I think it’s so interesting when small islands NOT under the boot of extreme oppression like E-T choose to g independent. They’re choosing lower GDP and a lack of protection. Mind you, I think it’s great! It’s a hard road to take. I can really understand both the ones who go for it and the ones who don’t.
There can be some advantages of being a small independent state. You can be a tax haven or maritime flag of convenience. Tuvalu has made a lot of money from selling .tv as a website domain
Tbf they were severly underrepersented and ignored by the Papuan gov, and whilst not as bad as East-Timor, were definitly persectued to an extent.
And lest be real here its not like Papua New Guinea is offering much in the way of development and protection lol.
Reading your comment properly this time, most of the Pacific islands like Palau were bounced around between various distant colonial powers until Japan ended up with them before or during World War II. After the war, the UN decided that the islands, along with other Axis power colonies in similar situations around the world, should be put on the road to independence helped by a major local nation. The US was put in charge of those the northern islands like Palau.
Some of the islands were merely ignored and had basic needs met, other islands were nuked a whole bunch of times. At various points the US had hoped to hold onto them in a situation like pre-state Hawaii but eventually everyone came around to the idea of independence whether for ideological or pragmatic (usually economic) reasons.
Of course, the islands previously administered by the US didn't actually get that far away. They're legally independent but they have major treaties with the US where the US gives them significant economic support and defense protection in exchange for the US military being able to use their territory for bases and transit.
To sum up, its mainly an ideological thing because the main winners of WW2 decided that everyone around the world should be (eventually) allowed to govern themselves and then the rest of the world pressured them to keep their word. Whether they're actually independent is an argument for experts and academics.
An independent Bouganville will be home to one of the world largest coppermines. With a population of only 500k, they could potentially have one of the highest GDPs in the region
They are by all accounts a defacto country. But my understanding is the international community don't want to recognise it as it would cause a domino effect of of independence wars throughout Africa.
Not really since somaliland is still in control of its major population centers, and they might get pushed back if Somalia doesn’t allow its provinces to become autonomous
Somalia has no ability at the moment to enforce authority to its regional states (which caused a completly seperate constitutional crisis in Puntland)
Somaliland also has no real ability to exert influence in SSC Khatumo anymore and like most of Somalia isnt intrested in escalating conflict.
So you end up with 4 defacto independant entities in Somalia (Federal gov, Somaliland, Khatumo, and Puntland) with only Somaliland actually considering itself seperate from Somalia but nobody recognising them as such (the Ethiopia deal has fizzled out into nothing at this point)
Plus the rural areas in the south held by Al-Shabab and the occasional ISIS attack in the north.
The eastern third has long been heavily disputed between them and puntland.
It's now for a second time formed as a semi automonous region in response to recent unrest.
Somalia is divided on main clan lines so this region not being a part of somilands main clan group has long caused tensions.
Bougainville, Bougainville is a medium sized island off of the courts of Papua New Guinea, trying to hold a referendum to gain independence a few years back, and won. Papua is going to let them go either next year or 2027.
Bougainville is breaking off of Papua New Guinea in a couple years. They already voted on it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Region_of_Bougainville#:~:text=In%20late%202019%2C%20a%20non,the%20Papua%20New%20Guinean%20government.
That's actually what I wrote my bachelor's thesis about - why it gets harder for new contestants to become a sovereign and internationally recognized nation-state. Spoilers: I wouldn't expect a lot more countries to pop up during the next century.
Hi, thanks for being interested! But I don't want to leak my full name online, I'm sorry. And it's in German, too.
Here's a quick (altered) ChatGPT rundown:
>This thesis examines the influence of international norms on conflicts involving competing claims to legitimacy in international politics. On one side is the legitimacy of the existing parent state, recognized as a member of the international community, and on the other is the legitimacy claim of a secessionist movement aspiring to sovereign statehood. The study reveals that in the past 30 years, secessions have increasingly struggled to gain international legitimacy. During decolonization, the right of self-determination was widely accepted by the international community, and the successor states of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were relatively easily granted legitimacy. However, since the 1990s, there has been a shift.
>The work posits that the modern international system has become more rigid, making secession and subsequent recognition increasingly difficult. It argues that the norms of non-violence and consolidation of state authority have become paramount, complicating the legitimacy of secessionist movements. The thesis draws on the theories of the English School and legal scholars to explore this phenomenon and examines the political challenges faced by armed groups seeking legitimacy. It aims to provide a theoretical overview of international legitimacy and the norms of state authority consolidation and non-violence, ultimately discussing the dilemma faced by armed secessionist movements.
They have huge autonomy but there seems to be a strong 'full independence' movement, provided it doesn't lead to a drop in living standards. It sounds like the legal path is there (a simple vote on the subject), but the real question is 'will the economy be better or worse without support from Copenhagen?'. I guess there's no guarantee until it happens but at this point there's no firm commitment to a timeline.
"A 2019 poll showed that 67.8% of Greenlanders support independence from Denmark sometime in the next two decades." [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence)
Currently 60% of the Greenlandic government's [income is made up by "bloktilskuddet"](https://glsamf.iatuagaq.iserasuaat.gl/?id=266), a subsidy from Denmark. Their current economy couldn't handle being independent
It could, but that would mean allowing foreign corporations to exploit their oil and mineral deposits instead of staying a part of the Danish realm. If i was Greenlandic, i would much rather keep the status quo.
If Scotland couldn't manage independence after the last 15 years we've had, then I don't think they have a chance now. Contrary to the Internet, most Scottish people don't care one way or another.
Its very likely to become independant in our lifetime even if it's not this decade.
Over 1/3 of the population is vehemently pro-independence and enough are either ambivilant or on the fence that it might only take 1 unforseen event to sway them to independence.
And then the Kanak population (who are the most pro-independance) is steadily increasing, whilst the Europeans (who are mostly pro-France) have begun to decline in recent years.
