5 ms·

Nice stunt, but without an army and/or international recognition it will never be a country.

by stefantalpalaru 12y ago

eyko 12y ago
I don't think an army is a prerequisite.
- jiri 12y ago
  But full control of the land is a prerequisite for new sovereign state and an army is really great at such task.
whichfawkes 12y ago
Suppose he gets some wealthy folks (especially from Serbia/Croatia) to keep their assets there. I doubt it would happen (chicken/egg problem, right?), but I could see a territory like that persisting without international recognition or an army. Of course, I'm no expert in geopolitics...
- asdfaoeu 12y ago
  Short of trucking money in there's no way to move money to a country that has no international recognition.
  - kristofferR 12y ago
    Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin comes to mind.
    - dagw 12y ago
      How would you keep Bitcoins 'in' a country in any meaningful way?
      - kristofferR 12y ago
        Well, you can't technically, but if Liberland is your only citizenship/only place your corperation exist no other country can tax your Bitcoins.
        claudius 12y ago
        Provided that you don’t work/live in any other country and your business partners in other countries don’t have to pay taxes there, yes.
      - SG- 12y ago
        Cold storage wallets: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Cold_storage https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Cold_storage
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    Nah, that's what foreign investment is for. Some rich developers decide they think they can make money, so they pour in capital in the form of roads, buildings, sewers, all things that make much more of a difference in an emerging nation than a pile of money would. These investors would have a direct stake in propping up the idea that this is sovereign land, as that's what will give them the best return on their investment. So the new ruler and the investors form a tight bloc. The whole idea is to make the area attractive to commerce, once the businesses start coming in, and the people to run and operate the businesses, then there's a critical mass to begin the process of drawing up a constitution, figuring out how to set up legislative bodies, the machinery of governance. Only after all this is done is international recognition needed. The reason micronations never got off the ground is because nobody was ever able to court enough investment to build up to that critical mass that can support commerce. They were just way too small. City-size seems to be at just the right scale for this kind of experiment. It was just a matter of time until something like this happened. Note this is also the exact same process whereby new townships are formed in the US, particularly in the 1800s where we were in our expansionary period. Only they don't have to set up the full machinery of state, they already have a state and federal government to build off of. Eventually somebody is going to get this right in the developing world, and that will kick off a hoard of copycats. As regimes topple, people will start breaking these countries up into city-states. Think of how gentrification works in the US, if you think about it, it's just the process of cities growing. Sovereignty in the developing world is going to follow the money.
webdisrupt 12y ago
yeah thats exactly what I thought however if they pose no threat then why need an army from the first place?
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Because otherwise independent land with no army tends to get overrun by those who do have an army. When you need one, it's too late to get one.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    They don't need armies, they need allies. The problem then becomes finding an ally with a strong army but without a strong inclination to use said army to take over your micronation.
    - ctdonath 12y ago
      The ally needs some motivation to take on someone else's existential threats as their own. Lots of treaties and posturing may dampen would-be aggressors' motivation, but as the USA has demonstrated of late re: Ukraine vs Russia, all too often promises of military protection don't mean $#!^.
mkesper 12y ago
Maybe soon a new part of Russia? Latest events around Ukraine have really made that thinkable.
- samastur 12y ago
  Russia? It's not even close to any of Russia's borders.
  - draugadrotten 12y ago
    Yet.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - geographomics 12y ago
    True, but neither is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast
    - samastur 12y ago
      Good point :) But in Kaliningrad's case it used to be attached just fine to the rest of Soviet Union from which Russia "inherited" it. No part of former Yugoslavia was ever close to bordering Russia. At least not yet :P
crocowhile 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed...
- scotty79 12y ago
  So small countries don't have armies because the'd be insignificant anyways. Probably setting up strong, well paid and well monitored police force would be sufficient to provide secure environment for the business.
- bottled_poe 12y ago
  The examples listed there are really not very similar to Liberland. Those countries may not have military power, but they certainly have political power.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    The 'no true country' fallacy at work.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  GP said "without an army and/or international recognition". None of the countries on that list lack international recognition (and most have not only recognition, but treaties outsourcing defense responsibility to some other country -- often the United States -- so they have an army committed to protecting them, its just someone else's army.) And some of them (even under the "no armed forces") list actually have a military from the descriptions there, its just a reserve military, an armed police force officially designated to serve military/defense functions, or, in the case of the State of Vatican City, the military of the entity -- the Holy See -- to which the state is itself subordinate.
tormeh 12y ago
If you read the article, you would have understood that the territory is a no man's land because of a border dispute between Serbia and Croatia. The two countries will probably keep each other in check.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Reading the article gives the reverse impression: each claims the land belongs to the other; neither wants it.
  - techcode 12y ago
    I'm not sure if this stuff can be interpreted like EX-YU breakup wars were not about land (and which Ethnicity/Religion/Language/etc lives on it)... Or these guys should reconsider why neither Serbia nor Croatia want that part of land... Or ...

