A myriad of regional cooperation initiatives and frameworks have been established in East Asia 1 after the Cold War ended. Some were established under the umbrella of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and others, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, operate outside the ASEAN framework. Most tend to extend beyond the region here defined as East Asia, often including the United States, Russia, Australia, and India. The East Asia Summit (EAS) is a prime example: its members hail from four different continents. Keeping in mind that the EAS is a product of the East Asia Vision Group (EAVG), 2 a study group established by the ASEAN+3 (the three being China, Japan, and South Korea), it appears puzzling that the membership of an East Asian regional forum established by a group of East Asian nations would not be limited to East Asia. Considering that the EAVG describes East Asian nations as sharing “geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values” and calls for “more deliberate regional cooperation and coordination as well as a united voice to advance the region’s common interests,” 3 the membership of the United States, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, and India in the EAS appears contradictory to what the EAVG had envisioned in 2001. As of 2016, ASEAN+3 (APT) and the EAS coexist and share many similarities. While the first EAVG report still called for ASEAN+3 to evolve into the EAS, a second EAVG report published in 2012 acknowledged the complementary nature of both forums. 4 What happened to the idea of a truly East Asian Summit? How has the inclusion of Australia, New Zealand, and India in the EAS in 2005 and Russia and the United States in 2011 affected the East Asian regionalism pursued by ASEAN+3 and what were the dynamics at play in this shift?