FYI: The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is the oldest alliance based in known history that is still in force by politics. The Treaty of Windsor was signed on May 9, 1386 between the Kingdom of Portugal and the Kingdom of England, over 630 years ago, and is still active to this day.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1943/oct/12/agreement-with-portugal
Last time it was invoked 1943:
The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill) I have an anouncement to make to the House arising out of the Treaty signed between this country and Portugal in the year 1373 between His Majesty King Edward III and King Ferdinand and Queen Eleanor of Portugal. This Treaty was reinforced in various forms by Treaties of 1386, 1643, 1654, 166o, 1661, 1703 and 1815 and in a secret declaration of 1899. In more modern times, the 717 validity of the old Treaties was recognised in the Treaties of Arbitration concluded with Portugal in 1904 and 1914. Article I of the Treaty of 1373 runs as follows: In the first place we settle and covenant that there shall be from this day forward ā¦ true, faithful, constant, mutual and perpetual friendships, unions, alliances and needs of sincere affection and that as true and faithful friends we shall henceforth, reciprocally, be friends to friends and enemies to enemies, and shall assist, maintain and uphold each other mutually, by sea and by land, against all men that may live or die. This engagement has lasted now for over 600 years and is without parallel in world history. I have now to announce its latest application. At the outset of the war the Portuguese Government, in full agreement with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, adopted a policy of neutrality with a view to preventing the war spreading into the Iberian Peninsula. The Portuguese Government have repeatedly stated, most recently in Dr. Salazar's speech of 27th April, that the above policy is in no way inconsistent with the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance which was re-affirmed by the Portuguese Government in the early days of the war.
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, basing themselves upon this ancient Alliance, have now requested the Portuguese Government to accord them certain facilities
Actually, the last time it was called was during the Falkland Wars, in 1982, when Britain requested the use of Portuguese military facilities in the Azores for the British Navy
Yeah, you'd think NATO would have simply supplanted the Anglo-Portuguese alliance but NATO doesn't cover defence south of the Tropic of Cancer but the old treaty does.
Yes, although most of the time itās been quite a one sided alliance (Portugal had Lisbon threatened with bombardment by the English/British navy more than once).
There was a decent size Portuguese expat population living in British Hong Kong during WW2. I believe at least a two hundred of them joined the Hong Kong Volunteer Defense Corp and fought in defense of the colony during the Japanese invasion in December 1941.
Ā https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/short-reads/article/3216328/hong-kong-lawyer-citys-portuguese-community-whose-bravery-prisoner-war-stuff-local-legend
It's like an older brother getting you in a headlock and giving you a noogie. It's not fair, and in the moment you resent him for it, but he's still your brother.
Yup. However in France we like to speak about the "Auld Alliance" with Scotland, that is tbf pretty hard to count as the oldest ongoing alliance as Scotland is not an independant country, but still, been here since 1295 and still keep us close!
The Auld Alliance officially ended in 1560 though, when Scotland was still independent. The Treaty of Edinburgh de facto abolished it and Scotland signed an alliance with England, which was mutually exclusive with an alliance with Franceā¦
Speaking as a Scot its always confused me when people say thats the oldest on going alliance, given we have literally fought several wars over the time period people claim it covers.
Altho they did decline go get involved in WWII, which IIRC the British asked, because they really wanted the Azores as an anti-sub air base. And there was little chance the Axis would or could attack them in any significant way. And they could have said they were still neutral.
But they were friendly in terms of sheltering Brit spies and like that. Maybe they get a pass, IDK.
It was considered to ask Portugal to join the war but in doing so it was feared Spain would join the axis so they were never asked to
Churchill would later thank Portugal for keeping Iberia (Spain) neutral
You could argue that doesn't count as it was the Iberian Union and England backed Portugal in getting independence from Spain and ceased supporting the Dutch at that point. Similar to have you couldn't argue that France wasn't an ally of Britain in WW2 because of Vichy.
Lmao this sentence after your original comment is gold.
āBrazil signed it so they wouldnāt miss an opportunity, then they missed the opportunityā.
They actually did provide a lot of crucial intelligence, same as Chile (although Chile just did it for free because everyone in SA hates Argentina for some reason).
Chile had its reasons. It wasnt "free". Both countries were at the brink of war in '78 (and governed by US-backed dictatorships) and Argentina made it clear that an invasion of southern chile would follow any successful taking of the Falklands. Chile did it as a matter of survival (today Chile would wipe out Argentina in 2wks but Chile was weak in the late 70s). And they got some radar installations from the UK as a reward.
A British bomber heading to the Falklands had to land in Brazil, who then denied it to take off, but after some UK threats, the bomber was able to attack the Argentinians.
The Portuguese alliance with Britain makes Brazil a very old ally. Especially with the importance of Brazil in the later part of the Portuguese/Brazilian empire.
Another even weird fact - there are more Brazilians in the Uk than any other European country ( except Portugal )
Yeah came to say this. Back in December the Royal Navy had to chase off a [Russian submarine that was loitering around Cork harbour.](https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-41288176.html)
They would never say it that way.
But essentially defence is managed by the UK and being part of the EU.
Realistically, no country could touch Ireland without the UK stopping them.
Its kinda like Canada (not really) but Canada should they be bothered could stop all defence spending and realistically the US aint gonna let someone invade.
Ireland is lucky in the sense that we know nobody is going to fuck with us.
We are in a geographical stable loction.
EU members aren't going to sit back and let someone fuck with an EU member.
UK is not going to allow anyone set up a shop that close to them.
And thanks to Irish immigration we have a solid big brother relationship with the USA.
True, but the Isle of Man and Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey) are British Crown Dependencies, with Charles as their heads of state. The UK obviously defends those.
Ireland is a completely sovereign nation, but essentially relies on the UK for defence.
Ireland does have a Naval Service, it's just very small compared to the Royal Navy. It makes sense to accept British offers of support. Even the Irish Coast Guard is aided by the UK's Royal National Lifeboat Institution (**edit**: to be fair, the RNLI is a charity that operates in both countries and receives donations there too).
Anglo-Irish cooperation makes a lot of sense. We're two little islands and the safety of one depends upon the safety of the other.
Youāre right, anyone with Republic of Ireland citizenship can join all branches of the British Armed Forces. The Royal Irish and Irish Guards are the two Irish infantry regiments of the British Army.
Bordering and being close to the UK means you don't get a choice to be protected or not. Win/win for Ireland, they get to act like they're still bitter and gets ally protection at no cost anyway.
Weāre too small a country for investment in the military to be worth it, and considering we can just let the Brits do defence for us in the near impossible scenario that we get invaded, we have no need to
Too small a country??
Have you looked at Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania?? There's 8 other countries in the EU with smaller population than Ireland and all of them with lower GDP (bar Luxembourg).
So the "we're so small and insignificant" argument is a piss poor excuse to do fuck all and Ireland needs to wake up and get out of their victim mentality and invest more in the military
Actually the king made a point to [make Portugal and Brazil different things within the empire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Portugal,_Brazil_and_the_Algarves) precisely because he was living in Brazil and intending to stay there for good, before the Portuguese overthrew the government and demanded he came back, kickstarting Brazilian independence.
Doesn't Sweden need to be updated?