Nice stunt, but without an army and/or international recognition it will never be a country.

eyko 12y ago

I don't think an army is a prerequisite.

jiri 12y ago
But full control of the land is a prerequisite for new sovereign state and an army is really great at such task.

whichfawkes 12y ago

Suppose he gets some wealthy folks (especially from Serbia/Croatia) to keep their assets there. I doubt it would happen (chicken/egg problem, right?), but I could see a territory like that persisting without international recognition or an army. Of course, I'm no expert in geopolitics...

asdfaoeu 12y ago
Short of trucking money in there's no way to move money to a country that has no international recognition.
- kristofferR 12y ago
  Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin comes to mind.
  - dagw 12y ago
    How would you keep Bitcoins 'in' a country in any meaningful way?
    - kristofferR 12y ago
      Well, you can't technically, but if Liberland is your only citizenship/only place your corperation exist no other country can tax your Bitcoins.
      - claudius 12y ago
        Provided that you don’t work/live in any other country and your business partners in other countries don’t have to pay taxes there, yes.
    - SG- 12y ago
      Cold storage wallets: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Cold_storage https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Cold_storage
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  Nah, that's what foreign investment is for. Some rich developers decide they think they can make money, so they pour in capital in the form of roads, buildings, sewers, all things that make much more of a difference in an emerging nation than a pile of money would. These investors would have a direct stake in propping up the idea that this is sovereign land, as that's what will give them the best return on their investment. So the new ruler and the investors form a tight bloc. The whole idea is to make the area attractive to commerce, once the businesses start coming in, and the people to run and operate the businesses, then there's a critical mass to begin the process of drawing up a constitution, figuring out how to set up legislative bodies, the machinery of governance. Only after all this is done is international recognition needed. The reason micronations never got off the ground is because nobody was ever able to court enough investment to build up to that critical mass that can support commerce. They were just way too small. City-size seems to be at just the right scale for this kind of experiment. It was just a matter of time until something like this happened. Note this is also the exact same process whereby new townships are formed in the US, particularly in the 1800s where we were in our expansionary period. Only they don't have to set up the full machinery of state, they already have a state and federal government to build off of. Eventually somebody is going to get this right in the developing world, and that will kick off a hoard of copycats. As regimes topple, people will start breaking these countries up into city-states. Think of how gentrification works in the US, if you think about it, it's just the process of cities growing. Sovereignty in the developing world is going to follow the money.

webdisrupt 12y ago

yeah thats exactly what I thought however if they pose no threat then why need an army from the first place?

ctdonath 12y ago
Because otherwise independent land with no army tends to get overrun by those who do have an army. When you need one, it's too late to get one.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  They don't need armies, they need allies. The problem then becomes finding an ally with a strong army but without a strong inclination to use said army to take over your micronation.
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    The ally needs some motivation to take on someone else's existential threats as their own. Lots of treaties and posturing may dampen would-be aggressors' motivation, but as the USA has demonstrated of late re: Ukraine vs Russia, all too often promises of military protection don't mean $#!^.

mkesper 12y ago

Maybe soon a new part of Russia? Latest events around Ukraine have really made that thinkable.

samastur 12y ago
Russia? It's not even close to any of Russia's borders.
- draugadrotten 12y ago
  Yet.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- geographomics 12y ago
  True, but neither is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast
  - samastur 12y ago
    Good point :) But in Kaliningrad's case it used to be attached just fine to the rest of Soviet Union from which Russia "inherited" it. No part of former Yugoslavia was ever close to bordering Russia. At least not yet :P

crocowhile 12y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed...

scotty79 12y ago
So small countries don't have armies because the'd be insignificant anyways. Probably setting up strong, well paid and well monitored police force would be sufficient to provide secure environment for the business.
bottled_poe 12y ago
The examples listed there are really not very similar to Liberland. Those countries may not have military power, but they certainly have political power.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  The 'no true country' fallacy at work.
dragonwriter 12y ago
GP said "without an army and/or international recognition". None of the countries on that list lack international recognition (and most have not only recognition, but treaties outsourcing defense responsibility to some other country -- often the United States -- so they have an army committed to protecting them, its just someone else's army.) And some of them (even under the "no armed forces") list actually have a military from the descriptions there, its just a reserve military, an armed police force officially designated to serve military/defense functions, or, in the case of the State of Vatican City, the military of the entity -- the Holy See -- to which the state is itself subordinate.

tormeh 12y ago

If you read the article, you would have understood that the territory is a no man's land because of a border dispute between Serbia and Croatia. The two countries will probably keep each other in check.

ctdonath 12y ago
Reading the article gives the reverse impression: each claims the land belongs to the other; neither wants it.
- techcode 12y ago
  I'm not sure if this stuff can be interpreted like EX-YU breakup wars were not about land (and which Ethnicity/Religion/Language/etc lives on it)... Or these guys should reconsider why neither Serbia nor Croatia want that part of land... Or ...