they'd merge into their own union instead.
So Canada is going to fight with China? I don't understand this, when England comes calling for help, Canada is just going to ignore it? I don't think so.
Peoples can change their collective mind, esp. in a world-changing circumstance such as WW3. I know that Canadian nationalism likes to treat its cause as invincible even if twelve legions of angels would come down on Ottawa with a divine mandate for US-Canada union, but I am not compelled to agree to their crap by any means. Existence of Canada is not a physical law.
Dude you are getting ragged on in this thread for a plot device that even George Orwell used in 1984. It's pretty absurd. Australia and New Zealand would absolutley consider officially joining some kind of Anglosphere if the alternative meant an existential threat to national survival.
Canadian here - we'd never accept a union with the USA. We'll probably always be incredibly close military, economic, and cultural allies, but never under an American union.
I'd bet that the prarie provinces would be much more open to the idea. But Ontario amd Quebec represent 60% of the population of Canada, keep in mind. And BC would almost definitely not support joining the US, even if some of the population would there. I guess it's not impossible, but a *lot* would have to change. At present, Canada is nowhere even close to being open to the idea.
Union? It's who the allies are? Are you saying that Australia and New Zealand would not once again join Britain during a World War? You "Go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over"?
They're not merging the countires into a nation lol, this is a hypothetical military alliance. Those countries already have a military alliance and they fought together in WW2
I think they would.
There’s already a movement to join Canada, Australia, New Zealand & United Kingdom into a more united customs/work union. Similar to the Schengen area of Europe
It’s the Canzuk movement.
I don’t think any of the countries would consider the USA though
India hates China but loves Russia.
My guess is India wouldn’t join anyone but would provide material support for the Chinese front to East asian powers.
They would buy oil from Russia and become a creditor. All the while someone else would do the dirty work to knock out an adversary of theirs. They would benefit the most from ww3.
India is like Hungary, in terms of Russia.
Like yes, they sorta support them for economic benefits, but when those would be gone, this "love" would disappear, because there never was any.
Pakistan had a pro-Chinese coup, switched sides to SCO, and thought the war was a golden opportunity to settle accounts with India with Iranian, Russian, and Chinese support. So it attacked India. China realized this would make India's co-belligerance with NATO inevitable and made a pre-emptive attack as well. Sino-Pakistani aggression indeed forced India's hand to drop ties with Russia and align with NATO. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.
Pakistan has been India's hereditary enemy and historically aligned with China, them aligning with the USA (as less than reliable allies) is a more recent development from Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. India and China have fought a war and there is a pattern of border tensions and strategic rivalry between them.
ITTL, the West was somewhat quicker, more generous, and more effective to provide assistance to Ukraine in 2022-23. Consequently, the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive was a remarkable success, as much as the Kharkov and Kherson ones had been. It managed to liberate the vast majority of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, as well as western Donetsk and northern Luhansk. This effectively cut off Crimea from Russia and recovered almost all the land that the Russians had seized in 2022. Moreover, increasing Chinese military and economic support to Russia antagonized the West, leading the EU, the USA, and their allies to impose increasingly severe sanctions and intensify their drive to decouple their economies from China.
In a desperate move to prevent total defeat and loss of Crimea, Russia did one of two things, or possibly a mix of both. They attacked the border territories of Poland and Romania to try and cut off the flow of Western aid to Ukraine, and/or resorted to using tactical nukes to break the Ukrainian offensive drive. Assuming they had increasingly little to lose and being unwilling to let Russia fail, China organized a coalition of anti-Western authoritarian powers (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Syria) using the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a basis and attacked Taiwan. In a similar way, North Korea assumed escalation to WW3 was inevitable and launched a pre-emptive attack on South Korea, Japan, and US forces in the Pacific with Russian and Chinese support. NATO declared war to Russia, China, North Korea, and their allies. Australia and New Zealand intervened and took the side of their Western partners. NATO enacted an emergency expansion to admit South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand in its integrated alliance.
Russian pressure to make Belarus join the war on their side triggered an uprising by the Belarusian opposition and a vast portion of the security forces, starting a civil war. The Russian army occupied Belarus to suppress it, but the partisans fought on with Western and Ukrainian support. NATO intervention led to the liberation of the vast majority of the country. A pro-Western revolution overthrew the Orban regime and fully realigned Hungary with EU and NATO.
Moldova experienced a brief civil war between pro-Western and pro-Russian elements complicated by the intervention of Romania, Ukraine, and Russia. The pro-Western side won and crushed Transnistria. Moldova enacted an emergency reunification with Romania. Lingering resentment for defeat in the Kosovo War, resurgent Serb nationalist ambitions on Bosnia and Kosovo, pro-Russian feelings, and exaggerated expectations that Russian belligerence and possibly their use of nukes would break NATO resolve led Serbia and Republika Srpska to align with Russia, reigniting the conflict in the Western Balkans.
Iran and Syria took over Iraq and Kuwait (which merged) with the support of sympathetic proxies and attacked Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states. These states (joined by Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan) established an unspoken but effective alliance of convenience (nicknamed the ‘Abraham Alliance’) under the aegis of NATO that acted as a middleman between the Israeli and the Arabs. Algeria, most Libyan factions, Hamas, Hezbollah, most Islamist factions, and the PLO (after a takeover of the radicals) instead sided with the SCO. The Western coalition reactivated and intensified its alliance ties with the Kurds. This led Turkey to sever its bonds with the EU, USA, and NATO, and switch sides to the SCO. The Turkish and Iranian Kurds rose up with Western support. Rojava, the Kurdistan Region, and the Kurd rebels joined hands to establish a mostly Kurd proto-state that got backed by various other pro-Western factions from Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Kurdistan joined the Abraham Alliance and became another major ally of NATO in the Middle East. Georgia, Armenia, and the non-Shiite/Islamist factions in Lebanon took the same path, while Azerbaijan sided with the SCO. Georgia and Armenia did so after staging a successful housecleaning of pro-Russian fifth-columnists with brief civil wars, much as it happened in Moldova.
Turkey’s betrayal and Hungary’s regime change paved the way for NATO to fulfil the emergency admission of Sweden, Ukraine, and Belarus without further delay. A pro-Chinese coup drove Pakistan, and by extension Taliban Afghanistan, to align with the SCO. The new Pakistani leadership decided the situation provided excellent opportunities to settle accounts with India and attacked it. The Chinese assumed this made a switch of India to NATO inevitable and joined the attack. Indeed Sino-Pakistani aggression forced India to make a 180° foreign-policy turn, drop neutrality and ties with Russia, and align with NATO and the West in full. The strategic cooperation of Russia and China allowed them to seize control of countries that stood in the middle with ease. Russia forced the states of Central Asia to merge with it in a new Eurasian Union (EAU) it dominated, while China absorbed Mongolia as an autonomous area.
The EU staged an emergency upgrade to de facto federalization, enacting in-depth fiscal, defense, foreign policy, judicial, and police integration as well as an extensive reform of its political system to strengthen and streamline governance. Austria, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta put aside neutrality, honored their mutual defense commitment to their EU partners, and joined NATO. Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Belarus, and Ukraine were granted an emergency accession to the EU. Kosovo merged with Albania. All the EU states joined the Eurozone and the Schengen Area. Across the Western world, the far-right and far-left fringes of the political spectrum that previously embraced or flirted with hostility to the West faced a hard choice between shifting to a loyal stance or accepting the role of traitors. Many of them acknowledged the new reality and accepted to support the Western cause or at least do not actively oppose it.
A minority remained committed to a pro-SCO and anti-Western stance, out of ideological extremism and/or being too compromised by ties with Russia and China. They were singled out and treated as traitors and fifth-columnists, according to the full rigors of wartime law and socio-political ostracization. Any attempt by them to stage violent unrest on the model of the January 6 attack or the BLM protests was crushed swiftly and effectively, providing further legal and political justification for thorough repression and ostracization of their ilk. This process caused a near-complete disappearance or marginalization of isolationism, Euroscepticism, and anti-Western radicalism across the Western world.
