No, but you learn something new everyday 
large countries and federations make a country stronger...
the smaller the country the less power it has eith respect to it's neighbours and international power
large countries and federations make a country stronger...
the smaller the country the less power it has eith respect to it's neighbours and international power
In theory yes. In practice not really. Respect and international power can be had independent of how large a country is.
Of course being big or small have advantages and disadvantages, but for respect and international power, it depends more on other factors than size. A small nation can punch way above its weight (Japan, Israel, and Singapore). Also, other factors can be used to leverage power and international respect.
Depending on how one see things, adopting a federation is more of a compromise in order to unite vast amounts of territory (out of "convenience" or forced to) with different cultures and languages without going full on authoritarianism. Maybe it could be seen as a sign of "weakness" if central government is forced to give autonomy to some of its territory (Spain comes to mind). A strong nation would be highly centralized.
Being big can be leveraged, but at the same time it can be a liability as it means conflicts with more countries depending on how exposed is one's core. China and Russia have aggressive foreign policies because their core are super exposed.
Display MoreIn theory yes. In practice not really. Respect and international power can be had independent of how large a country is.
Of course being big or small have advantages and disadvantages, but for respect and international power, it depends more on other factors than size. A small nation can punch way above its weight (Japan, Israel, and Singapore). Also, other factors can be used to leverage power and international respect.
Depending on how one see things, adopting a federation is more of a compromise in order to unite vast amounts of territory (out of "convenience" or forced to) with different cultures and languages without going full on authoritarianism. Maybe it could be seen as a sign of "weakness" if central government is forced to give autonomy to some of its territory (Spain comes to mind). A strong nation would be highly centralized.
Being big can be leveraged, but at the same time it can be a liability as it means conflicts with more countries depending on how exposed is one's core. China and Russia have aggressive foreign policies because their core are super exposed.
well that's the thing...unless supported by an external force...there is no way a country such as those smaller countries can survive if attacked outright by a larger more prominent country...
random example if China decided today to invade singapore (why on earth would they do that i wouldn't know) but it would not survive...lol
the only reason why countries such as those you've mentioned haven't been invaded totally is because they have the support of a much larger country (US and to a lesser extent Europe) which again befits my original argument that the larger the country the stronger it is...
in absence of a large powerful backstop if you will ... there is nothing preventing cuontries such as Russia from overtaking Ukraine again! lol or China taking back Taiwan...
Display Morewell that's the thing...unless supported by an external force...there is no way a country such as those smaller countries can survive if attacked outright by a larger more prominent country...
random example if China decided today to invade singapore (why on earth would they do that i wouldn't know) but it would not survive...lol
the only reason why countries such as those you've mentioned haven't been invaded totally is because they have the support of a much larger country (US and to a lesser extent Europe) which again befits my original argument that the larger the country the stronger it is...
in absence of a large powerful backstop if you will ... there is nothing preventing cuontries such as Russia from overtaking Ukraine again! lol or China taking back Taiwan...
Singapore would be vulnerable because of its size sure, but it is an extreme example. Still even at this particular example, it has a considerable military force that could match a bigger nation like Malaysia without any intervention. Singapore is more easy to destroy than invade if it makes sense. Lot of its military is focused on nullifying conventional bombardment from sea or land and granting sea access to avoid siege. You would be surprised how strong Singapore is for its size. It's size is a liability, but it compensates with economic power and strategic importance.
Now another smaller nation like Palau or Suriname would be much much easier prey, but it's not just because of size. More because they don't have anything like economy to sustain a decent military force for defense or other strategic factor. They basically depends more on the current mentality that invading other nations is not cool.
Another example could be Iceland. It would be easy to bully or invade as they have not much military. During the Cod Wars, UK bullied Iceland, but Iceland used its leverage as NATO member and its strategic importance for submarines to win concessions. Diplomacy is a weapon. Dunno why ignore this when talking about alliances.
Switzerland is kinda small and sandwiched by others, but it would be very hard to invade even by far more powerful forces duo to its geography.
In the end of the day, it depends more on geography and geopolitical situation than just territorial size. Russia and China have leverage more because of their importance and economy than just size per se. Depending on how you see things, their size may be more of a liability as well. They can't have a chill foreign policy ever because of their current size (contrary to Brazil, for instance). They will always have some conflict because their core are so exposed despite their enormous size. There are examples of size not being a factor when disputes arise (for instance, Saudi Arabia x Qatar).