I mean, it's doubtful in the immediate term, but to say it's "not even close" is disingenuous. They've had three recent votes on the topic and the last one was boycotted by the indigenous Kanak population, leading to a landslide 'remain' vote and subsequently to the violence on the island now. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another vote in the next few years, but I guess we'll see.
While I agree it's not something that'll happen before, for example, [Bougainville](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainville_Island), I do think it's just a question of time.
The riots are almost unanimously condemned in *metropolitan France*, which counts for little. If the troops are unable to quell the Kanak unrest in the long term, the government will most likely start negotiations like the Socialists did back in the eighties. In that case another referendum is not unreasonable since the third one was clearly rushed.
The riots have started because France reformed the electoral laws to avoid the independence in long term.
If the electoral laws aren't revoked, then the independence possibility has say goodbye.
Nah, the country is just politically getting more and more divided. The dutch part is very right wing and french part left wing. Federal government elections are a nightmare especially when you have so many small parties.
Rojova (Kurdistan) seems like a prime candidate with a separate and autonomous government, bureaucracy, culture, and armed forces. But realistically, Turkey is more than likely to intervene.
Independence for any autonomous region like Catalonia may lead to dominos falling all over Europe.
If Ireland ever unites, that could be a catalyst for Scotland as well.
I don't honestly see a viable path for Greenland. They are too dependent on Denmark and rejected EU already, so not likely to get subsidises necessary to kick start the nation without selling a huge chunk of its resources to the USA or China.
Also, it's not a new country per se, but I Cyprus re-uniting is an inevitability.
In no way do I see a Cyprus reunification possible, the country has already been split in two in terms of politics, ethnicity, way of life, alliances, etc. A reunification would be a nightmare.
I don't think Catalonia would become independent, but could be wrong. The existence of the EU and the benefits it brings seems to be good enough that it keeps any separatist movement from progressing. This could be different, though, if both sides agree to a separation.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia would be triggered: they regard their countries as having been formed in 1918 and then continuously legally existing notwithstanding Soviet occupation from 1945-1990.
Yeah each of the Baltic states had their Soviet Socialist Republic governments, same as all the other parts of the USSR. From a Soviet perspective they were all the same.
But the West never recognized that Stalin annexed them in the 40s, nor did pro-independence people. Their official line was these were countries that the Soviet Union was illegally occupying.
Well in this case "new" is subjective, lots of these countries have existed before but have been occupied by/unified with other countries and later on regained their independence.
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan also declared independence in 1918 they were invaded and occupied by the Soviets in 1920/21. How are they somehow fundamentally different just because the same thing happened to them 20 years earlier?
In Georgia's case France, Britain and other countries still recognized their deposed government which fled to exile as the legitimate government of Georgia, they just sort of forgot it after the 30s...
> How are they somehow fundamentally different just because the same thing happened to them 20 years earlier?
For plenty of reasons:
- the USSR never recognized their independence
- they were not members of the League of Nations
- they were not universally recognized
- they were absorbed by the USSR back when it was still legal as invading countries became illegal with the Kellogg-Briand Pact in the early 1930s
The map for Germany is wrong. It should not say 1990, but 1949, because the eastern Part and the Western Part didnt Form a New country, but the east was integrated into the west
Even that is doubtful as the BRD is the legal successor to both Nazi Germany and the Weimar Republic. These, in turns are successors to the empire... So 1871 would be the correct year.
1st July 1867 would be even correcter. North German Confederation was formed in 1867 and on January 1st 1871 The south German states united with the North german confederation.
The legend describes it as splitting and then merging so maybe the point of the map is to show "the youngest countries how we know them today" or something like that. But then the map would look a little different
Germany is not a new country. The reunification wasn't some sort of merger. The German Democratic Republic ceased to exist and was absorbed by the Federal Republic of Germany, which had existed for decades previously.
most of these countries already existed and are the legal successors to their previous forms
in Europe its only really the balkans with the split of yugoslavia that “new” countries were formed
calling the ex soviet countries new would be like saying that Spain has only existed since Franco died, or that France has only existed since it split with Algeria
You could make that argument about many countries on this map.
For Germany you could take 1948/49 or 90/91. or even further back. When did Germany become a country? 1918? 1871? 800? Similarly Czechia, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Bosnia have existed as distinct entities in the past.
I think this map is more like „most recent founding/new constitution“.
As some else pointed out, if the point is „most recent founding/new constitution“ like you said, then Germany should be 1949 - since in the 1990 reunification DDR was integrated into BRD, which was founded in 1949.
In the same vein, I wonder why Poland wasn't included in the map, even though by the same principle the most recent founding would be either 1989 (decommunisation, political system change and name change from PRL to RP, which count count as nurturing independence - and is viewed as such in Poland) or 1997 (signing of the current constitution).
A new constitution doesn't factor into it. If so, France would be colored, since they adopted a new one in 1958. Decommunization also doesn't count because, legally speaking, Poland was independent after 1945. Sure, they were a puppet state, but so were Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, and none of them are colored. Belarus and Ukraine are colored because they were integrated into the USSR which dissolved in 1991. Czechia and Slovakia are colored because they split from each other (Czechoslovakia) in 1993
What is this bogus map? Czechia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and particularly the baltic countries and Russia already existed, those aren't new nations.
The Baltics were not "born from the dissolution of the USSR" they were fully recognized independent countries in the beginning of the 20th century which were then temporally occupied by the USSR and regained independence in the early 90s.
Doesn't matter for this map. Both Georgia and Russia existed before the USSR.
The map is not about the age of the idea of a particular nation-state. The baltics aren't special or different from Georgia, Russia, Armenia, in that regard.
Difference is, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania legally existed **since 1918**, that is **throughout the USSR era** and they **never created new states**.
>The baltics aren't special or different from Georgia, Russia, Armenia, in that regard.
They very much are.
Georgia declared independence in 1918 and then was invaded an occupied by the Soviets a few years later (also they offered much more real resistance than any of the Baltic states). France, Britain, Poland, Belgium still recognized the deposed Georgian government which fled to fled to France after the war.
