4 ms·

>Democratically, independent and small countries like New Zealand are only possible today because of the world order the US has placed. Otherwise, there is noth

>Democratically, independent and small countries like New Zealand are only possible today because of the world order the US has placed. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping China from walking to New Zealand and declaring it New China. This sounds a bit outlandish to me. I respect what your sub message might be but in real world scenario it's quite exaggerated.

csomar 5y ago
Before World War II that was what the world was about for most of its history. Big empires expanding further. Smaller city-states existed through complex diplomatic relations. If they didn't have these, all odds are off.
- dumb1224 5y ago
  Of course that's classic historic imperialism I agree, however like you said we are not in such an era anymore and no one, least likely China is to become what you suspected due to the complex economic and political ties. I thought it's worth having an intellectual debate to encourage a better world for everyone, not just polarised opinions that's all.
  - csomar 5y ago
    > we are not in such an era anymore and no one, least likely China is to become what you suspected due to the complex economic and political ties. A collapse of the current status-quo (pax-americana) will force a re-organization of the world map. There is a reason why some countries have disputed claims that they didn't act on (although, militarily, they are within their reach). Such an act will have consequences on the world stage (UN) unless you have a veto-friend. But if this system is no longer enforced, we'll be back to circles of influences; and any military action that has a positive yield will be executed.
    - dumb1224 5y ago
      But that's precisely my point: everyone needs everybody else to exist in the world stage. No one is exceptional even like you said when status-quo changes. Rising powers are all over the globe and they are not guaranteed to stay afloat. I cannot predict the future of course but I don't think the decision makers in China are that naive.

csomar 5y ago

Before World War II that was what the world was about for most of its history. Big empires expanding further. Smaller city-states existed through complex diplomatic relations. If they didn't have these, all odds are off.

dumb1224 5y ago
Of course that's classic historic imperialism I agree, however like you said we are not in such an era anymore and no one, least likely China is to become what you suspected due to the complex economic and political ties. I thought it's worth having an intellectual debate to encourage a better world for everyone, not just polarised opinions that's all.
- csomar 5y ago
  > we are not in such an era anymore and no one, least likely China is to become what you suspected due to the complex economic and political ties. A collapse of the current status-quo (pax-americana) will force a re-organization of the world map. There is a reason why some countries have disputed claims that they didn't act on (although, militarily, they are within their reach). Such an act will have consequences on the world stage (UN) unless you have a veto-friend. But if this system is no longer enforced, we'll be back to circles of influences; and any military action that has a positive yield will be executed.
  - dumb1224 5y ago
    But that's precisely my point: everyone needs everybody else to exist in the world stage. No one is exceptional even like you said when status-quo changes. Rising powers are all over the globe and they are not guaranteed to stay afloat. I cannot predict the future of course but I don't think the decision makers in China are that naive.