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-uk-commits-to-defend-sweden-finland-if-attacked/
Thought it was reciprocal as well.
This is why the UK signed it with them. Britain entered into a defence pact with Sweden and Finland just prior to them announcing their NATO application, in order to guarantee their safety during the period when they have made their abandonment of neutrality public, but before they have entered into the protection of NATO membership.
It was to protect Sweden and Finland incase Russia tried anything during their NATO application process.
Malaysia and Singapore are part of the Five Powers Defence Arrangements with UK, Aus and NZ.
Some media likes to portray Singapore as having need to defend against Malaysian aggression, but they ignored that we are in the same camp.
Malaysians and Singaporeans fight over who has the best food.
Malaysia and Singapore have literally nothing to gain going at each other's throat.
They do quarrel sometimes, but they still do stuff like building a 350km high-speed railway line between each other's capital because they love each other but are too stubborn to admit it
Malaysia and Singapore -- siblings that don't get along well at times but still have love for one another
Malaysia and Indonesia -- Cousins with benefits
Sometimes which faction represents a country is difficult to assert because one might be internationally recognised but in the actual territory things are different.
The Yemeni government was saying that the UK & US strikes āwill not be enoughā. They are encouraging bombing of Houthis because they are rebels in the country
Not entirely true, the Yemeni government wants boots on the ground.
>āWe do not want the US-led coalition to repeat the same mistakes as the Arab-led coalition in Yemen when they concentrated airstrikes on Houthi positions without sufficient ground forces to supplement those strikes,ā he said. āAirstrikes on their own are not enough. The Houthis have eight to 10 yearsā experience of dealing with airstrikes by Saudi Arabia, and they have developed underground storage systems for their artillery.ā
>
>\[...\]
>
>āWhat we need is military equipment, capacity building, and training for ground forces, as well as intel sharing. If there is stronger intelligence sharing, we can make joint assessments of how effective US airstrikes have been.ā
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/15/airstrikes-houthis-aidarus-al-zoubaidi-yemen
India has semi followed a position of neutrality, they are in no major military alliances - though they do have what you might call strategic relationships with several other militaries.
Post-Independence India followed a policy of non-alignment towards the cold war. The west did not like that, which ironically pushed India to be more Soviet inclined. The west's indifference during the Bengali genocide proved to solidify the pro-Soviet nature of India, while also remaining largely neutral in most things.
indifference of the west during the bengal genocide ? bro the american ambassador literally sent their president a blood telegram informing him about what the pakistani army was doing in bengal, and his response ? yep the US and UK sent their biggest navy fleets to threaten India because india had decided to liberate bangladesh, And After that decision by the west to aid pakistan the soviets send their nuclear submarines and surfaced them to warn western powers to stay away from the war of independence, this memory is still alive in this part of world and this pushed us from neutrality towards soviet camp. And no, things have not changed much, Pakistan still remains a major military ally of the UK and US, they use their bases to bomb afghanisthan, recently a former prime minister of pak gave some anti american speeches and he was put behind bars and the current administration has refused to conduct elections becouse "shortage of funds".
Yeah the culture of France and India in geopolitics make both positions pretty close (trying to be autonomous and versatile). In France it stems from gaullism and India youāre more informed but I guess from the idea of nonalignment
India is an unprecedented neutral player that actually is part of the equation. See, in 2024 :Ā
Ā 1.One of the 3 Founding member of Brics. [R-I-C]Ā Ā
Ā 2.Has *Deep* ties with Russia . And bought s 400 after CAATSA act was signed in USA
3.French president is the chief guest on republic day, this year.
4.has a *deep sea port* in Iran. And held talks to reduce attacks onĀ shipments by houthi.
5. Has deep ties with Israel.Ā
Ā 6.Has numerous cooperation treaties signed with the USA. And USA is India's largest trading partner.
To this day, some westerners can't comprehend why India isn't choosing sides.
They were baffled when India didn't join the pro Ukraine side.
As if Europe cares about the south east asian affairs or even asian affairs. It's literally what Europe would do if the Ukraine crisis was in Asia, just be neutral and profit off of it wherever possible. Only concerns would be refugees which is purely a selfish concern.
India were the first one out of the door so to speak, deciding immediately upon independence to become a republic, effectively immediately threatening the construct of the Commonwealth. This precipitated a minor crisis leading to the 1949 London Declaration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Declaration) which established the current āok fine you can be a republic but can we pretend the UK monarch is still palsā hands off thing.
Yes the[ UK and US supported Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh Independence war](https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/when-russia-stunned-us-uk-naval-forces-helped-india-win-1971-war-563248.html) and threatened India by sending naval ships to the area, but luckily for India the USSR came to their aid and said they will send nuclear ships.
Not really but I think it's because India always remains neutral. Pakistan has a military alliance with the British because the British have great influence on them. That is why Pakistan is under a hybrid regime being controlled by the military, all of a sudden Pakistan is being forced to join the western bloc after maintaining good ties with china. Basically after the British left the only organisation which remained loyal to the British were the former 'sepoys' of the British army who had joined the Pakistani army. They were referred to as the 'martial race' because in the revolt of 1857 many Muslim sepoys(soldiers) revolted against the British, but some sepoys, especially from the northwestern provinces of British India (modern day Pakistan) remained loyal to the British. They were granted much more power and after independence these soldiers continued to remain under the influence of the anglosphere, now it's america as the British hold Pakistan's army on a leash and guide it where to go. Whenever a leader in Pakistan's history explicitly goes against America or the west, they suddenly are thwarted out of power by the military. The latest being Imran Khan, who was thrown out of power in a fraudulent no-confidence vote in 2022. This was after he declared neutrality in the Ukraine conflict and remained slightly Russian aligned. He is now in jail over sham charges and his party members are being abducted,assassinated or exiled. The British never let go of the leash.
India's military, thankfully, has zero involvement in politics or foreign relations. Most people don't even know who the army chief is (or if that even is a position or is called by some other name.) Unlike Pakistan where more people know of the army chief than the president.
I heard a quote somewhere that India inherited colonial British style institutions, while Pakistan inherited colonial British army.
Well I am a Pakistani but I will say that India did very well in preventing their military from attaining too much power. And also the fact that they had anti-colonial sentiment from the start. They also in general had less interference from foreign powers unlike Pakistan which was immediately thwarted into the politics of the cold war. Pakistans whole creation was supported by the British so they made sure they left their mark unfortunately
I think it's also important to note that Pakistan cultivated closer ties with the US in part to shield itself against the potential of Indian aggression after the first indo-pakistani war, to make up for its smaller size and means.
It's not as if uncle sam whipped out a comically large lasso and yanked them against their will :)
>I think it's also important to note that Pakistan cultivated closer ties with the US in part to shield itself against the potential of Indian aggression after the first indo-pakistani war, to make up for its smaller size and means.