Yeah, I understand your argument. However, it doesn't make sense when talking about one country. A union of countries is different from a federation of states. A country has sovereignty. A state doesn't. A country in NATO may have little say in another country's affairs. In a federation, a country may give some autonomy to have sovereignty over that state. My argument is about the idea of federation being a sign of power. To me it's just a sign of necessity. Otherwise, a nation would opt for a more centralized control.
Display MoreSingapore would be vulnerable because of its size sure, but it is an extreme example. Still even at this particular example, it has a considerable military force that could match a bigger nation like Malaysia without any intervention. Singapore is more easy to destroy than invade if it makes sense. Lot of its military is focused on nullifying conventional bombardment from sea or land and granting sea access to avoid siege. You would be surprised how strong Singapore is for its size. It's size is a liability, but it compensates with economic power and strategic importance.
Now another smaller nation like Palau or Suriname would be much much easier prey, but it's not just because of size. More because they don't have anything like economy to sustain a decent military force for defense or other strategic factor. They basically depends more on the current mentality that invading other nations is not cool.
Another example could be Iceland. It would be easy to bully or invade as they have not much military. During the Cod Wars, UK bullied Iceland, but Iceland used its leverage as NATO member and its strategic importance for submarines to win concessions. Diplomacy is a weapon. Dunno why ignore this when talking about alliances.
Switzerland is kinda small and sandwiched by others, but it would be very hard to invade even by far more powerful forces duo to its geography.
In the end of the day, it depends more on geography and geopolitical situation than just territorial size. Russia and China have leverage more because of their importance and economy than just size per se. Depending on how you see things, their size may be more of a liability as well. They can't have a chill foreign policy ever because of their current size (contrary to Brazil, for instance). They will always have some conflict because their core are so exposed despite their enormous size. There are examples of size not being a factor when disputes arise (for instance, Saudi Arabia x Qatar).
Yeah, I understand your argument. However, it doesn't make sense when talking about one country. A union of countries is different from a federation of states. A country has sovereignty. A state doesn't. A country in NATO may have little say in another country's affairs. In a federation, a country may give some autonomy to have sovereignty over that state. My argument is about the idea of federation being a sign of power. To me it's just a sign of necessity. Otherwise, a nation would opt for a more centralized control.
that i would agree with...
"completely autonomous"
"control their natural resources"
My sweet summer child... 
this is what happens when someone makes a video based on wikipedia articles.
Whoever will be Russian president after Putin probably won't be able to do the same and some of Republics/Countries/Regions will fight for freedom
You are exaggerating his role in governing the country. It's "United Russia" party, not Putin personally. Nothing will happen.
Well I don't know too much but I've saw on vireople from Yakutia doing some things and singing their own anthem.
Well I don't know too much but I've saw on vireople from Yakutia doing some things and singing their own anthem.
Having an own athem doesn't make anyone autonomous, better chech out from which party all the leaders and the entire administration of these republics are. "United Russia" is modern КПСС(CPSU), they are everywhere. The only difference is that they no longer pretend to believe in communist ideology.
yes this means they were "planted" there,
it's usual thing send this man here, that man there, then make them stay longer and make normies think those men who came from Moscow are "their own"
In most cases they are not sent from Moscow, it's local careerists like Kadyrov (Chechnya), you can't say that they aren't their own.
Also I didn't watch the whole video but now saw the last several minutes (from 11:00). This dude doesn't know what he's talking about. lol Russia was highly centralized ever since Middle Ages right after fragmented feudal principalities united under the rule of Moscow prince to push back the Mongols. It was never organized differently.
In most cases they are not sent from Moscow, it's local careerists like Kadyrov (Chechnya), you can't say that they aren't their own.
Also I didn't watch the whole video but now saw the last several minutes (from 11:00). This dude doesn't know what he's talking about. lol Russia was highly centralized ever since Middle Ages right after fragmented feudal principalities united under the rule of Moscow prince to push back the Mongols. It was never organized differently.
of course in this kind of videos glass is always half empty/full
but do you know what Stalin was doin? how he looked at map and said, place this "nation" here, and those guys well send them to this city far away in Siberia.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