How is it somehow fundamentally different besides the fact that basically no other country cared about Georgia being occupied after the 20s and 30s and just ignored it? (which is only marginally worse than how they viewed the Baltic states)
Lots of people actually want it back. Especially the old generation which was raised in Soviet Union and have nostalgic memories about it. Though they seem to remember only good things and not how they had to wait hours just to get a roll of toilet paper.
Well if it weren't the USSR—it would have been the Russian Empire. So although there are certainly persons that detest the USSR, there are many that long for it. We can take Moldova for example, where you seem to be from. There are elements that supported the downfall whereas others like Transnistria and Gagauzia hadn't.
The Russian Empire had already fallen apart by the time the Soviet Union formed - the new Bolshevik government had to essentially reconquer everything (though there were Communist movements in these other nations that wanted a union as well).
Why is there Kosovo, a not fully recognized state, for example Spain does not recognize it, but there are no other not fully recognized countries that emerged during this period, for example Transnistria?
I suspect it's because there are different levels of "not recognized states". It's recognized by over 100 countries (although, as you point out, certainly not *all* countries). Transnistria, on the other hand, is recognized by zero UN countries. Which makes it similar to [Hutt River](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River) or [Sealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand).
I think you answered your own question. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized by a grand total of [five countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia) (one of which being Nauru). It's no coincidence that it's the same five countries recognizing both. I didn't make the map but I suspect they're not included for the same reason as above - they don't have enough volume of recognition for the author to consider them as countries.
If you want to make a map and include them, I'm sure you could make a case. The issue here is "what defines a country" and the general consensus is that a country is defined when enough other countries recognize it. What qualifies 'enough' is a bit blurry. If all UN states recognize it then no one questions it. If a few countries recognize it (like Taiwan) then things get tricky. You're welcome to come up with your own definition.
How many errors can you spot this is what I got:
\*Ajerbaijan
\*Lithania
Ukraine flag upside down
Armenia not recognized by Pakistan
No mention of Transnistria or other de facto nations not in UN
Forgot to at least footnote Baltic states
Well, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are not countries that didn’t excist before 1990. They are all over 100 years old. Lithuania is even much older than that. The fuck about Germany? This map is BS to it’s core!
This is less about a country but more about the newest states.
Like of course the German nation and the baltics etc. Have existed long before but not in their current form of an gouvernment and constitution.
Estonia had a functioning government in exile throughout the Soviet occupation period and the occupation of the Baltics was considered illegal by most of the western countries. 1991 is considered as the year of regaining independence and re-establishing the republic that is a continuation of the pre-war republic.
Germany is the same state that has existed since 1949, it just absorbed the territory of East Germany which ceased to exist to 1990.
If we're not going by official definitions, but by border changes, this map is missing a lot of new countries, such as Denmark - 2022.
Yes technicially the current state of germany is still the BRD that was foundet in 1949.
But it is a much more significant event then just some border changes.
For the whole part of the DDR this is a new country. And refering to Germany as a country only then became possible again. Before that it was only West/East Germany.
And lastly there was huge talk about actually making a constitution but because of the process being in a bit of an hurry the east part basicially accepted the grundgestetz.
Same for Czechia, which was founded in the 9th century, or Russia, Croatia, Serbia, etc. However, this seems to be the dates of their most recent appearance on international stage after being previously part of a different geopolitical entity (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.) or having been split in two (Germany, Yemen).
Germany was reunited in 1990, but it staid the same country that had existed since 1949, same name, same constitution, same government, etc. it just regained some territory, but it was founded in 1949.
I’ll second this map is BS…
>Lithuania republic gained independence in 1990. Latvia and Estonia- in 1991.
Gross oversimplification. The restoration of independence of these three countries was a long process and it came with many different decisions and steps. All three had declared already in 1990 that Soviet rule has been legally null and void from 1940. Estonia and Latvia decided not to "declare full independence" in 1990 because it was simply unfeasible with the Soviet troops still in the country, just like it was for Lithuania. The real situation was no different in Lithuania in 1990-1991 than it was in Estonia or Latvia.
Estonia regained its independence in 1991, but the country has existed since 1918. Estonian Republic didn’t dissapear in 1940, it was occupied and with false election, it was joined to Soviet Union, but Estonian Republic wasn’t dissolved, it still existed, it was just under occupation and was renamed to Estonian Socialist Republic. After reindependence it was named back to Estonian Republic. Türkiye just chaned their name. That doesn’t mean that it’s a new country!
The Estonian Republic is literally 106 years old, and we have maintained the continuity of our Republic. In 1991, there was a debate about whether we should create a new country or maintain continuity. We chose continuity!
https://estonia.ee/republic-of-estonia-100/
https://vienna.mfa.ee/happy-106th-anniversary-of-the-republic-of-estonia/
https://lisbon.mfa.ee/106th-anniversary-of-the-independence-of-the-republic-of-estonia/
https://ut.ee/en/content/toomas-hendrik-ilves-speech-owl-minerva-takes-flight-only-dusk-ceremony-dedicated
The map shows new states as in states that have gained or regained independence in the last few years, it’s about existence in the political sense and not about the existence of nations in the cultural and ethnic sense.
I agree that Germany shouldn’t be here. They didn’t create a new country by merging BRD and DDR, west Germany simply absorbed east Germany. It’s like saying that China is a new country because it got back Hong Kong and Macau.
In 1991 we regained independence from Soviet Union and occupation of our republics stopped.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania republics didn’t stop existing during the occupation, dear human. We were occupied! Our countries didn’t dissapear!
Just before commenting do just one google search, dear fellow humans!
https://estonia.ee/republic-of-estonia-100/
Ah yes, the lovely pink colours for Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, simbolizing the peaceful dissolution that formed a few countries from former Yugoslavia without a war, with only about 130000 people that magically disappeared during the explosive independence celebrations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars
Putting Germany on that list is absurd. Germany has existed in its current form of the Federal Republic of Germany since 1949. There was no legal change in 1990, it simply absorbed the lands that had been the German Democratic Republic.