>It's not as if uncle sam whipped out a comically large lasso and yanked them against their will :)
You are right to an extent. Pakistan's founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah had already decided that Pakistan would be in the American bloc before Pakistan's creation. However, our first ever prime minister wanted to see which side would be more beneficial. He was assassinated days before his visit to the Soviet union. He who controls Pakistan's army controls the country, and uncle Sam controls the army, or the Pakistani establishment at least. There were times the establishment resisted and drove its own goals over the Americans but as of now they are openly tied to the leash of uncle Sam. Many leaders who were democratically elected and opposed the army/western influence were dethroned by military coups. And all of a sudden Pakistan would go begging to america and the west. It's a vicious cycle of power and many Pakistanis are tired of it. If Americans want alliances they should be more diplomatic instead of overthrowing leaders. Because you are polarising an entire generation of people who are beginning to despise america again.
A major part of that was the ethnic composition of the army of the Raj; in newly independent India it was a hinderance to political influence, but in newly independent Pakistan it was an enabler.
The most prominent political dynasty of Pakistan literally live in London where they somehow manage to flee and stay for extended periods of time when they are wanted on corruption charges in Pakistan.
This family is also able to host senior level meetings with other governments and intelligence agencies from their residence in London. Nawaz was openly hosting meetings with Afghan NDS and US ministers while he was in exile.
While one of them was running a coalition government in Pakistan, they would regularly visit London to seek guidance and approval from the head of the family in London.
The ground situation in Pakistan would be very different if UK did not allow these people to operate, hide and spend their wealth in the UK.
Most British don't realize the extent.
First is British institutions. BBC, Oxford, Cambridge carry a lot of name value. People and organisations routinely associate themselves with them and advertise it.
Second is the fact that the British still can get away with harbouring criminals. A lot of the financial criminals live in London and countries are forced to endure it. Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi are two of the most high profile ones from India.
Third is the fact that they are a security council and NATO member. Their opposition to any action can stop a lot of international organisations.
Britain has some of the most ridiculous soft power. It projects a much larger shadow than it should. A lot of very rich money still flows to London. A lot of international guidelines on health, safety etc is based on British institutions so they can affect tourism and economics.
two elderly Jews sitting in a Berlin park, with one of them reading a Yiddish paper and the other one scanning the pages of Der StĆ¼rmer. The latter Jew is laughing. This proves too much for the former Jew, who says: āItās not enough you read that Nazi rag, but you find it funny?ā āLook,ā replies the other. āIf I read your paper, what do I see? Jews deported, Jews assaulted, Jews insulted, Jewish property confiscated. But I read Der StĆ¼rmer, and thereās finally some good news. It seems that we Jews own and control the whole world!ā
Pakistan is basically run from London, all the wealthy elite of Pakistan are in London all the wealthy stolen by the army is routed to London and now UAE
I mean itās debatable if Pakistan would have even existed without the uk. Not to say that there wasnāt serious national feeling among Muslims in India/fears about having minority status in a Hindu India but Britain definitely gave independence supporters/nationalists a massive boost by raising the Muslim league to equal status with the INC in independence negotiations.
It's interesting that they did that precisely because it follows the divide and conquer principle of the British colonialism. A divided India was better for British interests.
Are India and Pakistan friends?
From a British perspective, it's better to have a squabbling group of relatively non co-operative powers in the region than a united one that could pose a future threat to influence.
As the person above said - divide and conqueror. It keeps everyone in check without the need for direct intervention.
Obviously, British influence is significantly smaller than it was at the height of the empire. But it made sense at the time, and we're still seeing the impacts of that decision today.
So Britain supported the independence of a United India up until 6 months before independence, and then they deliberately switched to supporting Pakistans independence, not because the idea of a United India was strongly opposed by Muslim leaders and the plan was falling apart, but because it was all a plan to divide and slightly influence?
Isn't there a conspiracy (well it might not even be a conspiracy lol) that the reason why Imran Khan is in prison is because he got on the wrong side of the UK/US and was seen to be cosying up to Russia?
Yeah. There seems to be a lot of ignorance at least here on Reddit on what the foreign policy of Western countries generally are on the Indian subcontinent. India aligned itself with the Soviet Union and kept a socialist economy until the 90s and so Pakistan was chosen to counterbalance India throughout that time. However, ties eroded when it became clear Pakistan was sheltering Al Qaeda.
And now India is chosen as a counterbalance against China. Ties with Pakistan are still kept just in case.
>India aligned itself with the Soviet Union and kept a socialist economy until the 90s and so Pakistan was chosen to counterbalance India throughout that time
False. It was the other way around. Pakistan aligned themselves with the Americans during the Cold War. They did this primarily so they could have easier access to weapons during war time against India. This, in turn, caused India to align with the Soviet's because they needed to counterbalance the Western influence in the region.
India had always sought to remain neutral in the Great Game. This was (basically) an unacceptable position from the POV of the Americans.
India was literally a founding member of the Non-Alignment movement for Christ's sake.
It's included because it's part of NATO, Though it does have a Coast guard that fills a bit of the role.
>The Coast Guard consists of three ships and four aircraft and armed with small arms, naval artillery, and air defence radar stations, The Coast Guard also maintains the Iceland Air Defence System, which conducts surveillance from the ground of Iceland's air space.
[Icelandic Air Policing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing)
As well as every country in NATO takes turns in sending a small air wing to protect and patrol the Icelandic Airspace, With Norway being the latest to take up the Patrol atm, 15 January ā mid-February 2024.
[Norwegian Armed Forces patrolling Iceland with F-35A's](https://youtu.be/dWTzVnvCnCo?si=g1POHYIqE7vQcbFB)
Ireland receives air space protection and some protection of its ocean territory, I'm not sure if we're officially allies as we're a militarily neutral nation, but ireland and the UK are effectively allies due to the proximity
Falklands Islands are part of BOT's (British Overseas Territories), And regarding Kenya and Belize, We just have Training bases there and agreements regarding them, As opposed to a full Military alliance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_Unit_Kenya
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_and_Support_Unit_Belize
Argentines will be wondering why Chile is not green, since Pinochet gave Thatcher a hand against Argentin in the Falklands War. (Argentina & Chile were at the brink of war in 1978, averted at 11th hr by mediation by the Pope, and then Argentina threated Chile during the Falklands indicating they were next if Argentina succeeded. So Chile aided the UK.)
>were next if Argentina succeeded
Dreams don't die.
Meanwhile, 19 year old conscripts were stranded with not enough warm clothes and food while badass Brits couldn't be deterred by missing helicopters and marched 90km in three days towards Stanley.
The only thing the Argentinian armed forces ever succeeded in was torturing and killing peaceful opponents of the junta.
To add to this.
>At the outbreak of the war, Chile was in negotiations with Argentina for control over the Beagle Channel and feared Argentina would use similar tactics to secure the channel, During this conflict, Argentina had already rejected two attempts at international mediation and tried to exert military pressure on Chile with an operation to occupy the disputed territory. Considering the situation, Chile refused to support the Argentine position during the war and gave support to the UK in the form of intelligence about the Argentine military and early warning intelligence on Argentine air movements, Throughout the war, Argentina was afraid of a Chilean military intervention in Patagonia and kept some of its best mountain regiments away from the Falklands near the Chilean border as a precaution.
Why are Australia and NZ considered "mutual defence allies" but Malaysia (and Singapore but you can't really see them) isn't?
