Counterbalance & buffer state vs annexation

Fenestella

Banned
Many weakened/declining powers and small pushovers survived amid neighboring powers, many didn't. It seems the philosophy of maintaining/creating a counterbalance/buffer state or the lack thereof shaped the geopolitical realities more than the other way around, but I'm not sure about it.

Some thought experiments may help:

1) X, Y, & Z partitioned and absorbed A

If X, Y, & Z shared the philosophy of maintaining counterbalance/buffer state, would A have survived (partially)?
e.g., X:Russia, Y:prussia, Z:Austria, A:poland-Lithuania

2) B survived amid X, Y, & Z

If none of X, Y, & Z bought into the philosophy of maintaining counterbalance/buffer state, would they have partitioned and absorbed B?
e.g., X:British Empire, Y:French Empire, Z:German Empire, B:Low Countries
 
Last edited:

PhilippeO

Banned
I'm not sure its about philosophy.

Stronger State would naturally have demand (port access, don't support rebel, don't sell F to country Y, don't let X have access to fortification at G, etc, etc). to the buffer state, if they feel buffer state can't / won't protect their interest, they would attempt to vassalise/annex it.

The Buffer state would have to try balance demand from various stronger country, and satisfy its own populace. Sometime balance is impossible that one or more of stronger state would send an army.

And military capability between X, Y, Z , A, B is also important. If A or B strong enough to fight, the less pressure they will get. If one of X Y Z much stronger than other they would swallow A and B whole. If none of X Y and Z strong enough to fight two other, they might preserve the buffer or divide it.

So its less about philosophy, than about various factor in international relationship (nationalism, public friendship, military capability, interest group, geography, national resources, etc).
 
Top