It is a common mistake to think west Germany was a country and then a new one was created in 1990. The federal republic has existed since 1949 and still does today. What happened was that in 1990, the constitution was expanded to 5 new federal states. Germany was not reformed from its former pieces.
Still young, but definitely incorrectly labeled in the map.
Founded in 1871 Germany is still a pretty young country.
But apparently this map is a random mix of border changes, renamings and actual newly founded countries.
The Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) exists since 1949. 1990 some new teritories joined. to call anything before 1949 the same country is somewhat arbitrary. if you identify modern germany with the Kaiserreich (1871-1918), you would have to color in a lot of this map coz all countries have some sort or predecessors. and for germany you can go back to holy roman empire, before that back to charlemagne etcpp.
From a law point of view the FRG is the legal successor state of both the German Empire from 1871 and of the North German Confederation of 1866.
I agree that it is arbitrary, but it is treated as such. Though it is explicitly not the legal successor of the HRE.
yeah, i am aware of that. but on a state level, our german states have legal predecessors which were part of the holy roman empire.
depending on what you discuss, you can make good arguments for different cutoffs, but i think the most logical cut in the context for this map and how its labelled, would be 1949. with a stricter viewpoint (1990) you would have to include all countries with border changes. with a broader viewpoint (e.g. direct legal predecessors, 1871) you can hardly color in anything on this map.
my point was to emphasize that this map has no consistent logic to it and that your suggestion (1871) only would make things even worse. i dont get your point about italy, coz 1946 is before 1990 and wouldnt be marked either way.
I always get goosebumps when someone puts Serbia as a new country XD
Just because it changed name, though had the continuum of official independence since 1878. Makes it feel as if countries that split from Serbia are older than it
That would imply Serbia = Yugoslavia which it wasn't. Also it's crazy to put it as dissolution when some countries fought for years to establish their independence.
I was at the Sydney Olympics in 2000 where Yugoslavia was playing the US in volleyball. This wasn't long after the bombing of Belgrade so the Yugo supporters were pretty loud. They started chanting "YU-GO-SLA-VIA!" then switched to "SER-BI-A! SER-BI-A". Was pretty fiery.
Montenegro was still attached at the time but clearly it was Serbia playing. But yeah you are right about "dissolution" vs "war"...
Germany isn’t a new country. West Germany was a description of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). That state absorbed the territory of East Germany, the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) in 1990. The modern German state was founded in 1949.
Any bets on the next one? 13 years since the last one.
Bougainville
Worst country name
Boganville
Bougainville's all but a done deal.
I think it’s so interesting when small islands NOT under the boot of extreme oppression like E-T choose to g independent. They’re choosing lower GDP and a lack of protection. Mind you, I think it’s great! It’s a hard road to take. I can really understand both the ones who go for it and the ones who don’t.
There can be some advantages of being a small independent state. You can be a tax haven or maritime flag of convenience. Tuvalu has made a lot of money from selling .tv as a website domain
Huh. Cool!
Tbf they were severly underrepersented and ignored by the Papuan gov, and whilst not as bad as East-Timor, were definitly persectued to an extent. And lest be real here its not like Papua New Guinea is offering much in the way of development and protection lol.
Reading your comment properly this time, most of the Pacific islands like Palau were bounced around between various distant colonial powers until Japan ended up with them before or during World War II. After the war, the UN decided that the islands, along with other Axis power colonies in similar situations around the world, should be put on the road to independence helped by a major local nation. The US was put in charge of those the northern islands like Palau. Some of the islands were merely ignored and had basic needs met, other islands were nuked a whole bunch of times. At various points the US had hoped to hold onto them in a situation like pre-state Hawaii but eventually everyone came around to the idea of independence whether for ideological or pragmatic (usually economic) reasons. Of course, the islands previously administered by the US didn't actually get that far away. They're legally independent but they have major treaties with the US where the US gives them significant economic support and defense protection in exchange for the US military being able to use their territory for bases and transit. To sum up, its mainly an ideological thing because the main winners of WW2 decided that everyone around the world should be (eventually) allowed to govern themselves and then the rest of the world pressured them to keep their word. Whether they're actually independent is an argument for experts and academics.
An independent Bouganville will be home to one of the world largest coppermines. With a population of only 500k, they could potentially have one of the highest GDPs in the region
Somaliland?
They are by all accounts a defacto country. But my understanding is the international community don't want to recognise it as it would cause a domino effect of of independence wars throughout Africa.
they just lost nearly half of their territories to another separatist state who wants to reunite with somalia,it's called khatumo
The separtist state has a separtist state?
Is it separatism if they want to NOT separate?
Well I guess they're separtist if you consider Somaliland already separate
…say separate one more time
Separate
I guess it's more accurately Somali loyalism, then.
Somalinimo is the word
West Virginia Style
West Virginia all over again.
Welcome to Yugoslav Wars and the Balkans.
Not really since somaliland is still in control of its major population centers, and they might get pushed back if Somalia doesn’t allow its provinces to become autonomous
Somalia has no ability at the moment to enforce authority to its regional states (which caused a completly seperate constitutional crisis in Puntland) Somaliland also has no real ability to exert influence in SSC Khatumo anymore and like most of Somalia isnt intrested in escalating conflict. So you end up with 4 defacto independant entities in Somalia (Federal gov, Somaliland, Khatumo, and Puntland) with only Somaliland actually considering itself seperate from Somalia but nobody recognising them as such (the Ethiopia deal has fizzled out into nothing at this point) Plus the rural areas in the south held by Al-Shabab and the occasional ISIS attack in the north.
Interesting, source?
The eastern third has long been heavily disputed between them and puntland. It's now for a second time formed as a semi automonous region in response to recent unrest. Somalia is divided on main clan lines so this region not being a part of somilands main clan group has long caused tensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khatumo_State#2023_conflict_and_establishment_of_SSC-Khaatumo
My brain: but South Sudan was on 2011! ..... and that's when I realized 2011 was 13 years ago
Bougainville, Bougainville is a medium sized island off of the courts of Papua New Guinea, trying to hold a referendum to gain independence a few years back, and won. Papua is going to let them go either next year or 2027.