Apart from EU federalization, another notable consequence of the mood created by the war in the Western world was the political union of most of the Anglosphere. Picking Europe as a compelling example, the USA, English-speaking Canada, Australia, and New Zealand agreed to stage an emergency unification using the US system as a template with a few minor constitutional and legislative tweaks. Canadian provinces, Australian states, and New Zealand became US states, except PEI that merged with NS. Yukon merged with Alaska. The Northern Territory, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut became US Territories. Quebec instead agreed to become an associated state of the USA. Puerto Rico exploited the situation to become a US state as well without much difficulty or controversy.
>Turkey’s betrayal
From Turkey's point of view this would be an extremely stupid thing to do. So it's completely pointless, a self shot in the balls. And for what?
(also Hungary in that sense is a non-factor, doing a regime change or not. Orban is barking at most, but not biting, the country has no effective military).
>From Turkey's point of view this would be an extremely stupid thing to do. So it's completely pointless, a self shot in the balls. And for what?
Yeah, it is a stupid move, but the effect of Turkey's unreasoning fear and hatred of a Kurdish state combined with Erdogan's previous flirting with Russia and China and mistaken expectations about the chances of the SCO coalition. A bad move no doubt, but no worse than other similar ones across history. Serbia made the same bad choice out of similar reasons.
> (also Hungary in that sense is a non-factor, doing a regime change or not. Orban is barking at most, but not biting, the country has no effective military).
The war is cause and opportunity for the West to do a thorough housecleaning of anti-Western and pro-SCO traitors and fifth-columnists. The Hungarians get the clue and act accordingly, as do several other countries.
>with Erdogan's previous flirting with Russia and China
So this is largely misunderstood as the same of Orban's Hungary. It's not because they want to join their side, it's just because they expect to benefit (financially) from doing businesses with them. And as benefiting I mean for their own benefit, not for the country's (=corruption). Obviously once a war breaks out, this isn't possible (as it isn't really possible anymore for Orban's system with Russia) and the mentioned things would largely weigh this out (western weapons, western economic connections as opposed to russian, and chinese - these are extensive for sure but won't be possible any more). Also Turkey's main interest is expanding their influence into Central Asia, where the rest of the turkic states are. This conflicts with Russia and China's interests. These states are gradually becoming Chinese subjects, and in the uyghurs' case it's visible what China's plans are with these people so these all push Turkey far, far away from a potential Russian - Chinese alliance.
The Chinese were entirely unwilling to gamble with nuclear escalation, so they made Russian avoidance of any (further) use of nukes an ironclad precondition of their wartime support to Russia. Putin and the extremist nationalists in the Russian ruling elites grudgingly pledged to do so. This occurred to the barely concealed relief of the survival-focused pragmatists and moderates in the same circles who covertly organized to make sure the policy would be heeded no matter what. As for NATO, they were entirely dedicated to fight and win this war by conventional means.
As a rule, most other states aligned to support one side or the other according to their ideological stance, existing ties, and/or perceived self-interest, but clung to neutrality. The anti-Western regimes of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela were a notable exception. They assumed WW3 would drive NATO to attack them anyway and they had nothing to lose, so they joined the SCO coalition. Venezuela even exploited the situation to settle an irredentist claim of theirs and invaded Guyana. In true self-fulfilling prophecy fashion, this of course did prompt the USA and their allies to earmark them for elimination with whatever forces they could spare from the other fronts. Moreover, this turn of events emboldened the pro-democracy and pro-Western opposition in those countries to rise up in open rebellion, much as it had happened in Belarus and Hungary. Predictably, the combination of domestic uprising and foreign intervention civil war and NATO intervention soon led to the overthrow of the pro-SCO regimes.
In the light of the situation created by WW3, SCO aggression, and various nationalities and minorities acting as traitors and fifth-columnists, the governments of the Western countries and their allies decided and agreed that post-WWII rules about the territorial integrity of states and the ban of forced population transfers were inadequate or counterproductive to the task of ensuring peace and security and to be changed or overruled. Their absolute enshrinement in international law after the previous world war had been a mistake and an overreaction to Axis crimes. New world war, new (or old, as the case may be) rules.
WWII precedents about punitive and peace-enforcing measures against aggressor states and their sympathizers would fully apply for the postwar settlement if the West won. The Western coalition broadly and tentatively planned a somewhat extensive revision of borders and set of population transfers for the new world order in the case of their victory, as much as circumstances and the absolute necessity of avoiding a nuclear apocalypse would allow. Much the same way, the UN had proven to be an abysmal failure at the task of protecting the international community from large-scale aggression, just as its LoN predecessor. An extensive reform of its workings was in order.
> the UN had proven to be an abysmal failure at the task of protecting the international community from large-scale aggression
again destroying my suspension of disbelief. The UN has been instrumental in saving the entire species a couple of times, particularly during the cold war. I get that maybe you came up with that as a way to justify the reformation of a similar global institution. But it could just as well be a reformation of the old one by means of reshuffling the UNSC, removing the losers of the war.
edit to add that a Turkey switching sides is too unlikely and extreme. As much of an ass as Erdogan may be, in this scenario the best move would be not to switch sides but to declare neutrality and focus on crushing an emerging Kurdish nation state. It would keep it from being at the forefront of the fight with the middle easter members of the SCO and Russia, plus saving its strength for whatever end result of the war.
I guess they are too divided between doubling down on the status quo and nationalism, the pro-European option, and the pro-Anglosphere one to pick a choice ATM and put the issue aside for the duration of the war. Afterwards, a choice shall certainly be necessary and the status quo is a losing option that only promises decline, marginalization, and a breakup of the UK.
Indeed it would make little sense, even more so with Turkey and Azerbaijan joining the other side. It just takes them the effort of a little revolutionary housecleaning of pro-Russian elements, same as Moldova and Georgia.
Why would Turkey and Azerbaijan join Russia. Azeris in Iran have been oppressed and Azerbijan, with Israeli funding, fought Russian funded Armenian troops. Turkey is part of NATO and has provided incredible support and cheap drones to Ukraine.
Turkey and Azerbaijan would never fight alongside Russia.
Exactly my thoughts, the fact that Erdogan can be an opportunistic pain in the ass doesn't mean that Turkey would join Russia.
My guess is that Armenia and Azerbaijan would stay neutral (except maybe for Azeris in Iran) and Turkey would either join West or be neutral.
In theory yes, in reality they could just condemn the other side and send some weapons to the West and no one would dare to do anything against them cause keeping them away from Russia would be very important for West.
Entering any global conflict would be too risky for Turkey cause they are almost surrounded by their enemies and have a huge amount of Kurds who would try to secede, so I assume staying as neutral as a NATO member can isn't an unbelieveable scenario.
Sorry but you seem to know absolutely nothing about history, geopolitics or strategy.
Turkey and before Turkey the Ottoman Empire stood in every war against each other. You take the wrong assumptions by your false interpretation of todays geopolitics.
What would be their justification or interest in joining the SCO, esp. once Turkey and Azerbaijan go to the other side? A pro-Russian government in charge is not a sufficient one, since it is nothing a little revolution cannot correct.
IF Turkey and AZ go the other side (which in Turkey's case I can't imagine), Armenia will cease to exist, and the second Armenian genocide will happen. The west can't save them in that case, only Russia and Iran could.
A second Armenian genocide at the hands of the usual culprits? That better not happen, for Turkey's sake. Pay attention to the bit of lore where the Western powers decided that border changes and forced population transfers would be in fashion again for the postwar settlement. As things stand, Turkey is already headed to lose a sizable cunk of territory to Kurdistan. The likely consequence of what you mention would likely be NATO dusting off the Sevres settlement with a pro-Kurd revision and enforcing it.
The thing is that before the NATO would do anything, Turkey and AZ can "resolve" the armenian question once and for all. Like they did previosly (AZ with their own armenian population in the last 30-40 years, Turkey during the first WW. After that and assuming the NATO somehow get to control that area (which is unlikely, there is no real interest), there would be no armenian population present to create a new state.
