You can’t have foreign policy without national borders. No borders means highly fluid, constantly shifting power groups with lots of unfinished business elsewhere. Long-term commitments become impossible because nobody knows which influence group will scream the loudest 15 minutes from now.
Once you can’t make any commitments beyond the next couple of weeks, nobody – including your own population – takes you seriously anymore. You start behaving in a schizoid manner, erasing today everything you did yesterday. (Afghanistan, Israel, Ukraine – examples abound).
We have a whole system of state institutions and international relations set up for a world of nation-states. We have nothing set up for fluid borderless blobs of dog-eat-dog groupings with no shared worldview, culture, or even language.
Clarissa's Blog 
“We have nothing set up for fluid borderless blobs”
Well those who want to turn the world into a fluid borderless blob don’t believe in genetics or culture or culturally driven collective agendas so why would they try to set up something to deal with problems generated by their solution?
LikeLiked by 1 person
SA was historically heavily involved in establishing international institutions like the UN, but the context was British imperialism.
https://www.politicsweb.co.za/comment/jan-smuts-unafraid-of-greatness
LikeLike
If this Rasmussen report is correct https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/divide-among-elites-and-rest-electorate-widening-heading-2024-election the borderless blobs of regional oligopolies or oligarchies agree quite well with one another.
Pace Machiavelli, perhaps their cross-regional fights will enable the national, or in the U.S., State powers room to manoeuver.
LikeLike
This is not a serious country anymore.
LikeLike