With the proxy wars in places like Ukraine or Syria going on I’m wondering what traits a small nation can possess that make larger nations desire to control them (militarily, economically, diplomatically, etc). What makes a nation desirable for a larger stronger nation to to keep them as a vassal state?
I can only come up with a few reasons but I’m sure there are more.
Natural resources. Oil, rubber, etc. Although in the modern global marketplace its probably more expensive to invade and Conquer a nation than to just buy the resources.
Strategic location. Being located next to an important port (like Ukraine and Syria are). Being in close physical proximity to A major power (like China and North Korea, or Cuba and the US). Being a nation a major channel or pipeline has to run though (Panama, Syria, etc).
Divide and Conquer. Stopping one nation from getting too powerful. The Iraq invasion of Kuwait for example would’ve given saddam a lot of control over oil reserves. The US played both sides of the Iran Iraq war to stop either side from getting too powerful.
Regarding our current era, the key seems to be the small nation has to have a corrupt and or unstable government. Even a place like Greenland with a population in the 10s of thousands isn’t a good target, as Trump found out, because their government is not weak or corrupt. On the other hand nations with leaders who only care about enriching themselves at the expense of their people are lot more prone to this type of exploitation (Venezuela and Zimbabwe are good example) even if they have a decent military.
You seem to be oriented mainly on the US, but you should look into China’s Belt and Road™ project, as well as their debt trap diplomacy to see real imperialism and economic colonialism in action. That in mind, you missed on…which is, China desires to bring nations into their sphere of influence, or get them to parrot the CCP party line, especially in the UN. Some countries they target are to try and pry them away from the US or the west, some are targeted to be a voice for China from within the EU, some are targeted to support them in their efforts to isolate Taiwan, or their South or East China Seas expansion. Certainly many of the African nations are for strategic resources or basing rights, but also to expand their own markets or, frankly, as jobs programs for their own people and companies, while getting the target country to pay for it. Which also gets into another aspect…in some cases the Chinese DON’T expect them to be able to repay the loans, as often they are for stupid or useless projects that benefit the Chinese more than the target country. But what the Chinese get out of it is trade…trading that debt for, oh, say the ‘lease’ of a port or other facility for long periods of time, essentially owning it and being able to do what they want.
You should really open your eyes and look at what China is doing instead of focusing almost exclusively on the US or Russia.
I thought this was the major, and possibly only situation in which a proxy war occurs. You need at least two sides to be the proxys for two or more larger nations to team up with.
You mentioned them briefly. But if that’s what you want to focus on, you should have made your OP about proxy wars. Though not sure it’s all that interesting. Attributes that make smaller nations ripe for proxy war is having multiple factions that gain support by larger powers. That’s, um, about it. Syria, for instance, was in the midst of a civil war sparked by the abuses of it’s ruling family. As these spun out of hand, the world took issue, but didn’t want to get it’s hands dirty by actually doing anything, so chose, instead, the easy course, which was to support factions opposed to Assad. Assad et al, on the other hand, are and were in bed with Russia, China and Iran for various reasons that mainly have to do with money, regional influence and putting a thumb in the world (a.k.a. the US’s) eye. But mainly it’s money and influence. Seems pretty straightforward.
In the case of Ukraine… history. Ukrainian history and Russian history were essentially indistinguishable until the Prince of Moscow drove out the Tartars. (“Russian” civilization was founded at what is now Kiev, Ukraine.) Many Russians might feel they have a “claim” to Ukraine, a smaller but culturally similar nation.
The languages are the same. The difference is political. Russia saw that many eastern Ukrainian people were more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine, so with local support they walked in and took over.
I personally find it almost endearing that they’re using economic rather than military power.
The TPP might have contained them for a while, but Trump fucked that up out of petulant spite, so I guess the late 21st Century is theirs for the taking.
Economic power seems to be much cheaper, aside from being less inhumane. Loaning a nation a ton of debt until they can’t pay it back costs less than an invasion force.
The US played a similar game in South and Central America. What China is doing may seem peaceful now, but I can’t wait (sarcastic face) to see them fight their own version of the banana wars. Suddenly, I think they’ll appear a good deal less humane, even by comparison to the US.
I wouldn’t call China peaceful. They’re worse than the US because at least the US kind of cared about human rights and democracy. China couldn’t care less about these things.
A world of Chinese imperialism will not be a good thing for the world. There will be some benefits of China rising (their spending on science and technology will help the world. Maybe Chinese trade will help lift Africa out of poverty).
But it’ll turn back the clock on democracy and human rights.
It was my understanding that the US isn’t really fighting any proxy wars with China. Maybe I’m wrong but I was under the impression we pretty much abandoned Africa and let China take it over, also we don’t have any rebuttal to the belt and road initiative. The TPP went down in flames. etc
They are also using military power. That’s what the South and East China Seas part is about. Hard to see anything they are doing as endearing, but hell, if you are endeared by their use of debt traps to essentially steal other countries resources and assets then I wish you luck of them. Frankly, the stuff they do makes the US look like the good guys.
Certainly Trump fucked up by the numbers, and one of those ways was the TPP, though China has far outstripped that by using it’s debt trap diplomacy in Africa and even with a few countries in the EU. I’m sure the fact that they attach no strings to their loans (including what the country in questions human rights stance is, or any sort of ability to repay the loans) is equally endearing, and a big part of the reason many countries jump at the money…well, I should say, many leaders and leading factions in countries leap at it.
On the matter of natural resources, whether it is more expensive to invade than purchase on the market is not really relevant. The invasions are financed by taxes. Purchases are made by private companies. It will always be cheaper for companies to lobby for state-funded invasion than it is for them negotiate with other capitalists or nation states to purchase resources. It’s not like Shell is doing a cost benefit analysis and estimating how many bombs they’ll need to buy verses how much oil they can buy with the same amount of money.