StCapps wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:09 am
Depends what kind of balkanization you are talking about. For instance the provinces that comprise Canada would be much better off without being bound to the shotgun marriage of Confederation, and the provinces became their own countries by way of the Clarity Act.
You are for America breaking up as well, technically that's balkanization too, not all balkanization is bad necessarily, but it can go very wrong indeed when taken too far. Certainly going as far as the Balkans did is not the best idea, that goes without saying.
That too is Balkanization. It can't last long term. You have two nations (not including the first nations) that can only be aligned geopolitically if circumstances allow for it.
It's not just the original nations either. You have absolutely huge numbers of nonwhite immigrants that are literally colonizing your cities. They are not assimilating and have no intention of doing so.
History teaches us well that this can only lead to sectarian violence and dissolution. Most of the hot spots in the world today are at least partially the product of multiethnic and multiracial conflicts within the borders of nation states. Most of Africa suffers from this. The Balkans suffered from this. Iraq and Syria are cases in point. The conflicts Russia faces mostly derive from ethnic conflict within their borders and amongst their neighbor republics. Even China suffers from it, and is currently trying to eradicate the Muslim minority because they can well see where this shit leads.
Indeed, I would argue most of military history is the story of nations of people conflicting over the same patch of land. That's all it comes down to. Two nations don't share a single territory very well, no matter how authoritarian the government may be. Usually, strong empires were built upon this, and they kept the violence in check with their own brutal state violence, but as soon as they weakened enough, the sectarian break up was on.