4 ms·
It is most certainly not true of every state; if no one recognizes your claims, but you can still feed your citizens and defend your borders, you are "a state".
by quacked 5y ago
It is most certainly not true of every state; if no one recognizes your claims, but you can still feed your citizens and defend your borders, you are "a state".
- handrous 5y ago> and then acts with impunity against you
- vntok 5y agoRussia acts with impunity on Ukraine soil, however Ukraine is a state for all definitions of state I could find.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI don't really care one way or another, but the OP provided 2 stipulations for statehood: > If no one recognizes your claims, and then acts with impunity against you, you’re not a state. Ukraine only fits one.
- notahacker 5y agoI believe the point the OP was making is that Ukraine, like many other countries, exists because there are limits to the actions its larger, stronger neighbour is willing and able to take. cf Western Sahara. The international community was not interested in preserving Western Sahara as a state, and so now its entire territory is governed by Morocco, save for some tent cities in a corner of desert the Polisario Front clings to mainly because it'd be bad PR for Morocco to wipe them out.
- jonathankoren 5y agoUkraine continues to have foreign economic and military aid, while Russia continues to have economic sanctions due to its actions in Ukraine. Just because one country is stronger than another, isn’t the sole deciding factor, but the ability to assert your claims as a matter of fact, rather than law, is certainly key. The Republic of Minerva, was not a state, because no one cared when Tonga claimed it. Conversely, Taiwan is a state, even with its bizarre legal status, as it has well defined borders, and de facto foreign recognition and military alliances.
- tshaddox 5y agoOkay, then you definitely couldn’t include anything more than the 5 nuclear-weapon states.
- zardo 5y agoThere are at least nine.
- quacked 5y agoConcur
- quacked 5y agoNot strictly true; states that have nuclear weapons are capable of destroying other states, but not necessarily invading, repurposing, and ruling them to the point that their own legal and governmental system is subsumed by the other.