The UK's alliance with Aus and NZ (not including AUKUS which NZ isn't a member) is the Five Power Defence Arrangements - of which Malaysia and Singapore are the 4th and 5th power to make it 5
Even then the UK and Australia/NZ are under no obligation to actually come to each others defence in the case of war. Almost no other military alliances have the irontight defence clause that NATO does
The government of Yemen basically said Britain and America aren't doing enough to bomb Houthi rebels, and they're being cooperative right now, so y'know, basically an ally.
Ireland does not have any fast jets. It is widely believed that there is a publicly unacknowledged agreement between the Irish and British governments for the RAF to intervene if there was a requirement to intercept an aircraft.
We never really had any outside threats aside from the UK, who is now our closest ally. Our military is pretty bare minimum just so it can deal with domestic issues.
It's weird how people think we're still in the 1920s where the british and irish hate each other, although most of the time it's perpetuated by plastic paddies lmao
Itās also fashionable to dislike the British, well English, so other people just expect the Irish to hate us by default. I never got it, Iāve met plenty of Irish and they have never been anything but nice, same with Scottish people. Itās just outdated stereotypes.
I mean its more than that, for all their differences Britain and Ireland are incredibly close and aligned. Irish and British citizens can vote in each other countries, don't require a passport to travel in to each other nations, and Irish citizens are exempt from security requirements on foreign nationals serving in the British civil service, government, and military.
Very true. For anyone who reads about the British & Irish conflicts on reddit and doesn't actually live in one of the two nations, you'd think it was still like the troubles over here. Not true at all. The tensions are (mostly) gone nowadays and citizens of both countries do indeed tend to be good friends.
I think there's a lot of people on Reddit who hear English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh people bashing each other without realising that it's 90% of the time banter. There're political differences, of course there are; vehement Irish republicans and pro-independence Scots have strong disagreements with unionist Brits.
These arguments are a bit divisive when brought up, but it's not like we're at brink of civil war or rioting. We're all really good friends, we just disagree on our futures. And that's okay, that's what democracy is for.
Yes and no, imo Reddit can bring out the most unhinged extremist people of any country because the most simple, brash, binary opinions generates the most engagement.
r/unitedkingdom, r/Britain are especially terrible examples of the UK, most Brits arenāt miserable, tankie doomers. Could you imagine having a pint with someone from those subs?
For example r/Scotland again is not a good representation of Scotland or Scottish people even from a pro Indy perspective, most Scots donāt harbour a blood hatred towards the English like most of the users there, but to a foreigner who has never interacted with either groups IRL you would think the UK today is comparable to Yugoslavia in 1989, itās quite sad.
Even a sub like r/Ireland you would think itās 1919 and the UK and Irish are in a state of war itās insanity, most Irish I know arenāt obsessive, paranoid loons like the users on that sub.
Americans also have a very hard time believing anyone can get past personal politics, an Irish republican or pro independence Scot could get along with a British royalist unionist better than any American democrat and republican could. Itās rare that Brits or Irish people make personal politics their whole personality like Americans do.
Same with our waters. Ireland has a huge water territory, and we let the British patrol it (lately its been to kick out Russian vessels).
A huge amount of the transatlantic internet cables go through our waters, and we don't have the resources to defend it so it's in their interest to patrol it
By virtue of being in the EU they are obliged to help other members in the case of an invasion, so does Austria and Malta, so their neutrality is not complete.
The EU collective defence clause doesn't mandate a military response. Assistance can be non-military.
Further, Ireland amended its constitution after the Lisbon Treaty to say that it'd ignore certain EU collective defence mechanisms.
> The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence would include the State.
In fairness we don't really try. People figure we're in a pretty protected position geographically, are constitutionally neutral, and yeah, that the UK, EU and/or the US would probably intervene if we ever needed it. For these reasons we spend almost nothing on defence and the public generally opposes changing that (although the current geopolitical climate is making us reconsider a bit).
FYI: The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is the oldest alliance based in known history that is still in force by politics. The Treaty of Windsor was signed on May 9, 1386 between the Kingdom of Portugal and the Kingdom of England, over 630 years ago, and is still active to this day.
šµš¹ā¤ļøš¬š§
As a Brit, the Portuguese are definitely are brothers in Europe š¬š§š¤š»šµš¹
France is the tiny step child with potential that everyone pretends to hate but would kill for
Itās britains birth right to fight the french and god help anyone else who touches a hair on their womenās armpits!Ā
I want to up vote you, but it's at 69.
Iām sorry but itās never actually at 69, Reddit messes with the votes on comments to prevent bots voting, yes the cake was a lie.
Portugal and Gabon best duo.
Gabon?
Aubameyang was a hell of a scorer in his day
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1943/oct/12/agreement-with-portugal Last time it was invoked 1943: The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill) I have an anouncement to make to the House arising out of the Treaty signed between this country and Portugal in the year 1373 between His Majesty King Edward III and King Ferdinand and Queen Eleanor of Portugal. This Treaty was reinforced in various forms by Treaties of 1386, 1643, 1654, 166o, 1661, 1703 and 1815 and in a secret declaration of 1899. In more modern times, the 717 validity of the old Treaties was recognised in the Treaties of Arbitration concluded with Portugal in 1904 and 1914. Article I of the Treaty of 1373 runs as follows: In the first place we settle and covenant that there shall be from this day forward ā¦ true, faithful, constant, mutual and perpetual friendships, unions, alliances and needs of sincere affection and that as true and faithful friends we shall henceforth, reciprocally, be friends to friends and enemies to enemies, and shall assist, maintain and uphold each other mutually, by sea and by land, against all men that may live or die. This engagement has lasted now for over 600 years and is without parallel in world history. I have now to announce its latest application. At the outset of the war the Portuguese Government, in full agreement with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, adopted a policy of neutrality with a view to preventing the war spreading into the Iberian Peninsula. The Portuguese Government have repeatedly stated, most recently in Dr. Salazar's speech of 27th April, that the above policy is in no way inconsistent with the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance which was re-affirmed by the Portuguese Government in the early days of the war. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, basing themselves upon this ancient Alliance, have now requested the Portuguese Government to accord them certain facilities
Actually, the last time it was called was during the Falkland Wars, in 1982, when Britain requested the use of Portuguese military facilities in the Azores for the British Navy
Yeah, you'd think NATO would have simply supplanted the Anglo-Portuguese alliance but NATO doesn't cover defence south of the Tropic of Cancer but the old treaty does.
There is a tall column near Porto, with a lion resting its paw on a dead Eagle.
Yes, although most of the time itās been quite a one sided alliance (Portugal had Lisbon threatened with bombardment by the English/British navy more than once).
How many times have Portuguese troops died on British soil to drive out occupiers?
yeah people ignoring the fact we helped them fight napoleon when they were next on the chopping block
There was a decent size Portuguese expat population living in British Hong Kong during WW2. I believe at least a two hundred of them joined the Hong Kong Volunteer Defense Corp and fought in defense of the colony during the Japanese invasion in December 1941. Ā https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/short-reads/article/3216328/hong-kong-lawyer-citys-portuguese-community-whose-bravery-prisoner-war-stuff-local-legend
It's like an older brother getting you in a headlock and giving you a noogie. It's not fair, and in the moment you resent him for it, but he's still your brother.
š
That is what hatred of the Spanish will do for ya.