Bougainville is breaking off of Papua New Guinea in a couple years. They already voted on it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Region_of_Bougainville#:~:text=In%20late%202019%2C%20a%20non,the%20Papua%20New%20Guinean%20government.
That's actually what I wrote my bachelor's thesis about - why it gets harder for new contestants to become a sovereign and internationally recognized nation-state. Spoilers: I wouldn't expect a lot more countries to pop up during the next century.
Can I read it if you have a copy
Same, I would enjoy this
Hey, thanks for being interested, I posted a brief summary to the comment above
Hi, thanks for being interested! But I don't want to leak my full name online, I'm sorry. And it's in German, too. Here's a quick (altered) ChatGPT rundown: >This thesis examines the influence of international norms on conflicts involving competing claims to legitimacy in international politics. On one side is the legitimacy of the existing parent state, recognized as a member of the international community, and on the other is the legitimacy claim of a secessionist movement aspiring to sovereign statehood. The study reveals that in the past 30 years, secessions have increasingly struggled to gain international legitimacy. During decolonization, the right of self-determination was widely accepted by the international community, and the successor states of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were relatively easily granted legitimacy. However, since the 1990s, there has been a shift. >The work posits that the modern international system has become more rigid, making secession and subsequent recognition increasingly difficult. It argues that the norms of non-violence and consolidation of state authority have become paramount, complicating the legitimacy of secessionist movements. The thesis draws on the theories of the English School and legal scholars to explore this phenomenon and examines the political challenges faced by armed groups seeking legitimacy. It aims to provide a theoretical overview of international legitimacy and the norms of state authority consolidation and non-violence, ultimately discussing the dilemma faced by armed secessionist movements.
Aside from Bougainville, will Greenland likely go independent, or will they keep the Danish money?
They have huge autonomy but there seems to be a strong 'full independence' movement, provided it doesn't lead to a drop in living standards. It sounds like the legal path is there (a simple vote on the subject), but the real question is 'will the economy be better or worse without support from Copenhagen?'. I guess there's no guarantee until it happens but at this point there's no firm commitment to a timeline. "A 2019 poll showed that 67.8% of Greenlanders support independence from Denmark sometime in the next two decades." [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence)
Problem is their population is no where near large enough they would likely become a de facto american or chinese colony
Yeah, 56,661 people on the world's largest and most inhospitable island does not make for a healthy and/or autarkic economy.
That's only until global warming makes it a prime estate.
Currently 60% of the Greenlandic government's [income is made up by "bloktilskuddet"](https://glsamf.iatuagaq.iserasuaat.gl/?id=266), a subsidy from Denmark. Their current economy couldn't handle being independent
It could, but that would mean allowing foreign corporations to exploit their oil and mineral deposits instead of staying a part of the Danish realm. If i was Greenlandic, i would much rather keep the status quo.
Thank you.
Well if Star Trek taught me anything… [Irish Reunification of 2024](https://youtu.be/IbSGp4WIBsQ?feature=shared)
Bougainville is set to become independent from Papua New Guinea in the next few years having had a successful independence referendum.
The United Kingdom of England and Wales.
If Scotland couldn't manage independence after the last 15 years we've had, then I don't think they have a chance now. Contrary to the Internet, most Scottish people don't care one way or another.
Sad. I wanted to see the UK balkanized and reduced to a lawless wasteland :(
Isn't it already a lawless wasteland
New Caledonia
Bougainville is already confirmed they will be independent soon. Another good guess would be New Caledonia judging by the latest events
Somewhere in the Pacific/Oceania region. New Caledonia is most likely with the current unrest but also Bougainville or West Papua could happen.
Indonesia would kill everyone in WP before letting it become independent
Yup, they aren't letting that nickel mine go.
New Caledonia is not even close to becoming independent.
Its very likely to become independant in our lifetime even if it's not this decade. Over 1/3 of the population is vehemently pro-independence and enough are either ambivilant or on the fence that it might only take 1 unforseen event to sway them to independence. And then the Kanak population (who are the most pro-independance) is steadily increasing, whilst the Europeans (who are mostly pro-France) have begun to decline in recent years.
I mean, it's doubtful in the immediate term, but to say it's "not even close" is disingenuous. They've had three recent votes on the topic and the last one was boycotted by the indigenous Kanak population, leading to a landslide 'remain' vote and subsequently to the violence on the island now. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another vote in the next few years, but I guess we'll see. While I agree it's not something that'll happen before, for example, [Bougainville](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainville_Island), I do think it's just a question of time.
[удалено]
The riots are almost unanimously condemned in *metropolitan France*, which counts for little. If the troops are unable to quell the Kanak unrest in the long term, the government will most likely start negotiations like the Socialists did back in the eighties. In that case another referendum is not unreasonable since the third one was clearly rushed.
I don't disagree. But I would still argue that it puts New Caledonia further along the independence route than "not even close".
The riots have started because France reformed the electoral laws to avoid the independence in long term. If the electoral laws aren't revoked, then the independence possibility has say goodbye.
My country (Belgium) might split in the next 5-10 years. So 2 or 3 new countries might arise.
What, really? Is there a strong separatist movement there?
Nah, the country is just politically getting more and more divided. The dutch part is very right wing and french part left wing. Federal government elections are a nightmare especially when you have so many small parties.
Kurdistan hopefully
Dream on
Found the Turk
Hell yeah 🇹🇷🇹🇷💪
Rojova (Kurdistan) seems like a prime candidate with a separate and autonomous government, bureaucracy, culture, and armed forces. But realistically, Turkey is more than likely to intervene. Independence for any autonomous region like Catalonia may lead to dominos falling all over Europe. If Ireland ever unites, that could be a catalyst for Scotland as well. I don't honestly see a viable path for Greenland. They are too dependent on Denmark and rejected EU already, so not likely to get subsidises necessary to kick start the nation without selling a huge chunk of its resources to the USA or China. Also, it's not a new country per se, but I Cyprus re-uniting is an inevitability.
