5 ms·

The multipolar World looks like the uni polar, it's just more of its crap.

0xDEF 3y ago
There is no multipolar world. It's just the US and China. Their combined GDP is bigger than the next 33 countries combined. As a Danish person I wish the EU had actual hard power but in the end of the day Denmark doesn't have the same geopolitical interests as Hungary, Bulgaria, and Slovakia. In fact their views are the polar opposite of ours.
- beebeepka 3y ago
  What do you mean our views are opposite? I am Bulgarian and I very much agree with you that we need an actual European army. Now, you can always assume I only say this because I live in a poor country that everyone pushes around. But when we zoom out a bit, the same could soon apply to the entire continent. We are not united and that's bad for all of us because our competitors are more much bigger and better integrated. Did you have something else in mind? I don't exactly pay any attention to US politics but I am sure their states are competing with each other because they have their own interests in mind. But that applies to cities too, does it not?
  - 0xDEF 3y ago
    I was thinking in terms of Ukraine, Russia etc. Hungary, Bulgaria, and Slovakia have very pro-Russian populations according to opinion polls.
    - beebeepka 3y ago
      Well, I don't know about the others in your list but russian propaganda is very strong here but even those who "support" them wouldn't want to live there, if you know what I mean. It's more of anti US thing than pro-Russia things. I guess people don't like hegemonies unless they greatly benefit from them. Go figure.
  - petre 3y ago
    The US is much more cohesive than the EU, they all speak English and bear firearms. Of course Danish interests are not aligned with the rest of the EU. They live in a hygge bubble, not having been under Russia's boot. Their worst problems are immigration and Islam. Denmark has the most opt-outs compared to any EU state: Euro, EU Blue Card, Europol. It took a second referendum this year to abolish their defense opt-out. And of course this is bad for all of us. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_opt-outs_from_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_opt-outs_from_the_Eur...
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    > Did you have something else in mind? I don't exactly pay any attention to US politics but I am sure their states are competing with each other because they have their own interests in mind. But that applies to cities too, does it not? This is pretty much solved by the enumerated powers clause. Outside of the dozen or so federal powers the central government handles, the states operate mostly autonomously (something non-Americans, particularly Europeans, find impossible to comprehend; at least based on common internet discourse). Presumably, the same could be done for a Federated EU; but it's unlikely a good chunk of the nations (particularly the wealthy ones) would be willing to cede their ultimate sovereignty to a central power.
- orangepurple 3y ago
  GDP is the wrong metric. Military strength and sustainability are the most important drivers for a country. Example: This is why North Korea is able to survive despite being blacklisted economically from most of the world. China is enabling its sustainability.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    There is no wrong or right metric. Every aspect of a nation's existence has an effect on its survival. Mexico has a very weak and self-defense oriented military, but is under no threat of occupation or annexation. Mostly because it's continued existence benefits both the US and Canada, which offer a proxy protection. It also keeps relatively good trade relations with many powerful nations and has a large consumer economy. Or Mongolia, which exists because neither of it's neighbors could reasonably occupy it or would allow the other to do so. Military strength is one way to ensure protection. It's certainly not the only way.
    - orangepurple 3y ago
      Mexico's military is unable to control at least 30% of its territory and there is discussion of an American "special military operation" to destroy cartels.
      - deaddodo 3y ago
        And yet they're still sovereign. You're only reinforcing the point with your flights of fancy, not countering it.

There is no multipolar world. It's just the US and China. Their combined GDP is bigger than the next 33 countries combined. As a Danish person I wish the EU had actual hard power but in the end of the day Denmark doesn't have the same geopolitical interests as Hungary, Bulgaria, and Slovakia. In fact their views are the polar opposite of ours.

beebeepka 3y ago
What do you mean our views are opposite? I am Bulgarian and I very much agree with you that we need an actual European army. Now, you can always assume I only say this because I live in a poor country that everyone pushes around. But when we zoom out a bit, the same could soon apply to the entire continent. We are not united and that's bad for all of us because our competitors are more much bigger and better integrated. Did you have something else in mind? I don't exactly pay any attention to US politics but I am sure their states are competing with each other because they have their own interests in mind. But that applies to cities too, does it not?
- 0xDEF 3y ago
  I was thinking in terms of Ukraine, Russia etc. Hungary, Bulgaria, and Slovakia have very pro-Russian populations according to opinion polls.
  - beebeepka 3y ago
    Well, I don't know about the others in your list but russian propaganda is very strong here but even those who "support" them wouldn't want to live there, if you know what I mean. It's more of anti US thing than pro-Russia things. I guess people don't like hegemonies unless they greatly benefit from them. Go figure.
- petre 3y ago
  The US is much more cohesive than the EU, they all speak English and bear firearms. Of course Danish interests are not aligned with the rest of the EU. They live in a hygge bubble, not having been under Russia's boot. Their worst problems are immigration and Islam. Denmark has the most opt-outs compared to any EU state: Euro, EU Blue Card, Europol. It took a second referendum this year to abolish their defense opt-out. And of course this is bad for all of us. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_opt-outs_from_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_opt-outs_from_the_Eur...
- deaddodo 3y ago
  > Did you have something else in mind? I don't exactly pay any attention to US politics but I am sure their states are competing with each other because they have their own interests in mind. But that applies to cities too, does it not? This is pretty much solved by the enumerated powers clause. Outside of the dozen or so federal powers the central government handles, the states operate mostly autonomously (something non-Americans, particularly Europeans, find impossible to comprehend; at least based on common internet discourse). Presumably, the same could be done for a Federated EU; but it's unlikely a good chunk of the nations (particularly the wealthy ones) would be willing to cede their ultimate sovereignty to a central power.
orangepurple 3y ago
GDP is the wrong metric. Military strength and sustainability are the most important drivers for a country. Example: This is why North Korea is able to survive despite being blacklisted economically from most of the world. China is enabling its sustainability.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  There is no wrong or right metric. Every aspect of a nation's existence has an effect on its survival. Mexico has a very weak and self-defense oriented military, but is under no threat of occupation or annexation. Mostly because it's continued existence benefits both the US and Canada, which offer a proxy protection. It also keeps relatively good trade relations with many powerful nations and has a large consumer economy. Or Mongolia, which exists because neither of it's neighbors could reasonably occupy it or would allow the other to do so. Military strength is one way to ensure protection. It's certainly not the only way.
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    Mexico's military is unable to control at least 30% of its territory and there is discussion of an American "special military operation" to destroy cartels.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      And yet they're still sovereign. You're only reinforcing the point with your flights of fancy, not countering it.