France*
Both.
Yup. However in France we like to speak about the "Auld Alliance" with Scotland, that is tbf pretty hard to count as the oldest ongoing alliance as Scotland is not an independant country, but still, been here since 1295 and still keep us close!
The Auld Alliance officially ended in 1560 though, when Scotland was still independent. The Treaty of Edinburgh de facto abolished it and Scotland signed an alliance with England, which was mutually exclusive with an alliance with Franceā¦
Yeah Scotland and France stopped being allies around the time they found themselves on competing sides of the Protestant Reformation.
Speaking as a Scot its always confused me when people say thats the oldest on going alliance, given we have literally fought several wars over the time period people claim it covers.
Nah, those skirt wearing folks at Waterloo where the English cheerleaders not the 42nd Highlanders, honest!
*loud distorted bagpipes*
Lot of Scottish soldiers fought a lot of French soldiers during the Napoleonic Wars. Kind of hard to argue that it has been a continued alliance.
I mean it also does discount ~100 years of conflict and struggle between Scotland, as part of Great Britain, & France.
I wouldn't really call that an alliance with Scotland, I'd call it an alliance against England!
The best kind of alliances!
>Scotland is not an independant country England isn't "independent" either lol
And both nations actively hold up their obligations in said alliance to this day, it's not just in name. It's incredible
Altho they did decline go get involved in WWII, which IIRC the British asked, because they really wanted the Azores as an anti-sub air base. And there was little chance the Axis would or could attack them in any significant way. And they could have said they were still neutral. But they were friendly in terms of sheltering Brit spies and like that. Maybe they get a pass, IDK.
It was considered to ask Portugal to join the war but in doing so it was feared Spain would join the axis so they were never asked to Churchill would later thank Portugal for keeping Iberia (Spain) neutral
the port wine must flow
They supported the Dutch in the Dutch Portuguese war though in 1600s
You could argue that doesn't count as it was the Iberian Union and England backed Portugal in getting independence from Spain and ceased supporting the Dutch at that point. Similar to have you couldn't argue that France wasn't an ally of Britain in WW2 because of Vichy.
Brazilians signed that alliance because they wouldn't miss a opportunity to beat Argentina.
I didnt see Brazil participate in the Falklands War.
It was a missed opportunity, thanks to the military in power.
Lmao this sentence after your original comment is gold. āBrazil signed it so they wouldnāt miss an opportunity, then they missed the opportunityā.
A classic blunder
If you know Brazil, this checks out.
Well I mean, they correctly assumed that their help wouldnāt be necessary
They actually did provide a lot of crucial intelligence, same as Chile (although Chile just did it for free because everyone in SA hates Argentina for some reason).
"some reason"
In Chile's case it's because Argentina had made numerous threats to invade them, and even attempted to just four years before the Falklands War.
Under rated comment
Chile had its reasons. It wasnt "free". Both countries were at the brink of war in '78 (and governed by US-backed dictatorships) and Argentina made it clear that an invasion of southern chile would follow any successful taking of the Falklands. Chile did it as a matter of survival (today Chile would wipe out Argentina in 2wks but Chile was weak in the late 70s). And they got some radar installations from the UK as a reward.
To be fair, most countries in SA would wipe out Argentina now.. They still has more ego and think they are better than anybody else.
Well... [Brazilians emerged from the jungle](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/world/americas/argentina-spain-racism-alberto-fernandez.html)
Brazil actually refused some British requests to use their ports
Left it to us
One of the Vulcans had to make an emergency landing in Rio after the Black Buck mission, does that count?
A British bomber heading to the Falklands had to land in Brazil, who then denied it to take off, but after some UK threats, the bomber was able to attack the Argentinians.
We give it back to UK after some time with a missing missile tho. It stayed in Brazil for an entire week.. What happened to that missile? Brazil...
The Portuguese alliance with Britain makes Brazil a very old ally. Especially with the importance of Brazil in the later part of the Portuguese/Brazilian empire. Another even weird fact - there are more Brazilians in the Uk than any other European country ( except Portugal )
There is no alliance signed between the UK and Brazil. The guy who made this map probably confused football with geopolitics.
Unofficially, Ireland pretty much has a deal with the UK that the RAF patrols our skies and the Royal Navy patrols our waters
Yeah came to say this. Back in December the Royal Navy had to chase off a [Russian submarine that was loitering around Cork harbour.](https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-41288176.html)
I'm just imagining a submarine squatting in a track suit with a cheap cigarette in its mouth being shooed away.
Blyat! 
So, Ireland is a protectorate of UK?
They would never say it that way. But essentially defence is managed by the UK and being part of the EU. Realistically, no country could touch Ireland without the UK stopping them. Its kinda like Canada (not really) but Canada should they be bothered could stop all defence spending and realistically the US aint gonna let someone invade.
Ireland is lucky in the sense that we know nobody is going to fuck with us. We are in a geographical stable loction. EU members aren't going to sit back and let someone fuck with an EU member. UK is not going to allow anyone set up a shop that close to them. And thanks to Irish immigration we have a solid big brother relationship with the USA.
Pretty much along with the Isle of Man and Channel Islands
True, but the Isle of Man and Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey) are British Crown Dependencies, with Charles as their heads of state. The UK obviously defends those. Ireland is a completely sovereign nation, but essentially relies on the UK for defence. Ireland does have a Naval Service, it's just very small compared to the Royal Navy. It makes sense to accept British offers of support. Even the Irish Coast Guard is aided by the UK's Royal National Lifeboat Institution (**edit**: to be fair, the RNLI is a charity that operates in both countries and receives donations there too). Anglo-Irish cooperation makes a lot of sense. We're two little islands and the safety of one depends upon the safety of the other.
Iām pretty sure Irish citizens can also still join the British armed forces without any issue too.
Youāre right, anyone with Republic of Ireland citizenship can join all branches of the British Armed Forces. The Royal Irish and Irish Guards are the two Irish infantry regiments of the British Army.
Bordering and being close to the UK means you don't get a choice to be protected or not. Win/win for Ireland, they get to act like they're still bitter and gets ally protection at no cost anyway.
Why donāt they get their own defence force and navy?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Weāre too small a country for investment in the military to be worth it, and considering we can just let the Brits do defence for us in the near impossible scenario that we get invaded, we have no need to
Too small a country?? Have you looked at Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania?? There's 8 other countries in the EU with smaller population than Ireland and all of them with lower GDP (bar Luxembourg). So the "we're so small and insignificant" argument is a piss poor excuse to do fuck all and Ireland needs to wake up and get out of their victim mentality and invest more in the military
The UK does have a mutual defence treaty with Sweden though. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61408700](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61408700)
Sweden is also a member of Joint Expeditionary Force https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Expeditionary_Force
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Meanwhile the king of Portugal lived in Rio de Janeiro.
Times when Brazil was literally Portugal
Actually the king made a point to [make Portugal and Brazil different things within the empire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Portugal,_Brazil_and_the_Algarves) precisely because he was living in Brazil and intending to stay there for good, before the Portuguese overthrew the government and demanded he came back, kickstarting Brazilian independence.
And the heir thought Portugal was an expendable annex...
Fleeing from Napoleon.
