Jump to content

If there must be a global Hegemon… what nation should it be? Should it be a Nation?


Ser Scot A Ellison
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 

Edited by Heartofice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...