Attempting to color a world map of the Neo-Western Bloc and the Neo-Eastern Bloc for Wikipedia (1 Viewer)

[mmpsdn]

The global geopolitical landscape was once defined by the Cold War between the Western Bloc and the Eastern Bloc. Since the end of the Cold War, the conflict has in a sense been continued by the Neo-Western Bloc and the Neo-Eastern Bloc.

I'm attempting to color a map of the neo-blocs and place the map on Wikipedia. As of now, for convenience, I'm using this online coloring tool called MapChart.

I'm quite noob, just an amateur at this, and I've probably made many mistakes, so I'm making this post so that hopefully you guys can help make the map accurate. So feel free to edit my map


"Unstable" means that the country's political alignment is unstable and could be subject to big changes rapidly. I suppose you would debate on whether the map should have an "Unstable" category.

"Hot n' Cold" means that while a country is aligned with one of the blocs, that's only because it has a good, warm, or "hot" relationship with one of the major members of the bloc, and it has a cold relationship with another major member of the bloc. I guess we can come up with a better name for that later haha.

So f you'd like to edit my map on MapChart, for your convenience, just use the text file which I've attached

​

 

[joluoto]

There is no new Eastern Block, just because China and Russia cooperate when it comes to common grandstanding against the West, doesn't mean they are actually that close to each other. They both see each other with deep suspicion, and espeically the Russians are wary about Chinese intentions.

The Middle East is even more complex. India leans towards the West for sure, but actually has good relations with both Russia and Iran, and mostly are only against Pakistan and China. Pakistan feels threatened by India and Iran and thus seek support from China and the Arab countries. And the Arab countries mostly prefer the West due to business reasons, but are also opening up new business relationships with China. The only block that really exists is the Western block, and even that is shaky because Trump almost demolished it.

 

[mmpsdn]

There is no new Eastern Block, just because China and Russia cooperate when it comes to common grandstanding against the West, doesn't mean they are actually that close to each other. They both see each other with deep suspicion, and espeically the Russians are wary about Chinese intentions.

The Middle East is even more complex. India leans towards the West for sure, but actually has good relations with both Russia and Iran, and mostly are only against Pakistan and China. Pakistan feels threatened by India and Iran and thus seek support from China and the Arab countries. And the Arab countries mostly prefer the West due to business reasons, but are also opening up new business relationships with China. The only block that really exists is the Western block, and even that is shaky because Trump almost demolished it.

ahh finally a reply, thanks for all the info

so Pakistan feels threatened by Iran?

 

[joluoto]

ahh finally a reply, thanks for all the info

so Pakistan feels threatened by Iran?

Oh yes, Pakistan and Iran has a history of strained relations, and Iran actually getting well along with India doesn't help the situation.

 

[COTO]

I definitely wouldn't include "unstable" as a category. Firstly, because there would be a lot of unstable countries marked, and that doesn't seem to be the purpose of the diagram. Secondly, because political instability is a spectrum, and the point at which a nation becomes politically unstable enough to be labeled "unstable" is subjective. Thirdly, because labeling a country politically unstable might inspire edit wars.

I'm not sure what "Hot n' Cold" means. Does it mean "sometimes west-aligned, sometimes east-aligned"? If so, how does this differ from the "leaning ..." and "neutral" categories? How does "hot n' cold neo-Western" differ from "hot n' cold neo-Eastern"?

It would help to know how you're defining the blocs as well. For instance, as joluoto rightly points out, Russia and China are two very self-interested nations that occasionally cooperate when it's of mutual benefit. But they constitute even less of a coherent 'bloc' than the Eurozone nations, and their cultures are highly dissimilar.

Hence we need to know: Is this a map about economic ties? Similar culture? Similar forms of government? Amenability to expansion of US global influence (for vs. against)?

Unfortunately, unless you pick something quantifiable (or at the very least, a rigorous definition with specific criteria), trying to divide a very complicated political landscape into two polar blocs is futile and pointless. IMO.

 

[mmpsdn]

It would help to know how you're defining the blocs as well. For instance, as joluoto rightly points out, Russia and China are two very self-interested nations that occasionally cooperate when it's of mutual benefit. But they constitute even less of a coherent 'bloc' than the Eurozone nations, and their cultures are highly dissimilar.