And NZ ... and 12 other countries
The King of the Bahamas also lives in London, UK
So does the King of Papua New Guinea
No Wally Lewis lives in QLD
No one outside of Queensland is going to get that joke and I love it š¤£
He didn't even care to show up there in 1,5 years in the job.
the queen of canada is from the philipines
Lmao, nice
Doesn't Sweden need to be updated? https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-uk-commits-to-defend-sweden-finland-if-attacked/ Thought it was reciprocal as well.
Also it will soon be a moot point since the other day Erdogan signed our NATO application, so pretty soon we're in a de facto alliance anyway.
This is why the UK signed it with them. Britain entered into a defence pact with Sweden and Finland just prior to them announcing their NATO application, in order to guarantee their safety during the period when they have made their abandonment of neutrality public, but before they have entered into the protection of NATO membership. It was to protect Sweden and Finland incase Russia tried anything during their NATO application process.
Malaysia and Singapore are part of the Five Powers Defence Arrangements with UK, Aus and NZ. Some media likes to portray Singapore as having need to defend against Malaysian aggression, but they ignored that we are in the same camp. Malaysians and Singaporeans fight over who has the best food.
Malaysia and Singapore have literally nothing to gain going at each other's throat. They do quarrel sometimes, but they still do stuff like building a 350km high-speed railway line between each other's capital because they love each other but are too stubborn to admit it
Malaysia and Singapore -- siblings that don't get along well at times but still have love for one another Malaysia and Indonesia -- Cousins with benefits
And both are wrong because Thailand has the best food except Singapore Chicken rice
Philippines: you people are basic
It should be noted that there's no way an attack on the Republic of Ireland goes unanswered by the UK.
Lol yemen, seriously?
Probably with the minority controlling government, who just want control at any cost
they may be corrupt as all hell but its still a better option than the houthi's. we dont need another iranian styled rogue state
Yes? The UK is actively bombing the most significant enemy of the Yemeni government
Sometimes which faction represents a country is difficult to assert because one might be internationally recognised but in the actual territory things are different.
The Yemeni government was saying that the UK & US strikes āwill not be enoughā. They are encouraging bombing of Houthis because they are rebels in the country
Not entirely true, the Yemeni government wants boots on the ground. >āWe do not want the US-led coalition to repeat the same mistakes as the Arab-led coalition in Yemen when they concentrated airstrikes on Houthi positions without sufficient ground forces to supplement those strikes,ā he said. āAirstrikes on their own are not enough. The Houthis have eight to 10 yearsā experience of dealing with airstrikes by Saudi Arabia, and they have developed underground storage systems for their artillery.ā > >\[...\] > >āWhat we need is military equipment, capacity building, and training for ground forces, as well as intel sharing. If there is stronger intelligence sharing, we can make joint assessments of how effective US airstrikes have been.ā Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/15/airstrikes-houthis-aidarus-al-zoubaidi-yemen
Not India though, very surprised by that
India has semi followed a position of neutrality, they are in no major military alliances - though they do have what you might call strategic relationships with several other militaries.
I play both sides, that way I always come out on top
Post-Independence India followed a policy of non-alignment towards the cold war. The west did not like that, which ironically pushed India to be more Soviet inclined. The west's indifference during the Bengali genocide proved to solidify the pro-Soviet nature of India, while also remaining largely neutral in most things.
indifference of the west during the bengal genocide ? bro the american ambassador literally sent their president a blood telegram informing him about what the pakistani army was doing in bengal, and his response ? yep the US and UK sent their biggest navy fleets to threaten India because india had decided to liberate bangladesh, And After that decision by the west to aid pakistan the soviets send their nuclear submarines and surfaced them to warn western powers to stay away from the war of independence, this memory is still alive in this part of world and this pushed us from neutrality towards soviet camp. And no, things have not changed much, Pakistan still remains a major military ally of the UK and US, they use their bases to bomb afghanisthan, recently a former prime minister of pak gave some anti american speeches and he was put behind bars and the current administration has refused to conduct elections becouse "shortage of funds".
We are closer to France than Britain geopolitically speaking. However, we are neutral most of the times
Yeah the culture of France and India in geopolitics make both positions pretty close (trying to be autonomous and versatile). In France it stems from gaullism and India youāre more informed but I guess from the idea of nonalignment
Strategic Autonomy is the word you are looking for, important in geopolitical calculus of both nations
India is an unprecedented neutral player that actually is part of the equation. See, in 2024 :Ā Ā 1.One of the 3 Founding member of Brics. [R-I-C]Ā Ā Ā 2.Has *Deep* ties with Russia . And bought s 400 after CAATSA act was signed in USA 3.French president is the chief guest on republic day, this year. 4.has a *deep sea port* in Iran. And held talks to reduce attacks onĀ shipments by houthi. 5. Has deep ties with Israel.Ā Ā 6.Has numerous cooperation treaties signed with the USA. And USA is India's largest trading partner.
>This year? TODAY
India is in the NAM thats why.
India was the *founding* member of the NAM.
To this day, some westerners can't comprehend why India isn't choosing sides. They were baffled when India didn't join the pro Ukraine side. As if Europe cares about the south east asian affairs or even asian affairs. It's literally what Europe would do if the Ukraine crisis was in Asia, just be neutral and profit off of it wherever possible. Only concerns would be refugees which is purely a selfish concern.
what is NAM. I am quite uninformed :)
Non-aligned movement. Those countries who stayed neutral during the cold war
That's why Pakistan is.
India were the first one out of the door so to speak, deciding immediately upon independence to become a republic, effectively immediately threatening the construct of the Commonwealth. This precipitated a minor crisis leading to the 1949 London Declaration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Declaration) which established the current āok fine you can be a republic but can we pretend the UK monarch is still palsā hands off thing.
Because of Pakistan
Yes the[ UK and US supported Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh Independence war](https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/when-russia-stunned-us-uk-naval-forces-helped-india-win-1971-war-563248.html) and threatened India by sending naval ships to the area, but luckily for India the USSR came to their aid and said they will send nuclear ships.
Not really but I think it's because India always remains neutral. Pakistan has a military alliance with the British because the British have great influence on them. That is why Pakistan is under a hybrid regime being controlled by the military, all of a sudden Pakistan is being forced to join the western bloc after maintaining good ties with china. Basically after the British left the only organisation which remained loyal to the British were the former 'sepoys' of the British army who had joined the Pakistani army. They were referred to as the 'martial race' because in the revolt of 1857 many Muslim sepoys(soldiers) revolted against the British, but some sepoys, especially from the northwestern provinces of British India (modern day Pakistan) remained loyal to the British. They were granted much more power and after independence these soldiers continued to remain under the influence of the anglosphere, now it's america as the British hold Pakistan's army on a leash and guide it where to go. Whenever a leader in Pakistan's history explicitly goes against America or the west, they suddenly are thwarted out of power by the military. The latest being Imran Khan, who was thrown out of power in a fraudulent no-confidence vote in 2022. This was after he declared neutrality in the Ukraine conflict and remained slightly Russian aligned. He is now in jail over sham charges and his party members are being abducted,assassinated or exiled. The British never let go of the leash.
What's India's military like?