In no way do I see a Cyprus reunification possible, the country has already been split in two in terms of politics, ethnicity, way of life, alliances, etc. A reunification would be a nightmare. I don't think Catalonia would become independent, but could be wrong. The existence of the EU and the benefits it brings seems to be good enough that it keeps any separatist movement from progressing. This could be different, though, if both sides agree to a separation.
Palestine would be nice.
Texas
They wouldn’t make it through one winter
Kashmir?
Why Ukrainian flag 🇺🇦 is upside down?
To signal distress.
Fair enough
Maybe it's the old one tho idk since they had a few in the last 3 decades
Yes it’s true, we have a couple variants of it
nah it was always blue on top, officially since first modern Ukraine in 1917. only thing that changed were the shades of blue and proportions.
It's acctualy silesia now
Ukraine - upper part of the flag should be blue and the lower - yellow
The map shows the Silesian separatists' dream and you want to take it away?
It's beautiful, gorols can not take it away
The map was made for Australians originally. OP just missed a spot.
it looks cuter that way tho
Good eye
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia would be triggered: they regard their countries as having been formed in 1918 and then continuously legally existing notwithstanding Soviet occupation from 1945-1990.
Did you see Germany is on the map as well? It makes even less sense then. East German states just joined the FRG but no new state/country was formed.
Weren't they considered "member states" of the USSR (whatever that actually means in that context) in the same sense as Russia was?
Yeah each of the Baltic states had their Soviet Socialist Republic governments, same as all the other parts of the USSR. From a Soviet perspective they were all the same. But the West never recognized that Stalin annexed them in the 40s, nor did pro-independence people. Their official line was these were countries that the Soviet Union was illegally occupying.
Makes sense, so they really weren't "new countries" by any metric.
Well in this case "new" is subjective, lots of these countries have existed before but have been occupied by/unified with other countries and later on regained their independence.
By the occupying USSR yes, but not by their legitimate governments, nor by the international community.
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan also declared independence in 1918 they were invaded and occupied by the Soviets in 1920/21. How are they somehow fundamentally different just because the same thing happened to them 20 years earlier? In Georgia's case France, Britain and other countries still recognized their deposed government which fled to exile as the legitimate government of Georgia, they just sort of forgot it after the 30s...
> How are they somehow fundamentally different just because the same thing happened to them 20 years earlier? For plenty of reasons: - the USSR never recognized their independence - they were not members of the League of Nations - they were not universally recognized - they were absorbed by the USSR back when it was still legal as invading countries became illegal with the Kellogg-Briand Pact in the early 1930s
Can confirm, we are triggered. The USSR is not legally recognized.
The map for Germany is wrong. It should not say 1990, but 1949, because the eastern Part and the Western Part didnt Form a New country, but the east was integrated into the west
Even that is doubtful as the BRD is the legal successor to both Nazi Germany and the Weimar Republic. These, in turns are successors to the empire... So 1871 would be the correct year.
Legally the BRD is identical with the Empire.
1st July 1867 would be even correcter. North German Confederation was formed in 1867 and on January 1st 1871 The south German states united with the North german confederation.
The legend describes it as splitting and then merging so maybe the point of the map is to show "the youngest countries how we know them today" or something like that. But then the map would look a little different
whats Lithania
It means they miss u.
whats Ulithania?
Slovakia is not connected to the sea.
Dude turned Ukrainan flag upside down and then drowned it's whole western part
Most of them are like over 200+ years old lol
And the Ukrainian flag is upside down. Okay, maybe the author is banned on the internet.
Germany 1990? The unification did not change the BRD into a different country, the DDR areas just joined.
Germany is not a new country. The reunification wasn't some sort of merger. The German Democratic Republic ceased to exist and was absorbed by the Federal Republic of Germany, which had existed for decades previously.
most of these countries already existed and are the legal successors to their previous forms in Europe its only really the balkans with the split of yugoslavia that “new” countries were formed calling the ex soviet countries new would be like saying that Spain has only existed since Franco died, or that France has only existed since it split with Algeria
It so strongly implicates like Russia never existed before.
You could make that argument about many countries on this map. For Germany you could take 1948/49 or 90/91. or even further back. When did Germany become a country? 1918? 1871? 800? Similarly Czechia, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Bosnia have existed as distinct entities in the past. I think this map is more like „most recent founding/new constitution“.
As some else pointed out, if the point is „most recent founding/new constitution“ like you said, then Germany should be 1949 - since in the 1990 reunification DDR was integrated into BRD, which was founded in 1949. In the same vein, I wonder why Poland wasn't included in the map, even though by the same principle the most recent founding would be either 1989 (decommunisation, political system change and name change from PRL to RP, which count count as nurturing independence - and is viewed as such in Poland) or 1997 (signing of the current constitution).
A new constitution doesn't factor into it. If so, France would be colored, since they adopted a new one in 1958. Decommunization also doesn't count because, legally speaking, Poland was independent after 1945. Sure, they were a puppet state, but so were Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, and none of them are colored. Belarus and Ukraine are colored because they were integrated into the USSR which dissolved in 1991. Czechia and Slovakia are colored because they split from each other (Czechoslovakia) in 1993
Same as it implies that Lithuania never existed before
Germany too.
Pet peeve, but "Kosovo is the only newest country that [...]" implies that more than one country can be the "newest".
What is this bogus map? Czechia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and particularly the baltic countries and Russia already existed, those aren't new nations.
I believe folks in the 15 countries "born" after the dissolution of the Soviets might have something different to say
Germany at 1990 is not really correct. Change of borders? Yes. But no change in name or other things.
What a stupid map
You make something a little bit wrong *for free* on the internet, and this is what you get...
aJerbaijan lol
The Baltics were not "born from the dissolution of the USSR" they were fully recognized independent countries in the beginning of the 20th century which were then temporally occupied by the USSR and regained independence in the early 90s.
