3 ms·
"The argument is that any single country being overly powerful is a negative, and a more multipolar would would be healthier." That would be a first, wouldnt i
by Paradigma11 3y ago
"The argument is that any single country being overly powerful is a negative, and a more multipolar would would be healthier."
That would be a first, wouldnt it?
We are currently seeing the consequences of the waning of the US unipolar Superpower.
Venezuela had a referendum to annex large parts of its neighbor.
Iran attacked nuclear Pakistan and has its proxies disrupt international shipping lanes and wage war against Israel.
Turkey has its fingers in tons of conflicts and supported its ally Azerbaijan in the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh.
China asserts its military dominance in the south China and is depriving other nations thousands of km away of their rights and resources. Never mind that it is also preparing to invade and subjugate Taiwan.
....
Turns out if given power people are jerks, who would have guessed.
- lmm 3y ago> That would be a first, wouldnt it? No? US intervention has some successes but many failures. The region where the US's dominance was most complete (South America) is also the region where its influence has been most negative. Conversely the most positive side of the US was on show when dealing with Europe during the Cold War era, where there was more of a balance of power. > Turns out if given power people are jerks, who would have guessed. Sure. The thing is that that applies to the US too.