Hence we need to know: Is this a map about economic ties? Similar culture? Similar forms of government? Amenability to expansion of US global influence (for vs. against)?

Unfortunately, unless you pick something quantifiable (or at the very least, a rigorous definition with specific criteria), trying to divide a very complicated political landscape into two polar blocs is futile and pointless. IMO.

well, there's already a wikipedia article on the "Second Cold War".

It basically boils down to power struggles. The U.S. is the biggest player in the room, followed by China, so naturally, they are "enemies".

Russia wants to be great, seeing as it was the second player during the Cold War in the form of the Soviet Union, and so it allies itself with China to counter the the U.S. And it will do so until the U.S. is weak enough that China seems more of a threat, and the U.S. is too weak to take advantage of their infighting.

Russia and Europe remain somewhat at odds, that's why you have Europe remaining in NATO, continuing to align themselves with the U.S. to counter Russia.

So, it does seem very much like a "descendant" of the (First) Cold War.


And in terms of culture and government, Russia and China are both autocratic, Russia less so. While European countries and the U.S. tend to be more liberally democratic.

As for the "Hot n' Cold" thing, let's put that on hold, I need to re-think it more clearly.

 

[COTO]

well, there's already a wikipedia article on the "Second Cold War".

And you'll note that no two ideologues seem to agree on when it started and ended, which nations specifically are involved, or whether it's a political, economic, military, human rights, or ideological war.

Fundamentally, we need to ask: What valuable information does this map provide? When a viewer comes to look at the map, what can he reliably conclude from its classification scheme? What meaningful questions can he answer?

For example: "If WWIII were fought tomorrow, how would the world powers align?"
"Which nations are sympathetic to expansion of the power of old Soviet bloc nations, and which are opposed to it?"
"Which national blocs criticize each other the most frequently and the most fiercely?"
"Which national blocs are strengthening trade ties and increasing trade within the bloc, but reducing it outside of the bloc?"

Etc.

If such a map can't provide the viewer with conclusions about at least a few such meaningful questions, then the classification is meaningless. Hence my earlier supposition that the map needs to be based on something specific, and preferably quantifiable.

 

[mmpsdn]

And you'll note that no two ideologues seem to agree on when it started and ended, which nations specifically are involved, or whether it's a political, economic, military, human rights, or ideological war.

Fundamentally, we need to ask: What valuable information does this map provide? When a viewer comes to look at the map, what can he reliably conclude from its classification scheme? What meaningful questions can he answer?

For example: "If WWIII were fought tomorrow, how would the world powers align?"
"Which nations are sympathetic to expansion of the power of old Soviet bloc nations, and which are opposed to it?"
"Which national blocs criticize each other the most frequently and the most fiercely?"
"Which national blocs are strengthening trade ties and increasing trade within the bloc, but reducing it outside of the bloc?"

Etc.

If such a map can't provide the viewer with conclusions about at least a few such meaningful questions, then the classification is meaningless. Hence my earlier supposition that the map needs to be based on something specific, and preferably quantifiable.

Specific nations would be the NATO bloc, versus the Russo-Sino alliance, these are the core, other nations are peripheral.


"Politics" is quite a general term, but "power" is definitely the name of the game, and influence, especially power and influence backed by economic and military might.

Ideology and human rights are largely secondary, more of a tool, more of a means than an end. Though soft power and cultural influences are useful tools.
For instance, some Muslim leaders do wish to ally with China, but their people oppose it due to China's (mis)treatment of its native Muslim population, whereas the leaders are looking at the bigger picture of their power and influences on the global stage. But it's best to get the people on board as well.

As for the questions, the 2nd question would be the closest, the 3rd one too.
I think the map should show which "team" the countries of the world are on, which "side" they've chosen to side with, and align themselves to.

And it'll probably be a good indicator of how the world powers would align with a WWIII.

 

[joluoto]

There is no Sino- Russian alliance though. Them posturing together against the West is just for show.

 

[mmpsdn]

There is no Sino- Russian alliance though. Them posturing together against the West is just for show.

though there's a strategic rationale for it, as i mentioned:

it allies itself with China to counter the the U.S. And it will do so until the U.S. is weak enough that China seems more of a threat, and the U.S. is too weak to take advantage of their infighting.

I really do think that they view the U.S. as too big of a world power for them to not ally.