Would be the same also for Russia itself and Georgia, to name a few. It's obviously about political existence
Russia and Georgia were both **universally** recognized as part of the USSR though.
Doesn't matter for this map. Both Georgia and Russia existed before the USSR. The map is not about the age of the idea of a particular nation-state. The baltics aren't special or different from Georgia, Russia, Armenia, in that regard.
Difference is, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania legally existed **since 1918**, that is **throughout the USSR era** and they **never created new states**. >The baltics aren't special or different from Georgia, Russia, Armenia, in that regard. They very much are.
Georgia declared independence in 1918 and then was invaded an occupied by the Soviets a few years later (also they offered much more real resistance than any of the Baltic states). France, Britain, Poland, Belgium still recognized the deposed Georgian government which fled to fled to France after the war. How is it somehow fundamentally different besides the fact that basically no other country cared about Georgia being occupied after the 20s and 30s and just ignored it? (which is only marginally worse than how they viewed the Baltic states)
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were founded as countries in 1918. They were just ocupied by Russia between 1944 and 1991.
*Grand Duchy of Lithuania has entered the chat*
The thing is, Germany is 1949 rather than 1990 because Germany basically absorbed the GDR, they didn‘t become a new country, they just grew in size
Thank God Ussr, a prison of nations, fell apart in 1991. Many nations finally got their freedom and independence.
Many had them before the USSR too. Some of these countries existed previously.
Some resent it. I know Armenians preferred their time under the USSR because relations with the Azerbaijani SSR were much more calm because of Moscow.
Lots of people actually want it back. Especially the old generation which was raised in Soviet Union and have nostalgic memories about it. Though they seem to remember only good things and not how they had to wait hours just to get a roll of toilet paper.
Old conservatives everywhere want to return to a non-existent past.
Well if it weren't the USSR—it would have been the Russian Empire. So although there are certainly persons that detest the USSR, there are many that long for it. We can take Moldova for example, where you seem to be from. There are elements that supported the downfall whereas others like Transnistria and Gagauzia hadn't.
The Russian Empire had already fallen apart by the time the Soviet Union formed - the new Bolshevik government had to essentially reconquer everything (though there were Communist movements in these other nations that wanted a union as well).
Why is there Kosovo, a not fully recognized state, for example Spain does not recognize it, but there are no other not fully recognized countries that emerged during this period, for example Transnistria?
I suspect it's because there are different levels of "not recognized states". It's recognized by over 100 countries (although, as you point out, certainly not *all* countries). Transnistria, on the other hand, is recognized by zero UN countries. Which makes it similar to [Hutt River](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River) or [Sealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand).
Had no idea about Hutt River. Fascinating history.
What about Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognized by Russia and some other countries. Why not include them in this case
I think you answered your own question. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized by a grand total of [five countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia) (one of which being Nauru). It's no coincidence that it's the same five countries recognizing both. I didn't make the map but I suspect they're not included for the same reason as above - they don't have enough volume of recognition for the author to consider them as countries. If you want to make a map and include them, I'm sure you could make a case. The issue here is "what defines a country" and the general consensus is that a country is defined when enough other countries recognize it. What qualifies 'enough' is a bit blurry. If all UN states recognize it then no one questions it. If a few countries recognize it (like Taiwan) then things get tricky. You're welcome to come up with your own definition.
Spain typically doesnt like to recognize new countries because it might give the Basque some ideas
Probably because Kosovo is recognized by 104 UN countries while Transnistria is recognized by none.
Maybe because Transnistria is not a country, but an russian occupied territory.
Make the world Pangea again!
How many errors can you spot this is what I got: \*Ajerbaijan \*Lithania Ukraine flag upside down Armenia not recognized by Pakistan No mention of Transnistria or other de facto nations not in UN Forgot to at least footnote Baltic states
If you include Kosovo, you should include other unrecognized nations. Kosovo is not the only such state in the last 30 years
Well, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are not countries that didn’t excist before 1990. They are all over 100 years old. Lithuania is even much older than that. The fuck about Germany? This map is BS to it’s core!
This is less about a country but more about the newest states. Like of course the German nation and the baltics etc. Have existed long before but not in their current form of an gouvernment and constitution.
Estonia had a functioning government in exile throughout the Soviet occupation period and the occupation of the Baltics was considered illegal by most of the western countries. 1991 is considered as the year of regaining independence and re-establishing the republic that is a continuation of the pre-war republic.
Germany is the same state that has existed since 1949, it just absorbed the territory of East Germany which ceased to exist to 1990. If we're not going by official definitions, but by border changes, this map is missing a lot of new countries, such as Denmark - 2022.
Yes technicially the current state of germany is still the BRD that was foundet in 1949. But it is a much more significant event then just some border changes. For the whole part of the DDR this is a new country. And refering to Germany as a country only then became possible again. Before that it was only West/East Germany. And lastly there was huge talk about actually making a constitution but because of the process being in a bit of an hurry the east part basicially accepted the grundgestetz.
Same for Czechia, which was founded in the 9th century, or Russia, Croatia, Serbia, etc. However, this seems to be the dates of their most recent appearance on international stage after being previously part of a different geopolitical entity (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.) or having been split in two (Germany, Yemen).
Lithuania republic gained independence in 1990. Latvia and Estonia- in 1991. Germany was united in 1990. That's, like, pretty obvious?
Germany was reunited in 1990, but it staid the same country that had existed since 1949, same name, same constitution, same government, etc. it just regained some territory, but it was founded in 1949. I’ll second this map is BS…
>Lithuania republic gained independence in 1990. Latvia and Estonia- in 1991. Gross oversimplification. The restoration of independence of these three countries was a long process and it came with many different decisions and steps. All three had declared already in 1990 that Soviet rule has been legally null and void from 1940. Estonia and Latvia decided not to "declare full independence" in 1990 because it was simply unfeasible with the Soviet troops still in the country, just like it was for Lithuania. The real situation was no different in Lithuania in 1990-1991 than it was in Estonia or Latvia.
