By geography I mean things like climate, fertile land, navigable rivers, access to the sea, natural harbors, natural resources, defensibility, and location for trade. Ignore current politics, institutions, and economic development.
I'm from Asia, so this is just my perspective and I'm genuinely curious.
Almost every region seems to have something that regularly puts it in international headlines:
East Asia: technology, manufacturing, China, Japan, Korea.
Southeast Asia: trade, tourism, the South China Sea, ASEAN.
Europe: NATO, the EU, Russia-Ukraine, diplomacy.
Africa: development, demographics, minerals, geopolitics.
Central Asia: energy resources and great-power competition.
The Middle East: energy and geopolitics.
But Latin America often feels much less visible internationally, even though it has countries like Brazil and Mexico, huge populations, major economies, enormous natural resources, and strategic importance.
Is this just because of the news I consume in Asia and English-language media, or does Latin America genuinely receive less global attention? If so, why do you think that is?
The Andaman & Nicobar Islands lie much closer to Southeast Asia than much of mainland India. Despite making up less than 1% of India's land area, they contribute around 30% of India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Their location makes them one of India's most strategically important territories and India's gateway to Southeast Asia.
We often discuss colonialism, institutions, governance, and politics when talking about Africa's development, but I'm curious about the role of physical geography.
Apart from the Sahara—which is the most obvious example—what other geographic factors have had a significant long-term impact?
I'm thinking of things like river navigability, disease environments, rainfall patterns, tropical climate, soils, mountain ranges, coastlines, or anything else.
Which factors do you think have been the most important, and are there any commonly repeated claims about African geography that you think are exaggerated or misunderstood?
Many capitals weren't chosen because they were the largest city.
Which example do you find the most interesting? Mine is Madhya Pradesh—Indore seems to get far more attention, yet Bhopal remains the capital.
As someone outside Latin America, Brazil seems like it has many of the ingredients of a major power: a huge territory, a population of over 200 million, abundant natural resources, and one of the world's largest economies
Yet Brazil doesn't seem to project geopolitical ambition in the same way that countries like India or China do. In India and China, there is often domestic discussion about becoming a global superpower (whether that eventually happens is a separate debate)
Does Brazil have a similar vision or aspiration among its public and political leaders, or is becoming a global power simply not a major national goal? If not, why?
Discussions about declining birth rates usually focus on economics—housing, childcare, wages, etc. But I'm wondering if capitalism has also changed society more fundamentally
Has it encouraged individualism, prioritizing careers over family, consumerism, delayed or no marriage, dating apps, and lifestyles where family formation becomes a lower priority? Or are these changes mainly the result of modernization and technological progress rather than capitalism itself?
I'm especially interested in the social and cultural explanations, not just the economic ones
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Western leaders hoped Russia could eventually be integrated into the European security and economic order. Russia joined the G8 (then G7 became G8), NATO and Russia established formal dialogue through the NATO–Russia Council, and economic ties especially in energy deepened significantly
Even after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, when Russia was suspended from the G8 and sanctions were imposed, Europe and Russia continued to maintain substantial economic and diplomatic engagement
Since 2022, however, the relationship appears fundamentally different: unprecedented sanctions, frozen Russian assets, large-scale military aid to Ukraine, NATO expansion, and a collapse in political trust.
Has the relationship now crossed a point of no return, or could a future normalization still be possible once the war ends?
From an international relations perspective, who faces the greater long-term strategic cost? Europe, which must now treat Russia as a long-term security threat and invest far more in defense, or Russia, which has pushed much of Europe closer to NATO and become increasingly isolated from Western markets and institutions?
Some IR scholars also argue that prolonged isolation and exclusion can make rival states more revisionist or aggressive by reducing incentives for cooperation, while others argue that sustained pressure is necessary to deter future aggression.
Which perspective do you think better explains the likely long-term trajectory of Russia–Europe relations?
Following the war has become increasingly confusing. Both Russian and Ukrainian sources make optimistic claims, while Western media, OSINT accounts, and analysts sometimes seem to emphasize different aspects of the conflict
As someone trying to understand the conflict objectively, what sources or indicators should I focus on? Should I look at territorial changes, casualty estimates, equipment losses, force generation, economic capacity, missile production, or something else?
In other words, how do professional analysts separate the signal from the noise?
Many European countries are increasing defense spending in response to the security situation and NATO commitments
Given aging populations, slow economic growth, and existing fiscal pressures, is higher defense spending likely to crowd out welfare programs (healthcare, pensions, education, unemployment benefits), or is the budget impact relatively small compared to demographic challenges?
Are there historical examples of countries successfully increasing defense spending without significantly reducing their social spending?
With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, increased defense commitments across Europe, and growing uncertainty about long term U.S. security guarantees, many EU countries are committing to much higher military spending
At the same time, several European economies face slow growth, aging populations, fiscal pressures, and competitiveness challenges
Do you think the EU can sustain both a strong welfare state (healthcare, education, pensions, social benefits, etc.) and much higher defense spending over the long term? Or will governments eventually have to make trade-offs ?
If trade-offs become necessary, where do you think they'll happen in higher taxes, more borrowing, welfare reforms, slower public spending growth, or elsewhere?
I'm not saying Latin Americans don't criticize colonialism, I'm just curious why anti-colonialism seems to play a more central role in the national identity and political discourse of countries like India, Vietnam, Indonesia, or many African countries than in much of Latin America
Is it because of demographics, earlier independence, the nature of the independence movements, or something else?
It's literally called BRITISH Columbia. How is Canada getting away with this?
Found this map of proposed states in Northeast India and was wondering how many of these demands are still active today.
Which ones still have broad public support, and which have faded, and are there any newer movements not shown here?
Kolkata was once India's commercial capital, but today cities like Mumbai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Chennai, and Pune attract much of the country's investment and job growth
What changes , economic, infrastructural, administrative, or social—do you think would help Kolkata become one of India's leading cities again?
Suppose the ROC had managed to hold Hainan after 1949 instead of losing it to the PLA in 1950.
How would this have changed East Asian geopolitics?
I'm interested in the military and geopolitical
implications rather than whether the ROC could realistically have held the island.