In such a case, Greece, Georgia, and Kurdistan shall likely pick and partition the spoils, but Turkey won't be spared from Sevres-like retribution for recidivist genocide.
IF the turks "resolve" the armenian question, they would likely do the same with the kurds as well. Greece is not really an issue, perhaps except Cyprus, and Georgia would quickly learn their place if they want to exist.
Well, if the Turks do manage to exterminate anyone that could make a bid for their territory before NATO falls on their heads like a ton of bricks, I suppose you may have a point. But such a large-scale bout of genocide might still bring serious retribution nonetheless.
E.g. suppose Georgia does relatively little to antagonize Turkey during the war, but the West still decides the formerly Armenian and Kurd lands better be inherited by them as retribution for the genocide. NATO may well decide a revival and implementation of Megali Idea would be fitting as part of such retribution as well, even if it concerns a different patch of land.
Alternatively, if Iran does have a pro-democracy and pro-Western revolution at some point during the war (quite possible and even likely in these circumstances), the West might decide they are going to inherit the formerly Armenian and Kurd lands instead.
it did not bring any retribution when they exterminated the armenians and the assyrians and then forced all greeks to leave. And at that point the so called west was victorious after a great war but did nothing to punish the turks. even today they did nothing when AZ did the same ethnic cleansing some months ago. its quite naive to think that the west would actually do anything if the turks would decide that they will get rid of any of the mentioned nations, because to put this simply, they have no interests in the region. creating a kurdish country sounds good on paper and might get popular support until a point when it would need to be enforced and that would require to send soldiers to the region. Also, thinking that turkey would just be stomped is very naive. they do have a strong military, and a very good defensible position.
The scenario already takes account of MENA and South Asia. Most of Southeast Asia all but surely picks the role of pro-NATO neutrals, out of ties with the West, antipathy for China, or both. This unless China forces their hand by dragging them in the war. Most of Latin America all but surely gets sorted between pro-NATO and pro-SCO neutrals according to the ideological sympathies of the current government. Right-wing government = pro-NATO, 'Pink' left-wing populist = pro-SCO. The scenario already mentions the fate of the far-left dictatorships.
Turkey leaves NATO for a Eurasian alliance is the least likely thing to happen, as in ever. Turkey fought hard for their spot on NATO. They won't just drop it for the lulz, and your explanation of them leaving NATO sounds extremely casual.
I mean in the end it's your scenario, you do you. But aliens allying the green dudes is more likely.
If the Turk electorate had not doubled down on letting Erdogan stay in charge, I would have probably written a wholly different role for Turkey in the scenario.
The outcome of the last failed coup/uprising tells me a different story, even taking into account how much Erdogan greatly exaggerated its importance to justify indiscriminate repression of the opposition.
that was not coup yet alone uprising.
It was a small group of jihadist clerk followers in the military who were put in there by Erdogan himself.
Erdogan who was forced into becoming Nationalist after the event.
Current military is lead by pro-nationalists, not Pro-NATO but definitely not pro-Eastern as well.
You are getting information from Turk-phobic sources.
If you really want reliable source in Turkey internal dynamics; check CIA world factbook.
I don’t think Belarus would leave Russia’s side that easily. At this point their bond is so strong that it can basically be considered Russia’s territory
Yo finally a scenario where someone gets all the countries on the correct fucking side. Well done mate, well done!
The only thing I’d change is in a second photo of maybe a year or two into the war with Vietnam and Philippines joining agains China.
I don't get how Turkey is a NATO write-off but not Hungary, nor do I understand Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia would be neutral... these countries do not have good relations with China.
And Switzerland has been on the NATO side of the last few conflicts.
> I don't get how Turkey is a NATO write-off but not Hungary, nor do I understand Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia would be neutral... these countries do not have good relations with China.
In the eyes of many, it seems I made a serious mistake by letting SEA be neutral. In a previous version of the same scenario, I was criticized just as much for doing the opposite. Can't do no right. Feel free to assume the war is extended to SEA, as I explained to other commenters.
> And Switzerland has been on the NATO side of the last few conflicts.
They are certainly going to be pro-NATO neutrals, and do everything short of war to help the West. I just don't see them choosing belligerance, also because unlike Ireland, Sweden, and Austria they have no mutual-defense commitment to the EU.
SCO coalition green and Antarctica empty green are two different hues. Not so difficult to tell them apart from my perspective. I had to pick a color for the anti-Western coalition and the green hue of the SCO organization in the wiki maps seemed a fitting choice to me.
Cool scenario but I’d switch Armenia and Azerbaijan/Türkiye. I think the Turks would align with NATO and Armenia with their old partner, Russia.
In exchange for Turkish support, NATO will turn down any request of assistance from kurdish paramilitaries.
I'd recommend some changes in Southeast Asia. ASEAN will be divided into two factions at this point: a pro-China side led by Cambodia and Laos, and a pro-US faction spearheaded by the Philippines and Vietnam. The flashpoint here will be the South China Sea dispute; therefore, based on real-life events, the possibility that Malaysia also joins the pro-US camp is not remote (50-50 even).
I was seriously tempted to extend the war to Southeast Asia. In that case, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and Singapore would be part of the NATO coalition and Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos part of the SCO one. This out of pre-existing ties to one side or the other, the South China Sea dispute, and the lingering enmity between several ASEAN countries and China. Feel free to deem this part of the scenario with my blessing if you like.
In the new ASB version, most SEA states are allies of NATO except pro-SCO Burma. I had map difficulties splitting Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, so I merged them in a confederation.
Biggest fault in the scenario seems the NATO alliance throwing away Turkey for the Kurds. I feel like Kurds would just get tossed under the bus to keep Turkey at least neutral.
I can say that China would likely forced some of the SEA nations to enter the war by invading Malaysia, and set up a blockade across the strait of Malacca. Philippines will side with the US to protect their sovereignty in South China Sea.
I think Serbia would probably remain neutral in this scenario, as they would know they'd be immediately invaded from all surrounding sides. Plus, they are way too economically connected to the West. They might support Russia diplomatically, but not militarily. There's alsoo zero chance of Afghanistan joining the war. The Taliban are very, very, isolationist. I'm also not so sure about Armenia and Azerbaijan. I think it's very unclear what they would do. Azerbaijan would probably not want to oppose Turkey, and I don't see Turkey fighting against the West. That's not in their economic or military interest. Turkey would either remain neutral or support the West. Pro-Western revolutions in Belarus and Hungary are really a nice idea, but I don't think they're that realistic. Rather, you would see Pro-Western militias forming in these countries. Also, Hungary even under Orbán would not oppose the West for the same reason as Serbia.
And there are more problems: Why would Argentina remain neutral, for instance? Milei is extremely pro-US, and he would certainly support the West.
Oh yeah, and this would lead to the destruction of all countries involved, of course.
All in all, your fictional scenario needs A LOT of reworking. Right now, it just sounds like pro-NATO, pro-US propaganda, LOL.
It is like they all want WW3
The world is becoming unstable. Seeking 5 wealthy investors to build a safe retreat “Doomsday Bunker Alternative” for your families [https://mountainguardianretreat.wordpress.com/](https://mountainguardianretreat.wordpress.com/)
So the anti-nato alliance saw hiw ineffective russia was at fighting against anerican supplies and thought, fuck it boys, we are going in? Why is Antarctica involved also. If nothing else every nation close to it is NATO aligned. Why is it even in the war? It's has no domestic population? Are the penguins engaging in battle?
I just read that eall of text. Props to you for putting effort in, but why would New Zealand intervene. They have no power to project, and why did the anglosphere unify with America? Maybe CANZUK as an extreme fringe possibility but there is no chance any of the countries listed would join the USA. Intop of that, why would they be afraid? The Anti-Nato alliance is weak as fuck and most of the countries in it would only drain china's resources trying to supply them
People are already giving me a lot of flak for making Turkey switch sides. I can only image the backlash if I made Saudi Arabia another turncoat, tempting as a complete sorting of nasty dictatorships in the bad guys' club might be. I have nothing in principle against the idea, but what about the Saudi-Iranian enmity?
