3 ms·
> Counting the power of Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia is likely more predictive of the future than not counting them. More predictive in what regard?
by goblin89 7y ago
> Counting the power of Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia is likely more predictive of the future than not counting them.
More predictive in what regard? The only way I can see it being usefully predictive is if you count on the larger entity annexing the smaller one. An I missing something?
- empath75 7y agoYou can exert power through hegemony without annexing.
- goblin89 7y agoIn the part that I quoted “power”, I believe, stands for economical strength. How can it be useful or at all correct to count economical strength of, say, Kazakhstan (as another example) as part of Russia’s stats, if the former is developing and trading independently? That’s why I object to article’s angle: it uses “China” to refer to an aggregate in one case (lumping ROC and PRC together), and to PRC in another case (quoting their president and intentions to dominate global economy). Counting ROC in PRC’s favor serves to tip the numbers and make article’s premise seem more compelling, but since PRC and ROC are separate economies the premise is false. It almost makes it look like a major business publication is playing a political game.
- maehwasu 7y agoRussia already exerts a lot of economic influence over Kazakhstan, so this example actually goes the other way. There are MANY ways to derive benefit from a relationship between countries: it’s not binary annex/not-annexed.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]