3 ms·
"Invaded" language and situational nuance aside, that has everything to do with superpower status and nothing to do with being authoritarian...
by jjcon 4y ago
"Invaded" language and situational nuance aside, that has everything to do with superpower status and nothing to do with being authoritarian...
- foverzar 4y agoI don't really get why people imply that these two are somehow disconnected. A global superpower that systematically employs military agression to impose its will somewhere far away around the globe is definitely authoritarian. Even if it had managed to create a convincing brand of democracy benifiting only, like, 5% of global population.
- jjcon 4y agoBecause those events specifically are not connected to authoritarianism - and more generally military might is not is not authoritarian at least not directly. We’re talking how governments govern, not their ability to project power. EG - North Korea is the most authoritarian state in the world but we haven’t seen them “invade” anyone “in the last 20 years”. The two are not directly related.