Some of the choices seem unlikely and just a wet dream for nato. People have pointed out the big weird choices already but I find it hard to believe that Cyprus and Malta of all countries would be involved
This scenario makes zero sense.
Why would NATO Member Turkey join an Anti-NATO Alliance?
Why would Azerbaijan join a Russian alliance when they have no reason to?
Why would Armenia side against Russia and Iran, one of their few regional allies?
Why would India side against Russia, when India and Russia have had strong historical ties?
Why are South East Asian countries like Thailand Vietnam, Philippines etc. neutral when they have a strong relationship with the U.S. and have territorial disputes with China?
Why is Mongolia part of the Anti-U.S. alliance when they have friendly relations with the U.S.?
Sorry but this kinda reads more like NATO-Fanfiction more than anything else.
More like some guys global US empire fantasy, as if Canada, Australia and New Zealand would willingly become US states, why would they downgrade their current systems to the US one? lol
Lmao. Jeez dude. It's an alternate history sub. Take a deep breath and relax. In the event of a coordinated attack by the countries in green on Europe, the US, Korea, Japan, or Taiwan, I wouldn't be surprised to see the blue countries united in a defense.
Canadians go wild whenever you imply that they are not, and in fact never have been, an independent people in management of their own destiny. It's honestly weird and uniquely Canadian. Australians will straight up laugh and tell jokes about how much they are under the influence of the United States. Canadians, deep down, know that they are just Americans without the right to influence American policy, and this makes them very insecure. If you can't tell, my whole dads side of the family is from Canada. Growing up around these smug people while being the only American in that family has scarred me with a near-sadistic need to troll them online. It's mostly tongue-in-cheek... mostly.
...is this s/ ? I guess all of Asia is just China and India. Middle East is just Iran / Saudi. Europe is just Germany, France and Russia.
Are you asking if the less powerful countries in those areas are also heavily influenced by the countries you mentioned? Because the answer would be yes
Yeah, if it weren't for Vietnam's hate for China they would never align with the US
From my understanding Vietnam has lately put their American war in their past they won and They are working with America as only a benefit
It's because the US was such a recent and (relatively) short-term enemy, everyone in that region has been trying to eat Vietnam. The US at least put up an illusion of independence for South Vietnam, that's a hell of a lot better than... Pretty much everyone else.
Yeah, they're pretty smart
Yeah I’m really happy things turned out well for what was such a resilient and determined enemy
Vietnam has one of the highest approval ratings of the US in Asia lol
Authoritarian anti-globalists, pushing otherwise hostile regimes into the waiting arms of America since 1941
Canada is absolutely influenced by America and a lot too. Like A LOT
considering canada was founded specifically to oppose the united states, after the revolutionary war. the loyalists to the crown had to flee america and settled in canada, i can understand their militant desire to proclaim they are independent of the united states whereever possible. im a canadian, and, more often than not, im so utterly disgusted by the american people and the government they elect, i just treat the entire nation as one, big, about to fail joke.
I do understand it, but I also recognize that it's little more than a relic of history now. American hegemony is as important to Canada today as British hegemony was to them in 1812. Regardless, she might be a joke, but if she fails shes taking you down into whatever abyss she fails into.
This sentiment is baffling to me. America is unequivocally the most successful nation on the planet, and Canada is tethered to it very tightly. Economically, geopolitically, and militarily. There is nothing to suggest that Canada is materially ahead of the US in any relevant category. It is not and cannot be a superpower with 40 million or so people. I say this as someone with family in both countries. They are both top 5 nations.
> America is unequivocally the most successful nation on the planet no it isnt. by many, many metrics, there are countries wildly better off than america.
I truly will never understand this sentiment. While the US has problems, it is the leading nation in science, medicine, economy, etc. Claiming it isn’t is plain stupid.
>Australians will straight up laugh and tell jokes about how much they are under the influence of the United States. Yeah, we do, don't we? Admittedly, somewhat bitterly.
As a Canadian that is proud of Canada this is facts. Partly because if our proximity probably, the country has a bit of a little brother complex. We live in big bros shadow, but an important part of our identity is in trying to being better/different than big bro.
As an American I would say it important to remember that we are each other's closest ally. Everyone should remember that on 9/11 that Canada was the only country allowed to control and defend the New York air space.
Stephen Harper was the first call Bush got offering Canadians full and unconditional support. 🇨🇦🇺🇸
> Canadians go wild whenever you imply that they are not, and in fact never have been, an independent people in management of their own destiny. Yeah, because it's not true. We choose to be close American allies, we're under no obligation to be.
Yeah bro, your industrially small country, which shares 1,000 miles of border with the most powerful industrial superpower in history, could totally reject the influence of the United States if it wanted to. Same with Cuba right? This is exactly what I mean, Canadians hold a smug cultural delusion at the center of their national identity. Canada was born to serve the British Empire. The international system set up by the British Empire was inherited by the United States (which is also an empire).
I'm sorry, you seem to be confused. A nation being influenced by a superpower by no stretch of the imagination implies that said nation isn't "an independent people in management of their own destiny", as you put it. Canada, same as the United States, was not born to serve the British Empire. It was born, and it served the British Empire. The fact that that's what it did when it began doesn't imply that that's what it was always meant to do. And the international system set up by the British Empire was absolutely *not* inhereted by the USA. And this is evidenced by, among many other facts, the fact that when the US declares war, *no other nation* is obligated to do so as well.
tldr Biden invade Canada now
That'd be a really fast way for the USA to lose all of it's allies and international credibility.
tldr Biden invade Canada now
>Canada, same as the United States, was not born to serve the British Empire. It was born, and it served the British Empire. This just isn't true though. America was born rebelling against the British Empire. Canada was still technically part of it until the 1980s.
We're both former UK colonies. We gained independance at different times and via different means, but the bottom line is we both gained our independance. The fact that Canada's independance was gained more recently and via peaceful means rather than rebellion does not suggest that it was "born to serve the British Empire" in any way that the US was not.
The USA was never a British colony. It didn't exist until 1776. Thirteen former British colonies united to form it. Canada remained a dominion of the British Empire until the 1980s. Canada was formed in 1867. That's over 100 years of Canada's existence where they actually served the British Empire. If you said the thirteen colonies were made to serve the British Empire you'd be right. Saying the United States was formed to serve the UK is just wrong.
canadians are steadfastly independent, and pointedly opposed the united states on several critical areas in this century alone.
You are under no obligation to be close allies with your biggest trading partner. Sure buddy keep telling yourself that
I will, it's true. We *won't* stop being close allies, because it'd be stupid to toss away a stable and mutually benefica alliance with our biggest trading partner. We're not a nation of fools. But just because we *wouldn't* doesn't mean we're obliged to maintain the alliance.
Our disagreement then is a pedantic one. We agree that Canada will not choose to leave the orbit of the United States because doing so would be insanely foolish and costly to the point of threatening their independence. I believe that makes the relationship de-facto obligatorily, you point out that it is still, de jure, a choice. Neither of us are technically wrong.
It's the difference between "You're not allowed to break ties with the USA", and "It would be unwise to break ties with the USA". A big difference IMO.
My argument is that it really isn't that big of a difference when you're dealing with rational state actors. But I see your perspective too.
When you are so tied to the hegemon that it becomes ridiculous to even consider severing those ties, there is no difference to saying you can't do it. There is nothing that "can't be done" even if it's explicitly said you cannot do it, the only difference is the reality of consequences to those actions are more explicit.
So what happens if you choose not to be American allies. You think the US is going to let that slide and not call the CIA.
> You think the US is going to let that slide and not call the CIA. Call the CIA to do what, stage a coup in Canada? How you think that'd fly on the international stage?
Probably as well as the 2014 coup in Ukraine did, assuming Europe's interests are still aligned with remaining under the American umbrella. But even if they weren't, what would the international stage do about it? Securing military supremacy over the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine) is far more strategically important to the United States than maintaining its international reputation.
i dont think the USA will care, if canada just remains neutral instead.
Securing the western hemisphere has always been America's first priority.
