undefined | Better HN

0 pointsniftich9y ago0 comments

But do they matter on the world sphere where the playground is dominated by a few players with nukes, navies, and large-enough domestic economies to be able to enact sanctions?

I come from a small country. There's a few in Europe, known for good wines or thermal baths or scenic sights or ethnic foods, but their continued existence is only guaranteed by their membership in a mutual defense pact. Those who aren't part of such an arrangement are out of luck -- "international outrage" does not protect sovereignty, as we have seen time and time again.

Right now, there's little need to conquer territory when you can just make everyone reliant on your for technology (USA), rare earth minerals (China), or natural gas (Russia). But as resources get more scarce, what is Latvia to do? Hungary? The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? With their cash flowing to foreign powers for technology, raw materials, and energy, rely on tourism, find some unique skill niche, or try to become a tax haven?

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

vtange9y ago· 2 in thread

I totally agree with you that geopolitics matter, no matter how much one wishes we could just live in a world that isn't "might makes right".

But I'd still argue that using terms like "Russia's backyard" or "China's backyard" dangerously colors entire regions their color without regard for whether the countries in the region want to be associated with their nearby superpower.

Germany once had nearly all of Europe and Japan once had nearly all of Asia. Couldn't one say at the time the U.K. was in Germany's backyard and China in Japan's?

anigbrowl9y ago

You're not wrong, but the increasingly imperialist tone of public discourse is a reflection of reality as well as a driver of it. My basic read of the world situation is that financialization and globalization have brought a tremendous increase in economic capability but also created massive internal political stresses within many countries - not least the USA - through the abruptness of the disruption.

Historically, countries often deal with internal strife by going to war with someone else, and it's probably been this way since the first cell dealt with an uncomfortable pH balance by squirting caustic goo at a neighboring cell. Almost nobody wants a full-on nuclear exchange but I think some sort of world war is inevitable because peaceful competition has created a lot of losers as well as winners, in both psychic and economic terms. Once about 10% of a population is sufficiently pissed off, strife is inevitable and the only question that remains is how it will manifest..

fjdlwlv9y ago

Wars aren't to placate the populace. Wars are started by elites grabbing for wealth and power, who propagandize thr populace to their cause.

1 more reply

fjdlwlv9y ago

The USA major foreign policy problems involve guerillas operating in small states.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse