One for Russia would probably be fairly similar too, the Cold War was global after all.
Sorry, but that does not appear to be the case. The US has vastly more foreign interventions than the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China combined. Like an order of magnitude more:
Good point, but I would expect that violent and non-violent interventions are roughly correlated, meaning that countries that start more violent interventions also start more non-violent interventions than others.
I would expect a country with a strong naval aspect focused on power projection to do more overseas military action, while a country with less focus on navy to use other means to accomplish their goals.
Unfortunately, I still don’t think that any other country in the world can come close to the US in terms of interventionism of any kind. Here’s another simple list that outlines both military and covert foreign interventions by the US (as of December 2005):
I think if we consider how many communist movements were being supported in the earlier parts of the 20th century, we more or less come up with “everywhere”. If you read the op, financial support is included, especially with “election interference” being such a hugely broad category.
My original comment was trying to subtly point out that these conditions were a little silly, rather than trying to downplay US interventionism. I think I did a poor job getting that across though. The conditions are so broad that the map likely underestimates us. So broad, that any modern-era superpower that has invested significant money in lobbying for their interests overseas should have more or less the entire map painted in their color under these conditions. Since the popularization of the internet, you could probably shorten the timeframe to just the last 10 years if you wanted, and the biggest powers would still have the whole map painted in their color.
I’m not downplaying US interventionism in the slightest. We are an extraordinarily violent people with a bloody history, just look at our mass media. We are, however, not alone in trying to press for our interests overseas. We’re just the best equipped to do it with bombs, which makes us stand out a little bit, as it probably should. This is due to our maritime projection and trade policy, though, not because other superpowers have had some policy of leaving others alone. The communist revolution was envisioned to be a global process, after all.
Sorry, but that does not appear to be the case. The US has vastly more foreign interventions than the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China combined. Like an order of magnitude more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_China
Those seem to be lists of various violent interventions. The op specifies several non-military influences as well.
Good point, but I would expect that violent and non-violent interventions are roughly correlated, meaning that countries that start more violent interventions also start more non-violent interventions than others.
I would expect a country with a strong naval aspect focused on power projection to do more overseas military action, while a country with less focus on navy to use other means to accomplish their goals.
Unfortunately, I still don’t think that any other country in the world can come close to the US in terms of interventionism of any kind. Here’s another simple list that outlines both military and covert foreign interventions by the US (as of December 2005):
https://archive.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024-us-interventions.html
I think if we consider how many communist movements were being supported in the earlier parts of the 20th century, we more or less come up with “everywhere”. If you read the op, financial support is included, especially with “election interference” being such a hugely broad category.
My original comment was trying to subtly point out that these conditions were a little silly, rather than trying to downplay US interventionism. I think I did a poor job getting that across though. The conditions are so broad that the map likely underestimates us. So broad, that any modern-era superpower that has invested significant money in lobbying for their interests overseas should have more or less the entire map painted in their color under these conditions. Since the popularization of the internet, you could probably shorten the timeframe to just the last 10 years if you wanted, and the biggest powers would still have the whole map painted in their color.
I’m not downplaying US interventionism in the slightest. We are an extraordinarily violent people with a bloody history, just look at our mass media. We are, however, not alone in trying to press for our interests overseas. We’re just the best equipped to do it with bombs, which makes us stand out a little bit, as it probably should. This is due to our maritime projection and trade policy, though, not because other superpowers have had some policy of leaving others alone. The communist revolution was envisioned to be a global process, after all.
I see, that makes more sense, thanks!