In _Diplomacy_, Kissinger points out that balance-of-power systems are rare in human geopolitics. A much more common international organizing principle is empire. 
This leaves me with the impression that there are roughly two kinds of geopolitical orders:
1) Equilibrium / balance-of-power / or multi-state scenarios: in which there are many nations, no single one of which is powerful enough to dominate the others, and if any try the others gang up on it in self defense.
Ex: Europe, the Hellenistic city-states
Ex: Europe, the Hellenistic city-states
And 2) Empire: where one state _does_ attain sufficient power to dominate all of it's neighbors, and they become (usually tribute-paying) provinces of that central power.
Ex: Rome, China, the US
Ex: Rome, China, the US
Is that an exhaustive list of "geopolitical orders"?
I suppose that another contender is the bipolar world of the cold war, with two empires locked in (according to their narratives) an existential struggle.
But that seems like it might be an aberration. How stable can a bipolar system be?
But that seems like it might be an aberration. How stable can a bipolar system be?
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