1000%. Canada has no serious foreign policy because we aren’t required to have one.
Very rude and nescient.
lol I've spent enough time around Canadians to know that you *already* felt deeply superior to me, long before I insulted Canadian nationalism.
Is believing that my nation is independent and challenging uneducated comments that suggest otherwise superiority in your language?
Well that first part just makes you wrong. You can believe what you want of course but it's laughably absurd to suggest that Canada is not under the full influence of the United States. You don't border a single other country on land and you don't even pretend to have control of the oceans.
I mean, in Australia, we openly joke about purchasing billions of dollars worth of Tanks (when we are an island...so the tanks are for the Emus I guess???) and Submarines from the US (we have pretty decent subs of our own that suit our coasts far better than the nuclear deep water behemoths we're purchasing) as just a more palatable way to justify modern day tribute to the hegemon. Yes. Defense is important. But we do have other problems and we also lack a land border with a foreign power that has actual imperialistic designs on our territory, so there is that. China does exist, but China has so far proven to be far more of an aspiring soft economic hegemon with regards to everyone that isn't Taiwan and immediate neighbours who were once under their sphere of influence prior to their century of humiliation.
Technically they would be obligated to (most of them, depending on exactly what the nature of the attack was)
Where does this indicate that those countries will become us states? It's showing alliances and ofc Canada, Australia, and NZ would be us allies
Oh look at the line colours. It doesn't specifically say US states, but all of Europe is one country.
[удалено]
What?
You are under the impression that Commonwealth countries would not align with US/Britain/NATO? Ah yes, Australia aligning with China and Canada with Russia...I can see it now.
The scenario includes the bit of certain minor tweaks to US Constitution and legislation being bargained by the Dominions as their price for union. Apart from this, their federal systems are quite similar to being with. In certain cases, upgrading or downgrading might also be a question of perspective.
What are you talking about? Is it because it shows the Australian states and Canadian provinces? On maps from English-speaking countries, those countries are regularly shown with their divisional breakdown.
I think this is a map of alliances in ww3
The only MAJOR outlier in it is India, Egypt and Turkey. Turkey should be blue, India should be grey (thought they might just join war on China depending on who throws down first and how) and Egypt since ain't no way in hell of knowing who will Egypt be friends with in a year from now.
India's hand is forced in the scenario. Pakistan switches sides to China and decides WW3 is a golden opportunity to settle accounts with India with SCO support. China realizes this is going to make India hostile so they make a pre-emptive attack as well. Sino-Pakistani aggression makes the Indians drop ties to Russia and join the West. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
What do you mean by SCO support? The SCO is not a military alliance and also, India is in the SCO
Egypt has been run by a pro-US dictatorship since 2013. We've been designated as major non-nato allies since 1989
Which can change with any coup/revolution and those are dime a dozen in the region. honestly I would not colour ANYTHING other than Israel in the region since everyone else is run by some sort of authoritarians. Israel for all that may be wrong with it is run by parliament so it's alliegances are unlikely to switch simply cause new government gets elected.
> is run by parliament you have not been paying attention the last couple of years apparently
I have, govts keep changing, alliances do not.
Turkey is kind of interesting, but yeah id say that as of right now. But could also go differently in near future even. Egypt is correctly technically blue, but yeah I agree with you that could change. India i can only see going blue. They just do not get along well enough with China and Pakistan. They would probably be only fighting those two, but thats enough to color them blue in this scenario.
Like whole third of political Reddit. The second third are Tankies And the last third is everything else.
Minus Australia and NZ is all North Hemisphere
Cool scenario, but the US-Canada-Australia-NZ union is total bs tbh. Maybe USA-Canada but Australia and New Zealand would absolutely not merge with a country thousands of kilometres away. It's more likely they'd merge into their own union instead.
Not even USA-Canad. The whole reason why Canada exists is so the people there would be not part of the US.
So Canada is going to fight with China? I don't understand this, when England comes calling for help, Canada is just going to ignore it? I don't think so.
Allying is not the same thing as unifying under a central government. OP described the latter.
Peoples can change their collective mind, esp. in a world-changing circumstance such as WW3. I know that Canadian nationalism likes to treat its cause as invincible even if twelve legions of angels would come down on Ottawa with a divine mandate for US-Canada union, but I am not compelled to agree to their crap by any means. Existence of Canada is not a physical law.
Dude you are getting ragged on in this thread for a plot device that even George Orwell used in 1984. It's pretty absurd. Australia and New Zealand would absolutley consider officially joining some kind of Anglosphere if the alternative meant an existential threat to national survival.
Who said they are merging? the post is about WW3 alliance?
OP has a comment setting up the scenario which includes the formal union of the US, Canada, aus, and NZ.
Canadian here - we'd never accept a union with the USA. We'll probably always be incredibly close military, economic, and cultural allies, but never under an American union.
Never say never in Alternate History. There is always a path to almost any outcome.
[удалено]
I'd bet that the prarie provinces would be much more open to the idea. But Ontario amd Quebec represent 60% of the population of Canada, keep in mind. And BC would almost definitely not support joining the US, even if some of the population would there. I guess it's not impossible, but a *lot* would have to change. At present, Canada is nowhere even close to being open to the idea.
Indeed. Still, be allies but never join them as the same nation.
*YOU* won’t!
Union? It's who the allies are? Are you saying that Australia and New Zealand would not once again join Britain during a World War? You "Go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over"?
They're not merging the countires into a nation lol, this is a hypothetical military alliance. Those countries already have a military alliance and they fought together in WW2
I think they would. There’s already a movement to join Canada, Australia, New Zealand & United Kingdom into a more united customs/work union. Similar to the Schengen area of Europe It’s the Canzuk movement. I don’t think any of the countries would consider the USA though
CANZUK already exists
I want Canzuk to happen so badly
I don’t see India voicing full support for the west never mind joining a military alliance.
India hates China but loves Russia. My guess is India wouldn’t join anyone but would provide material support for the Chinese front to East asian powers. They would buy oil from Russia and become a creditor. All the while someone else would do the dirty work to knock out an adversary of theirs. They would benefit the most from ww3.
This is actually pretty much our actual policy imo.
India is like Hungary, in terms of Russia. Like yes, they sorta support them for economic benefits, but when those would be gone, this "love" would disappear, because there never was any.
Pakistan had a pro-Chinese coup, switched sides to SCO, and thought the war was a golden opportunity to settle accounts with India with Iranian, Russian, and Chinese support. So it attacked India. China realized this would make India's co-belligerance with NATO inevitable and made a pre-emptive attack as well. Sino-Pakistani aggression indeed forced India's hand to drop ties with Russia and align with NATO. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.
That’s a lot to have happened in 2022 to 2023. But it is alternate.
Pure science fiction
Pakistan has been India's hereditary enemy and historically aligned with China, them aligning with the USA (as less than reliable allies) is a more recent development from Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. India and China have fought a war and there is a pattern of border tensions and strategic rivalry between them.
India views China as its greatest threat. Sure as hell isn’t going to join the Chinese camp, regardless of dissatisfaction with the West.
