Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 24, 2022 Author Share Posted February 24, 2022 27 minutes ago, mcbigski said: Hopefully Sarah Palin is well armed then. 1860's what's the difference? So, are you going to cheer on Trump and his continuing bromance with Putin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 From other thread. 5 hegemonies should be fine. 1. US sphere of influence 2. EU sphere 3. China sphere 4. Russia sphere 5. India sphere. Should balance things out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: From other thread. 5 hegemonies should be fine. 1. US sphere of influence 2. EU sphere 3. China sphere 4. Russia sphere 5. India sphere. Should balance things out. Who gets Africa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 Do you mean 'how did the war start', Baldrick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 9 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Who gets Africa? Africa will be divvied up and continue to exist as nothing more than a resource extraction racket with borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 2 minutes ago, Consigliere said: Africa will be divvied up and continue to exist as nothing more than a resource extraction racket with borders. Yeah makes sense. I mean if you are going to repeat history why not stick to the existing imperial template Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 7 minutes ago, SeanF said: For it to work, Bismark's system needed the main actors to be as rational and competent as he was. Unfortunately, by 1914, none of the major players was. Each one underestimated the willingness of their opponents to fight, and overestimated their own military capacity. I don't think Bismarck and Europe's balance of power leading up to WWI is a particularly useful comparison to discussing global hegemons in the nuclear age. (Not picking on you specifically, just wanted to quote your post and bring it over here to take the discussion out of the Ukraine thread.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 19 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Who gets Africa? Who knows. This is about power. No one gives anyone anything. Most likely broad alliances will spring up based on mutual interests all over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 49 minutes ago, DMC said: I don't think Bismarck and Europe's balance of power leading up to WWI is a particularly useful comparison to discussing global hegemons in the nuclear age. (Not picking on you specifically, just wanted to quote your post and bring it over here to take the discussion out of the Ukraine thread.) I think it's relevant to the question of having rival hegemons. Bismarck was in many ways, a man born out of his time, and whose assumptions belonged to another era. He saw international power politics in much the same way that the power brokers at Vienna did. The leaders of states were rational actors who vied with each other, for influence and territory, but were willing to live with each other. By 1871, Prussia was a satisfied power, in his eyes. He didn't really appreciate the appeal of nationalism to the masses. By 1914, you had rival hegemons, in the UK, France, Russia, and Germany, all with bellicose populations, and leaders who were far less shrewd than Bismarck had been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 4 minutes ago, SeanF said: I think it's relevant to the question of having rival hegemons. Bismarck was in many ways, a man born out of his time, and whose assumptions belonged to another era. He saw international power politics in much the same way that the power brokers at Vienna did. The leaders of states were rational actors who vied with each other, for influence and territory, but were willing to live with each other. By 1871, Prussia was a satisfied power, in his eyes. He didn't really appreciate the appeal of nationalism to the masses. Well this is kinda my point. Bismarck might have overestimated the rationality of leaders in the face of the appeal of nationalism and its employment by belligerent leaders, but even Putin - who is certainly belligerent albeit generally still rational - is inherently limited to what he wants to do due to nuclear diplomacy. Hell, one of the main reasons he fears Ukraine joining NATO so much is precisely because he then knows invading them would risk nuclear war (or at least make it much more riskier than if they're not in NATO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 24, 2022 Author Share Posted February 24, 2022 1 hour ago, SeanF said: I think it's relevant to the question of having rival hegemons. Bismarck was in many ways, a man born out of his time, and whose assumptions belonged to another era. He saw international power politics in much the same way that the power brokers at Vienna did. The leaders of states were rational actors who vied with each other, for influence and territory, but were willing to live with each other. By 1871, Prussia was a satisfied power, in his eyes. He didn't really appreciate the appeal of nationalism to the masses. By 1914, you had rival hegemons, in the UK, France, Russia, and Germany, all with bellicose populations, and leaders who were far less shrewd than Bismarck had been. The Kaiser’s dismissal of Bismarck was the first step on the road to WWI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The Kaiser’s dismissal of Bismarck was the first step on the road to WWII. He was a typically frivolous leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 2 hours ago, SeanF said: By 1914, you had rival hegemons, in the UK, France, Russia, and Germany, all with bellicose populations, and leaders who were far less shrewd than Bismarck had been. Don't forget the proliferation of the irredentists, which were baseline for the outbreak of WWI -- starting in Serbia. Which Putin is one too, and he's started this round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 'Indian Hegemony' We can hardly take care of our own, let alone have aspirations to be something more than that, especially with our current prime minister. We're a thoroughly unserious country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 Who gets Africa? we find the answer to this question in orwell: Quote Between the frontiers of the superstates, and not permanently in the possession of any of them, there lies a rough quadrilateral with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong, containing within it about a fifth of the population of the earth. It is for the possession of these thickly populated regions, and of the northern ice cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling. In practice no one power ever controls the whole of the disputed area. Portions of it are constantly changing hands, and it is the chance of seizing this or that fragment by a sudden stroke of treachery that dictates the endless changes of alignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.