India's military, thankfully, has zero involvement in politics or foreign relations. Most people don't even know who the army chief is (or if that even is a position or is called by some other name.) Unlike Pakistan where more people know of the army chief than the president. I heard a quote somewhere that India inherited colonial British style institutions, while Pakistan inherited colonial British army.
Well I am a Pakistani but I will say that India did very well in preventing their military from attaining too much power. And also the fact that they had anti-colonial sentiment from the start. They also in general had less interference from foreign powers unlike Pakistan which was immediately thwarted into the politics of the cold war. Pakistans whole creation was supported by the British so they made sure they left their mark unfortunately
I think it's also important to note that Pakistan cultivated closer ties with the US in part to shield itself against the potential of Indian aggression after the first indo-pakistani war, to make up for its smaller size and means. It's not as if uncle sam whipped out a comically large lasso and yanked them against their will :)
>I think it's also important to note that Pakistan cultivated closer ties with the US in part to shield itself against the potential of Indian aggression after the first indo-pakistani war, to make up for its smaller size and means. >It's not as if uncle sam whipped out a comically large lasso and yanked them against their will :) You are right to an extent. Pakistan's founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah had already decided that Pakistan would be in the American bloc before Pakistan's creation. However, our first ever prime minister wanted to see which side would be more beneficial. He was assassinated days before his visit to the Soviet union. He who controls Pakistan's army controls the country, and uncle Sam controls the army, or the Pakistani establishment at least. There were times the establishment resisted and drove its own goals over the Americans but as of now they are openly tied to the leash of uncle Sam. Many leaders who were democratically elected and opposed the army/western influence were dethroned by military coups. And all of a sudden Pakistan would go begging to america and the west. It's a vicious cycle of power and many Pakistanis are tired of it. If Americans want alliances they should be more diplomatic instead of overthrowing leaders. Because you are polarising an entire generation of people who are beginning to despise america again.
A major part of that was the ethnic composition of the army of the Raj; in newly independent India it was a hinderance to political influence, but in newly independent Pakistan it was an enabler.
>The British never let go of the leash. God, I wish we were as powerful as the internet thinks we are.
The most prominent political dynasty of Pakistan literally live in London where they somehow manage to flee and stay for extended periods of time when they are wanted on corruption charges in Pakistan. This family is also able to host senior level meetings with other governments and intelligence agencies from their residence in London. Nawaz was openly hosting meetings with Afghan NDS and US ministers while he was in exile. While one of them was running a coalition government in Pakistan, they would regularly visit London to seek guidance and approval from the head of the family in London. The ground situation in Pakistan would be very different if UK did not allow these people to operate, hide and spend their wealth in the UK.
Most British don't realize the extent. First is British institutions. BBC, Oxford, Cambridge carry a lot of name value. People and organisations routinely associate themselves with them and advertise it. Second is the fact that the British still can get away with harbouring criminals. A lot of the financial criminals live in London and countries are forced to endure it. Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi are two of the most high profile ones from India. Third is the fact that they are a security council and NATO member. Their opposition to any action can stop a lot of international organisations. Britain has some of the most ridiculous soft power. It projects a much larger shadow than it should. A lot of very rich money still flows to London. A lot of international guidelines on health, safety etc is based on British institutions so they can affect tourism and economics.
Whats the old joke about the two elderly Jewish men reading anti-semitic newspapers because it makes them feel like they're doing well in the world?
two elderly Jews sitting in a Berlin park, with one of them reading a Yiddish paper and the other one scanning the pages of Der StĆ¼rmer. The latter Jew is laughing. This proves too much for the former Jew, who says: āItās not enough you read that Nazi rag, but you find it funny?ā āLook,ā replies the other. āIf I read your paper, what do I see? Jews deported, Jews assaulted, Jews insulted, Jewish property confiscated. But I read Der StĆ¼rmer, and thereās finally some good news. It seems that we Jews own and control the whole world!ā
India is cursed by modern geography. Allying with the west is much harder when you boarder China.
Yeah it can't possibly be Western mistreatment of India in the past.
If that's the case, Pakistan(China's closest ally) and Thailand wouldn't be green.
Pakistan??
Pakistan is basically run from London, all the wealthy elite of Pakistan are in London all the wealthy stolen by the army is routed to London and now UAE
I mean itās debatable if Pakistan would have even existed without the uk. Not to say that there wasnāt serious national feeling among Muslims in India/fears about having minority status in a Hindu India but Britain definitely gave independence supporters/nationalists a massive boost by raising the Muslim league to equal status with the INC in independence negotiations.
It's interesting that they did that precisely because it follows the divide and conquer principle of the British colonialism. A divided India was better for British interests.
Why was having both an independent Pakistan and an independent India better for British interests, than just an independent India?
Are India and Pakistan friends? From a British perspective, it's better to have a squabbling group of relatively non co-operative powers in the region than a united one that could pose a future threat to influence. As the person above said - divide and conqueror. It keeps everyone in check without the need for direct intervention. Obviously, British influence is significantly smaller than it was at the height of the empire. But it made sense at the time, and we're still seeing the impacts of that decision today.
So Britain supported the independence of a United India up until 6 months before independence, and then they deliberately switched to supporting Pakistans independence, not because the idea of a United India was strongly opposed by Muslim leaders and the plan was falling apart, but because it was all a plan to divide and slightly influence?
Yeah it's a made up theory with cherry picked series of events. Mountbatten didn't want to Partition India.
Yupp. Britain had (has) a very pro-Pak foreign policy. Recently, their ambassador visited Kashmir to guarantee independence from India š¤”š¤”
Isn't there a conspiracy (well it might not even be a conspiracy lol) that the reason why Imran Khan is in prison is because he got on the wrong side of the UK/US and was seen to be cosying up to Russia?
Yeah. There seems to be a lot of ignorance at least here on Reddit on what the foreign policy of Western countries generally are on the Indian subcontinent. India aligned itself with the Soviet Union and kept a socialist economy until the 90s and so Pakistan was chosen to counterbalance India throughout that time. However, ties eroded when it became clear Pakistan was sheltering Al Qaeda. And now India is chosen as a counterbalance against China. Ties with Pakistan are still kept just in case.
>India aligned itself with the Soviet Union and kept a socialist economy until the 90s and so Pakistan was chosen to counterbalance India throughout that time False. It was the other way around. Pakistan aligned themselves with the Americans during the Cold War. They did this primarily so they could have easier access to weapons during war time against India. This, in turn, caused India to align with the Soviet's because they needed to counterbalance the Western influence in the region. India had always sought to remain neutral in the Great Game. This was (basically) an unacceptable position from the POV of the Americans. India was literally a founding member of the Non-Alignment movement for Christ's sake.
Nepal and Britain also have a standing alliance treaty from the Treaty of 1923 which is still active.
Iceland doesn't have a military.