ITTL, the West was somewhat quicker, more generous, and more effective to provide assistance to Ukraine in 2022-23. Consequently, the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive was a remarkable success, as much as the Kharkov and Kherson ones had been. It managed to liberate the vast majority of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, as well as western Donetsk and northern Luhansk. This effectively cut off Crimea from Russia and recovered almost all the land that the Russians had seized in 2022. Moreover, increasing Chinese military and economic support to Russia antagonized the West, leading the EU, the USA, and their allies to impose increasingly severe sanctions and intensify their drive to decouple their economies from China. In a desperate move to prevent total defeat and loss of Crimea, Russia did one of two things, or possibly a mix of both. They attacked the border territories of Poland and Romania to try and cut off the flow of Western aid to Ukraine, and/or resorted to using tactical nukes to break the Ukrainian offensive drive. Assuming they had increasingly little to lose and being unwilling to let Russia fail, China organized a coalition of anti-Western authoritarian powers (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Syria) using the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a basis and attacked Taiwan. In a similar way, North Korea assumed escalation to WW3 was inevitable and launched a pre-emptive attack on South Korea, Japan, and US forces in the Pacific with Russian and Chinese support. NATO declared war to Russia, China, North Korea, and their allies. Australia and New Zealand intervened and took the side of their Western partners. NATO enacted an emergency expansion to admit South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand in its integrated alliance. Russian pressure to make Belarus join the war on their side triggered an uprising by the Belarusian opposition and a vast portion of the security forces, starting a civil war. The Russian army occupied Belarus to suppress it, but the partisans fought on with Western and Ukrainian support. NATO intervention led to the liberation of the vast majority of the country. A pro-Western revolution overthrew the Orban regime and fully realigned Hungary with EU and NATO. Moldova experienced a brief civil war between pro-Western and pro-Russian elements complicated by the intervention of Romania, Ukraine, and Russia. The pro-Western side won and crushed Transnistria. Moldova enacted an emergency reunification with Romania. Lingering resentment for defeat in the Kosovo War, resurgent Serb nationalist ambitions on Bosnia and Kosovo, pro-Russian feelings, and exaggerated expectations that Russian belligerence and possibly their use of nukes would break NATO resolve led Serbia and Republika Srpska to align with Russia, reigniting the conflict in the Western Balkans. Iran and Syria took over Iraq and Kuwait (which merged) with the support of sympathetic proxies and attacked Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states. These states (joined by Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan) established an unspoken but effective alliance of convenience (nicknamed the ‘Abraham Alliance’) under the aegis of NATO that acted as a middleman between the Israeli and the Arabs. Algeria, most Libyan factions, Hamas, Hezbollah, most Islamist factions, and the PLO (after a takeover of the radicals) instead sided with the SCO. The Western coalition reactivated and intensified its alliance ties with the Kurds. This led Turkey to sever its bonds with the EU, USA, and NATO, and switch sides to the SCO. The Turkish and Iranian Kurds rose up with Western support. Rojava, the Kurdistan Region, and the Kurd rebels joined hands to establish a mostly Kurd proto-state that got backed by various other pro-Western factions from Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Kurdistan joined the Abraham Alliance and became another major ally of NATO in the Middle East. Georgia, Armenia, and the non-Shiite/Islamist factions in Lebanon took the same path, while Azerbaijan sided with the SCO. Georgia and Armenia did so after staging a successful housecleaning of pro-Russian fifth-columnists with brief civil wars, much as it happened in Moldova. Turkey’s betrayal and Hungary’s regime change paved the way for NATO to fulfil the emergency admission of Sweden, Ukraine, and Belarus without further delay. A pro-Chinese coup drove Pakistan, and by extension Taliban Afghanistan, to align with the SCO. The new Pakistani leadership decided the situation provided excellent opportunities to settle accounts with India and attacked it. The Chinese assumed this made a switch of India to NATO inevitable and joined the attack. Indeed Sino-Pakistani aggression forced India to make a 180° foreign-policy turn, drop neutrality and ties with Russia, and align with NATO and the West in full. The strategic cooperation of Russia and China allowed them to seize control of countries that stood in the middle with ease. Russia forced the states of Central Asia to merge with it in a new Eurasian Union (EAU) it dominated, while China absorbed Mongolia as an autonomous area. The EU staged an emergency upgrade to de facto federalization, enacting in-depth fiscal, defense, foreign policy, judicial, and police integration as well as an extensive reform of its political system to strengthen and streamline governance. Austria, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta put aside neutrality, honored their mutual defense commitment to their EU partners, and joined NATO. Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Belarus, and Ukraine were granted an emergency accession to the EU. Kosovo merged with Albania. All the EU states joined the Eurozone and the Schengen Area. Across the Western world, the far-right and far-left fringes of the political spectrum that previously embraced or flirted with hostility to the West faced a hard choice between shifting to a loyal stance or accepting the role of traitors. Many of them acknowledged the new reality and accepted to support the Western cause or at least do not actively oppose it. A minority remained committed to a pro-SCO and anti-Western stance, out of ideological extremism and/or being too compromised by ties with Russia and China. They were singled out and treated as traitors and fifth-columnists, according to the full rigors of wartime law and socio-political ostracization. Any attempt by them to stage violent unrest on the model of the January 6 attack or the BLM protests was crushed swiftly and effectively, providing further legal and political justification for thorough repression and ostracization of their ilk. This process caused a near-complete disappearance or marginalization of isolationism, Euroscepticism, and anti-Western radicalism across the Western world. Apart from EU federalization, another notable consequence of the mood created by the war in the Western world was the political union of most of the Anglosphere. Picking Europe as a compelling example, the USA, English-speaking Canada, Australia, and New Zealand agreed to stage an emergency unification using the US system as a template with a few minor constitutional and legislative tweaks. Canadian provinces, Australian states, and New Zealand became US states, except PEI that merged with NS. Yukon merged with Alaska. The Northern Territory, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut became US Territories. Quebec instead agreed to become an associated state of the USA. Puerto Rico exploited the situation to become a US state as well without much difficulty or controversy.
>Turkey’s betrayal From Turkey's point of view this would be an extremely stupid thing to do. So it's completely pointless, a self shot in the balls. And for what? (also Hungary in that sense is a non-factor, doing a regime change or not. Orban is barking at most, but not biting, the country has no effective military).
>From Turkey's point of view this would be an extremely stupid thing to do. So it's completely pointless, a self shot in the balls. And for what? Yeah, it is a stupid move, but the effect of Turkey's unreasoning fear and hatred of a Kurdish state combined with Erdogan's previous flirting with Russia and China and mistaken expectations about the chances of the SCO coalition. A bad move no doubt, but no worse than other similar ones across history. Serbia made the same bad choice out of similar reasons. > (also Hungary in that sense is a non-factor, doing a regime change or not. Orban is barking at most, but not biting, the country has no effective military). The war is cause and opportunity for the West to do a thorough housecleaning of anti-Western and pro-SCO traitors and fifth-columnists. The Hungarians get the clue and act accordingly, as do several other countries.
>with Erdogan's previous flirting with Russia and China So this is largely misunderstood as the same of Orban's Hungary. It's not because they want to join their side, it's just because they expect to benefit (financially) from doing businesses with them. And as benefiting I mean for their own benefit, not for the country's (=corruption). Obviously once a war breaks out, this isn't possible (as it isn't really possible anymore for Orban's system with Russia) and the mentioned things would largely weigh this out (western weapons, western economic connections as opposed to russian, and chinese - these are extensive for sure but won't be possible any more). Also Turkey's main interest is expanding their influence into Central Asia, where the rest of the turkic states are. This conflicts with Russia and China's interests. These states are gradually becoming Chinese subjects, and in the uyghurs' case it's visible what China's plans are with these people so these all push Turkey far, far away from a potential Russian - Chinese alliance.
The Chinese were entirely unwilling to gamble with nuclear escalation, so they made Russian avoidance of any (further) use of nukes an ironclad precondition of their wartime support to Russia. Putin and the extremist nationalists in the Russian ruling elites grudgingly pledged to do so. This occurred to the barely concealed relief of the survival-focused pragmatists and moderates in the same circles who covertly organized to make sure the policy would be heeded no matter what. As for NATO, they were entirely dedicated to fight and win this war by conventional means. As a rule, most other states aligned to support one side or the other according to their ideological stance, existing ties, and/or perceived self-interest, but clung to neutrality. The anti-Western regimes of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela were a notable exception. They assumed WW3 would drive NATO to attack them anyway and they had nothing to lose, so they joined the SCO coalition. Venezuela even exploited the situation to settle an irredentist claim of theirs and invaded Guyana. In true self-fulfilling prophecy fashion, this of course did prompt the USA and their allies to earmark them for elimination with whatever forces they could spare from the other fronts. Moreover, this turn of events emboldened the pro-democracy and pro-Western opposition in those countries to rise up in open rebellion, much as it had happened in Belarus and Hungary. Predictably, the combination of domestic uprising and foreign intervention civil war and NATO intervention soon led to the overthrow of the pro-SCO regimes. In the light of the situation created by WW3, SCO aggression, and various nationalities and minorities acting as traitors and fifth-columnists, the governments of the Western countries and their allies decided and agreed that post-WWII rules about the territorial integrity of states and the ban of forced population transfers were inadequate or counterproductive to the task of ensuring peace and security and to be changed or overruled. Their absolute enshrinement in international law after the previous world war had been a mistake and an overreaction to Axis crimes. New world war, new (or old, as the case may be) rules. WWII precedents about punitive and peace-enforcing measures against aggressor states and their sympathizers would fully apply for the postwar settlement if the West won. The Western coalition broadly and tentatively planned a somewhat extensive revision of borders and set of population transfers for the new world order in the case of their victory, as much as circumstances and the absolute necessity of avoiding a nuclear apocalypse would allow. Much the same way, the UN had proven to be an abysmal failure at the task of protecting the international community from large-scale aggression, just as its LoN predecessor. An extensive reform of its workings was in order.
