• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The US is a very different case, in that the state/federal divide and disagreement is almost entirely illusory, and those arguing for more state control are just using slanted language to hide their desire to persecute others.

    There has never been an instance of Americans fighting for dissolution of federal power where they have not also wanted to use that power to persecute others.

    The opposite is true is Russia.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      None of that has anything to do with breaking apart a country to make it weaker, which is entirely the point of the balkanization argument.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No one wants to conquer Russia. No one has wanted to since Napoleon. Even Hitler’s dumb ass only invaded out of paranoia.

        Personally I want Russia balkanized because the only thing holding that mess of a state together is authoritarianism. I’d much rather see a whole lot more liberal democracies in place of a single Russian country.

        Same with China.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There more than one way to conquer a land, it’s not just a matter of occupying it physically. According to you, they resort to authoritarianism because of culture. How would splitting up the country change that instead of simply making a bunch of smaller authoritarian governments? In fact, the situation would be worse because a bunch of smaller authoritarian governments bordering each other would be more likely to go to war. Of course, that’s an intended consequence of balkanization: the weakening of those countries.