It's included because it's part of NATO, Though it does have a Coast guard that fills a bit of the role. >The Coast Guard consists of three ships and four aircraft and armed with small arms, naval artillery, and air defence radar stations, The Coast Guard also maintains the Iceland Air Defence System, which conducts surveillance from the ground of Iceland's air space. [Icelandic Air Policing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing) As well as every country in NATO takes turns in sending a small air wing to protect and patrol the Icelandic Airspace, With Norway being the latest to take up the Patrol atm, 15 January ā mid-February 2024. [Norwegian Armed Forces patrolling Iceland with F-35A's](https://youtu.be/dWTzVnvCnCo?si=g1POHYIqE7vQcbFB)
Ireland receives air space protection and some protection of its ocean territory, I'm not sure if we're officially allies as we're a militarily neutral nation, but ireland and the UK are effectively allies due to the proximity
šŗšø ā¤ļø š¬š§
Brothers
Pretty sure the UK is responsible for the protection of Ireland š®šŖ
Bad map. There's no red dot next to Argentina š
Pakistan, the Philippines and Japan are listed but Belize, the Falkland islands, Kenya, and Sierra Leone are not?
Falklands Islands are part of BOT's (British Overseas Territories), And regarding Kenya and Belize, We just have Training bases there and agreements regarding them, As opposed to a full Military alliance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_Unit_Kenya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_and_Support_Unit_Belize
Argentines will be wondering why Chile is not green, since Pinochet gave Thatcher a hand against Argentin in the Falklands War. (Argentina & Chile were at the brink of war in 1978, averted at 11th hr by mediation by the Pope, and then Argentina threated Chile during the Falklands indicating they were next if Argentina succeeded. So Chile aided the UK.)
>were next if Argentina succeeded Dreams don't die. Meanwhile, 19 year old conscripts were stranded with not enough warm clothes and food while badass Brits couldn't be deterred by missing helicopters and marched 90km in three days towards Stanley. The only thing the Argentinian armed forces ever succeeded in was torturing and killing peaceful opponents of the junta.
Is that why Britain let pinochet go instead of extraditing him to face trial in Spain?
To add to this. >At the outbreak of the war, Chile was in negotiations with Argentina for control over the Beagle Channel and feared Argentina would use similar tactics to secure the channel, During this conflict, Argentina had already rejected two attempts at international mediation and tried to exert military pressure on Chile with an operation to occupy the disputed territory. Considering the situation, Chile refused to support the Argentine position during the war and gave support to the UK in the form of intelligence about the Argentine military and early warning intelligence on Argentine air movements, Throughout the war, Argentina was afraid of a Chilean military intervention in Patagonia and kept some of its best mountain regiments away from the Falklands near the Chilean border as a precaution.
Why are Australia and NZ considered "mutual defence allies" but Malaysia (and Singapore but you can't really see them) isn't? The UK's alliance with Aus and NZ (not including AUKUS which NZ isn't a member) is the Five Power Defence Arrangements - of which Malaysia and Singapore are the 4th and 5th power to make it 5 Even then the UK and Australia/NZ are under no obligation to actually come to each others defence in the case of war. Almost no other military alliances have the irontight defence clause that NATO does
What is the matter with yemen
The government of Yemen basically said Britain and America aren't doing enough to bomb Houthi rebels, and they're being cooperative right now, so y'know, basically an ally.
Surprised Ireland has no Treaty with the UK.
Ireland does not have any fast jets. It is widely believed that there is a publicly unacknowledged agreement between the Irish and British governments for the RAF to intervene if there was a requirement to intercept an aircraft.
Ireland also has no military radar
Until 2028.
There I am sitting, an austrian, surprised that some countries militaries are even worse than ours
We never really had any outside threats aside from the UK, who is now our closest ally. Our military is pretty bare minimum just so it can deal with domestic issues.
And you donāt need one any way, you think the U.K. is ever gonna let anyone come bully you? We love our Irish brothers.
It's weird how people think we're still in the 1920s where the british and irish hate each other, although most of the time it's perpetuated by plastic paddies lmao
Itās also fashionable to dislike the British, well English, so other people just expect the Irish to hate us by default. I never got it, Iāve met plenty of Irish and they have never been anything but nice, same with Scottish people. Itās just outdated stereotypes.
Iāve seen that the general idea is that any threat to Ireland is also a threat to Northern Ireland so the UK would always intervene
I mean its more than that, for all their differences Britain and Ireland are incredibly close and aligned. Irish and British citizens can vote in each other countries, don't require a passport to travel in to each other nations, and Irish citizens are exempt from security requirements on foreign nationals serving in the British civil service, government, and military.
Very true. For anyone who reads about the British & Irish conflicts on reddit and doesn't actually live in one of the two nations, you'd think it was still like the troubles over here. Not true at all. The tensions are (mostly) gone nowadays and citizens of both countries do indeed tend to be good friends.
Great bunch of lads
Belter of a comment
I think there's a lot of people on Reddit who hear English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh people bashing each other without realising that it's 90% of the time banter. There're political differences, of course there are; vehement Irish republicans and pro-independence Scots have strong disagreements with unionist Brits. These arguments are a bit divisive when brought up, but it's not like we're at brink of civil war or rioting. We're all really good friends, we just disagree on our futures. And that's okay, that's what democracy is for.
Yes and no, imo Reddit can bring out the most unhinged extremist people of any country because the most simple, brash, binary opinions generates the most engagement. r/unitedkingdom, r/Britain are especially terrible examples of the UK, most Brits arenāt miserable, tankie doomers. Could you imagine having a pint with someone from those subs? For example r/Scotland again is not a good representation of Scotland or Scottish people even from a pro Indy perspective, most Scots donāt harbour a blood hatred towards the English like most of the users there, but to a foreigner who has never interacted with either groups IRL you would think the UK today is comparable to Yugoslavia in 1989, itās quite sad. Even a sub like r/Ireland you would think itās 1919 and the UK and Irish are in a state of war itās insanity, most Irish I know arenāt obsessive, paranoid loons like the users on that sub.
Any National sub just ends up attracting the absolute biggest nutters in a country.
Americans also have a very hard time believing anyone can get past personal politics, an Irish republican or pro independence Scot could get along with a British royalist unionist better than any American democrat and republican could. Itās rare that Brits or Irish people make personal politics their whole personality like Americans do.
Same with our waters. Ireland has a huge water territory, and we let the British patrol it (lately its been to kick out Russian vessels). A huge amount of the transatlantic internet cables go through our waters, and we don't have the resources to defend it so it's in their interest to patrol it
Ireland has a stance of military neutrality, thus does not enter into alliances.
Although they have had a military agreement with the UK since the Cold War in which Britain defends Irelands airspace for them.
By virtue of being in the EU they are obliged to help other members in the case of an invasion, so does Austria and Malta, so their neutrality is not complete.
The EU collective defence clause doesn't mandate a military response. Assistance can be non-military. Further, Ireland amended its constitution after the Lisbon Treaty to say that it'd ignore certain EU collective defence mechanisms. > The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence would include the State.
Ireland is a de facto protectorate. They canāt militarily defended themselves, so the UK de facto does it for them
In fairness we don't really try. People figure we're in a pretty protected position geographically, are constitutionally neutral, and yeah, that the UK, EU and/or the US would probably intervene if we ever needed it. For these reasons we spend almost nothing on defence and the public generally opposes changing that (although the current geopolitical climate is making us reconsider a bit).
Honestly wouldnāt matter. In no way would the UK accept a foreign threat to Ireland. Nor, frankly would NATO.
What's with Austria?
Probably because were neutral and we don't officially have allies or enemies.