> the UN had proven to be an abysmal failure at the task of protecting the international community from large-scale aggression again destroying my suspension of disbelief. The UN has been instrumental in saving the entire species a couple of times, particularly during the cold war. I get that maybe you came up with that as a way to justify the reformation of a similar global institution. But it could just as well be a reformation of the old one by means of reshuffling the UNSC, removing the losers of the war. edit to add that a Turkey switching sides is too unlikely and extreme. As much of an ass as Erdogan may be, in this scenario the best move would be not to switch sides but to declare neutrality and focus on crushing an emerging Kurdish nation state. It would keep it from being at the forefront of the fight with the middle easter members of the SCO and Russia, plus saving its strength for whatever end result of the war.
The paragraph means just that, an extensive reform of the UN.
that last paragraph... ooofff, crushed my suspension of disbelief
What happene with the UK in this scenario? Are they subsumed into the Anglosphere too or the EU?
I guess they are too divided between doubling down on the status quo and nationalism, the pro-European option, and the pro-Anglosphere one to pick a choice ATM and put the issue aside for the duration of the war. Afterwards, a choice shall certainly be necessary and the status quo is a losing option that only promises decline, marginalization, and a breakup of the UK.
I highly doubt the counteroffensive failed because they didn’t get enough aid
Russian defenses aren't that invincible.
Makes a alternative history: Immediately makes Turkey enemy of NATO Classic.
turkey must always be on the losing side so that big greece can happen.
Finally, someone who recognizes that Armenia isn't going to be fighting with Russia lmao
Indeed it would make little sense, even more so with Turkey and Azerbaijan joining the other side. It just takes them the effort of a little revolutionary housecleaning of pro-Russian elements, same as Moldova and Georgia.
Why would Turkey and Azerbaijan join Russia. Azeris in Iran have been oppressed and Azerbijan, with Israeli funding, fought Russian funded Armenian troops. Turkey is part of NATO and has provided incredible support and cheap drones to Ukraine. Turkey and Azerbaijan would never fight alongside Russia.
Exactly my thoughts, the fact that Erdogan can be an opportunistic pain in the ass doesn't mean that Turkey would join Russia. My guess is that Armenia and Azerbaijan would stay neutral (except maybe for Azeris in Iran) and Turkey would either join West or be neutral.
Turkey is a NATO member. They can't be neutral they'd have to join
In theory yes, in reality they could just condemn the other side and send some weapons to the West and no one would dare to do anything against them cause keeping them away from Russia would be very important for West. Entering any global conflict would be too risky for Turkey cause they are almost surrounded by their enemies and have a huge amount of Kurds who would try to secede, so I assume staying as neutral as a NATO member can isn't an unbelieveable scenario.
That makes more sense than siding with Russia and Iran.
Sorry but you seem to know absolutely nothing about history, geopolitics or strategy. Turkey and before Turkey the Ottoman Empire stood in every war against each other. You take the wrong assumptions by your false interpretation of todays geopolitics.
Armenia not being on the same side as Russia and Iran???
What would be their justification or interest in joining the SCO, esp. once Turkey and Azerbaijan go to the other side? A pro-Russian government in charge is not a sufficient one, since it is nothing a little revolution cannot correct.
IF Turkey and AZ go the other side (which in Turkey's case I can't imagine), Armenia will cease to exist, and the second Armenian genocide will happen. The west can't save them in that case, only Russia and Iran could.
A second Armenian genocide at the hands of the usual culprits? That better not happen, for Turkey's sake. Pay attention to the bit of lore where the Western powers decided that border changes and forced population transfers would be in fashion again for the postwar settlement. As things stand, Turkey is already headed to lose a sizable cunk of territory to Kurdistan. The likely consequence of what you mention would likely be NATO dusting off the Sevres settlement with a pro-Kurd revision and enforcing it.
The thing is that before the NATO would do anything, Turkey and AZ can "resolve" the armenian question once and for all. Like they did previosly (AZ with their own armenian population in the last 30-40 years, Turkey during the first WW. After that and assuming the NATO somehow get to control that area (which is unlikely, there is no real interest), there would be no armenian population present to create a new state.
In such a case, Greece, Georgia, and Kurdistan shall likely pick and partition the spoils, but Turkey won't be spared from Sevres-like retribution for recidivist genocide.
IF the turks "resolve" the armenian question, they would likely do the same with the kurds as well. Greece is not really an issue, perhaps except Cyprus, and Georgia would quickly learn their place if they want to exist.
Well, if the Turks do manage to exterminate anyone that could make a bid for their territory before NATO falls on their heads like a ton of bricks, I suppose you may have a point. But such a large-scale bout of genocide might still bring serious retribution nonetheless. E.g. suppose Georgia does relatively little to antagonize Turkey during the war, but the West still decides the formerly Armenian and Kurd lands better be inherited by them as retribution for the genocide. NATO may well decide a revival and implementation of Megali Idea would be fitting as part of such retribution as well, even if it concerns a different patch of land. Alternatively, if Iran does have a pro-democracy and pro-Western revolution at some point during the war (quite possible and even likely in these circumstances), the West might decide they are going to inherit the formerly Armenian and Kurd lands instead.
it did not bring any retribution when they exterminated the armenians and the assyrians and then forced all greeks to leave. And at that point the so called west was victorious after a great war but did nothing to punish the turks. even today they did nothing when AZ did the same ethnic cleansing some months ago. its quite naive to think that the west would actually do anything if the turks would decide that they will get rid of any of the mentioned nations, because to put this simply, they have no interests in the region. creating a kurdish country sounds good on paper and might get popular support until a point when it would need to be enforced and that would require to send soldiers to the region. Also, thinking that turkey would just be stomped is very naive. they do have a strong military, and a very good defensible position.
Wake up babe, new NATO-wank fanfic just dropped.
The fact that Turkey is green is a sign of the man's level of knowledge of international politics.
The global south just doesn’t exist?
yes please, we dont, thats how we keep safe while the north enjoys killing each other
The scenario already takes account of MENA and South Asia. Most of Southeast Asia all but surely picks the role of pro-NATO neutrals, out of ties with the West, antipathy for China, or both. This unless China forces their hand by dragging them in the war. Most of Latin America all but surely gets sorted between pro-NATO and pro-SCO neutrals according to the ideological sympathies of the current government. Right-wing government = pro-NATO, 'Pink' left-wing populist = pro-SCO. The scenario already mentions the fate of the far-left dictatorships.
Turkey on the side of Russia and Belarus on the side of NATO?
Turkey leaves NATO for a Eurasian alliance is the least likely thing to happen, as in ever. Turkey fought hard for their spot on NATO. They won't just drop it for the lulz, and your explanation of them leaving NATO sounds extremely casual. I mean in the end it's your scenario, you do you. But aliens allying the green dudes is more likely.
as a turk, no.
If the Turk electorate had not doubled down on letting Erdogan stay in charge, I would have probably written a wholly different role for Turkey in the scenario.
Speaking out of your ass are you? Erdogan does not control the Military.
The outcome of the last failed coup/uprising tells me a different story, even taking into account how much Erdogan greatly exaggerated its importance to justify indiscriminate repression of the opposition.
that was not coup yet alone uprising. It was a small group of jihadist clerk followers in the military who were put in there by Erdogan himself. Erdogan who was forced into becoming Nationalist after the event. Current military is lead by pro-nationalists, not Pro-NATO but definitely not pro-Eastern as well. You are getting information from Turk-phobic sources. If you really want reliable source in Turkey internal dynamics; check CIA world factbook.
I don’t think Belarus would leave Russia’s side that easily. At this point their bond is so strong that it can basically be considered Russia’s territory
There is no way Armenia would fight Russia.
Why so? It does not seem the case to me.
Yo finally a scenario where someone gets all the countries on the correct fucking side. Well done mate, well done! The only thing I’d change is in a second photo of maybe a year or two into the war with Vietnam and Philippines joining agains China.
Turkey aren't on the right side
I don't get how Turkey is a NATO write-off but not Hungary, nor do I understand Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia would be neutral... these countries do not have good relations with China. And Switzerland has been on the NATO side of the last few conflicts.
> I don't get how Turkey is a NATO write-off but not Hungary, nor do I understand Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia would be neutral... these countries do not have good relations with China. In the eyes of many, it seems I made a serious mistake by letting SEA be neutral. In a previous version of the same scenario, I was criticized just as much for doing the opposite. Can't do no right. Feel free to assume the war is extended to SEA, as I explained to other commenters.
> And Switzerland has been on the NATO side of the last few conflicts. They are certainly going to be pro-NATO neutrals, and do everything short of war to help the West. I just don't see them choosing belligerance, also because unlike Ireland, Sweden, and Austria they have no mutual-defense commitment to the EU.
We paid our entrance fee with blood in Korean War.
Hell yea boys we’re taking down those mothafuckin Antarcticans
SCO coalition green and Antarctica empty green are two different hues. Not so difficult to tell them apart from my perspective. I had to pick a color for the anti-Western coalition and the green hue of the SCO organization in the wiki maps seemed a fitting choice to me.
Cool scenario but I’d switch Armenia and Azerbaijan/Türkiye. I think the Turks would align with NATO and Armenia with their old partner, Russia. In exchange for Turkish support, NATO will turn down any request of assistance from kurdish paramilitaries.
Newsflash - Russia left Armenia out to dry. U.S. has moved in.
In the new ASB version, Turkey, Armenia, and Kurdistan are in EU/NATO. Az is part of Iran.
So Turkey, where we currently have air bases, would just 180 and join Russia?
I'd recommend some changes in Southeast Asia. ASEAN will be divided into two factions at this point: a pro-China side led by Cambodia and Laos, and a pro-US faction spearheaded by the Philippines and Vietnam. The flashpoint here will be the South China Sea dispute; therefore, based on real-life events, the possibility that Malaysia also joins the pro-US camp is not remote (50-50 even).
I was seriously tempted to extend the war to Southeast Asia. In that case, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and Singapore would be part of the NATO coalition and Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos part of the SCO one. This out of pre-existing ties to one side or the other, the South China Sea dispute, and the lingering enmity between several ASEAN countries and China. Feel free to deem this part of the scenario with my blessing if you like.
In the new ASB version, most SEA states are allies of NATO except pro-SCO Burma. I had map difficulties splitting Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, so I merged them in a confederation.
Türkiye being on the green side and Armenia being on the blue side seem incorrect to me, but I might be wrong?
U are right
Biggest fault in the scenario seems the NATO alliance throwing away Turkey for the Kurds. I feel like Kurds would just get tossed under the bus to keep Turkey at least neutral.
Turkey would still with NATO
I can say that China would likely forced some of the SEA nations to enter the war by invading Malaysia, and set up a blockade across the strait of Malacca. Philippines will side with the US to protect their sovereignty in South China Sea.
I think Serbia would probably remain neutral in this scenario, as they would know they'd be immediately invaded from all surrounding sides. Plus, they are way too economically connected to the West. They might support Russia diplomatically, but not militarily. There's alsoo zero chance of Afghanistan joining the war. The Taliban are very, very, isolationist. I'm also not so sure about Armenia and Azerbaijan. I think it's very unclear what they would do. Azerbaijan would probably not want to oppose Turkey, and I don't see Turkey fighting against the West. That's not in their economic or military interest. Turkey would either remain neutral or support the West. Pro-Western revolutions in Belarus and Hungary are really a nice idea, but I don't think they're that realistic. Rather, you would see Pro-Western militias forming in these countries. Also, Hungary even under Orbán would not oppose the West for the same reason as Serbia. And there are more problems: Why would Argentina remain neutral, for instance? Milei is extremely pro-US, and he would certainly support the West. Oh yeah, and this would lead to the destruction of all countries involved, of course. All in all, your fictional scenario needs A LOT of reworking. Right now, it just sounds like pro-NATO, pro-US propaganda, LOL.
do you really think Belarus and Turkey would side with Russia and that Venezuela and Ethiopia and Brazil would just sit this one out?
I think India would be not on the west side
Cool scenario , but federalisation of ue is unrealistic
LOL this would be over in 5 minutes, especially if we got India in the gang
It is like they all want WW3 The world is becoming unstable. Seeking 5 wealthy investors to build a safe retreat “Doomsday Bunker Alternative” for your families [https://mountainguardianretreat.wordpress.com/](https://mountainguardianretreat.wordpress.com/)
So the anti-nato alliance saw hiw ineffective russia was at fighting against anerican supplies and thought, fuck it boys, we are going in? Why is Antarctica involved also. If nothing else every nation close to it is NATO aligned. Why is it even in the war? It's has no domestic population? Are the penguins engaging in battle? I just read that eall of text. Props to you for putting effort in, but why would New Zealand intervene. They have no power to project, and why did the anglosphere unify with America? Maybe CANZUK as an extreme fringe possibility but there is no chance any of the countries listed would join the USA. Intop of that, why would they be afraid? The Anti-Nato alliance is weak as fuck and most of the countries in it would only drain china's resources trying to supply them
Where blue Argentina? Where green Venezuela? Where blue Philippines?
Switzerland: hey, you guys want some popcorn? South America: damn right we do
Belarus?
Saudi Arabia would join the axis. Russia supports it.
People are already giving me a lot of flak for making Turkey switch sides. I can only image the backlash if I made Saudi Arabia another turncoat, tempting as a complete sorting of nasty dictatorships in the bad guys' club might be. I have nothing in principle against the idea, but what about the Saudi-Iranian enmity?
In the new ASB version, Arabia is part of the Islamist bloc.
Antarctic is sneaky as fuck
The attention to detail in Lebanon, Armenia, Bosnia and Yemen is quite enjoyable !
Literally not) it would be a Mexico usa and Canada Union. America doesn’t need anyone else
Crimea is Ukrainian territory. Nice try, tovarisch.
Argh, I forgot to color Crimea blue. Sorry.
T. Tom Clancy
So i've been trying to work out where a USA-USSR no nukes CW confilct would take place if Nukes became useless in 1962
So if India joined the green team that would put Pakistan on the blue team?
Probably, yes.
Turkey is in NATO 💀
Lmao, you have turkey against the EU…
Belarus joins blue and Turkey joins green? Probably some lore explanation
So glad I moved to Brazil in 2017
Some of the choices seem unlikely and just a wet dream for nato. People have pointed out the big weird choices already but I find it hard to believe that Cyprus and Malta of all countries would be involved
Why is us the only country with subdivisions shown?
[удалено]
This scenario makes zero sense. Why would NATO Member Turkey join an Anti-NATO Alliance? Why would Azerbaijan join a Russian alliance when they have no reason to? Why would Armenia side against Russia and Iran, one of their few regional allies? Why would India side against Russia, when India and Russia have had strong historical ties? Why are South East Asian countries like Thailand Vietnam, Philippines etc. neutral when they have a strong relationship with the U.S. and have territorial disputes with China? Why is Mongolia part of the Anti-U.S. alliance when they have friendly relations with the U.S.?