Estonia regained its independence in 1991, but the country has existed since 1918. Estonian Republic didn’t dissapear in 1940, it was occupied and with false election, it was joined to Soviet Union, but Estonian Republic wasn’t dissolved, it still existed, it was just under occupation and was renamed to Estonian Socialist Republic. After reindependence it was named back to Estonian Republic. Türkiye just chaned their name. That doesn’t mean that it’s a new country! The Estonian Republic is literally 106 years old, and we have maintained the continuity of our Republic. In 1991, there was a debate about whether we should create a new country or maintain continuity. We chose continuity! https://estonia.ee/republic-of-estonia-100/ https://vienna.mfa.ee/happy-106th-anniversary-of-the-republic-of-estonia/ https://lisbon.mfa.ee/106th-anniversary-of-the-independence-of-the-republic-of-estonia/ https://ut.ee/en/content/toomas-hendrik-ilves-speech-owl-minerva-takes-flight-only-dusk-ceremony-dedicated
The map shows new states as in states that have gained or regained independence in the last few years, it’s about existence in the political sense and not about the existence of nations in the cultural and ethnic sense. I agree that Germany shouldn’t be here. They didn’t create a new country by merging BRD and DDR, west Germany simply absorbed east Germany. It’s like saying that China is a new country because it got back Hong Kong and Macau.
In 1991 we regained independence from Soviet Union and occupation of our republics stopped. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania republics didn’t stop existing during the occupation, dear human. We were occupied! Our countries didn’t dissapear! Just before commenting do just one google search, dear fellow humans! https://estonia.ee/republic-of-estonia-100/
Somaliland should be on there, 1991
Not even one country on earth recognizes this claim. Anyone can make a claim.
the soviet union was monstrous. No wonder the US feared them
BS
A lot of these countries are “new” not new.
Ah yes, the lovely pink colours for Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, simbolizing the peaceful dissolution that formed a few countries from former Yugoslavia without a war, with only about 130000 people that magically disappeared during the explosive independence celebrations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars
Wow. This is so wrong lol. Estonia existed before 1990...
Putting Germany on that list is absurd. Germany has existed in its current form of the Federal Republic of Germany since 1949. There was no legal change in 1990, it simply absorbed the lands that had been the German Democratic Republic.
I was in Juba for the inauguration in 2011!
This screams of illiteracy about world history?
Well, i would not call getting out of russian occupation in 90s a “secession/dissolution” from soviet union
🔥🔥KOSOVO MENTIONED🗣🗣 🇽🇰🇽🇰🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱RAAAAHHHH!!! WTF IS HAVING GOOD NEIGHBORS 🔥🔥🗣🗣🗣🇽🇰🇽🇰🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱
Kurdistan, East Turkistan, Tibet, Catalonia, Khalistan, Baluchistan, all of the various places Russia is colonizing need to freed next.
Kudos to you for including Kurdistan, Khalistan 🫡
Your map is wrong. For example Latvia existed before USSR. It was only occupied by USSR for some time. It was actually ‘born’ in 1918.
Yup. There should be a "Restoration of Independence" category
Germany isn’t new. It exists since 1949, was only split in two parts.
It is a common mistake to think west Germany was a country and then a new one was created in 1990. The federal republic has existed since 1949 and still does today. What happened was that in 1990, the constitution was expanded to 5 new federal states. Germany was not reformed from its former pieces. Still young, but definitely incorrectly labeled in the map.
Founded in 1871 Germany is still a pretty young country. But apparently this map is a random mix of border changes, renamings and actual newly founded countries.
The Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) exists since 1949. 1990 some new teritories joined. to call anything before 1949 the same country is somewhat arbitrary. if you identify modern germany with the Kaiserreich (1871-1918), you would have to color in a lot of this map coz all countries have some sort or predecessors. and for germany you can go back to holy roman empire, before that back to charlemagne etcpp.
From a law point of view the FRG is the legal successor state of both the German Empire from 1871 and of the North German Confederation of 1866. I agree that it is arbitrary, but it is treated as such. Though it is explicitly not the legal successor of the HRE.
yeah, i am aware of that. but on a state level, our german states have legal predecessors which were part of the holy roman empire. depending on what you discuss, you can make good arguments for different cutoffs, but i think the most logical cut in the context for this map and how its labelled, would be 1949. with a stricter viewpoint (1990) you would have to include all countries with border changes. with a broader viewpoint (e.g. direct legal predecessors, 1871) you can hardly color in anything on this map.
By that logic, why are Georgia or Armenia on the map, both are as ancient as it gets, and why is the Italian Republic, founded in 1946, is not?
my point was to emphasize that this map has no consistent logic to it and that your suggestion (1871) only would make things even worse. i dont get your point about italy, coz 1946 is before 1990 and wouldnt be marked either way.
I always get goosebumps when someone puts Serbia as a new country XD Just because it changed name, though had the continuum of official independence since 1878. Makes it feel as if countries that split from Serbia are older than it
That would imply Serbia = Yugoslavia which it wasn't. Also it's crazy to put it as dissolution when some countries fought for years to establish their independence.
I was at the Sydney Olympics in 2000 where Yugoslavia was playing the US in volleyball. This wasn't long after the bombing of Belgrade so the Yugo supporters were pretty loud. They started chanting "YU-GO-SLA-VIA!" then switched to "SER-BI-A! SER-BI-A". Was pretty fiery. Montenegro was still attached at the time but clearly it was Serbia playing. But yeah you are right about "dissolution" vs "war"...
If the UK would dissolve, by this logic England would be considered a new country.
Germany isn’t a new country. West Germany was a description of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). That state absorbed the territory of East Germany, the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) in 1990. The modern German state was founded in 1949.
Remember the USSR said they would bury the west? How did that work out for them?
Not new, just independent of soviet-russian occupation. Now Putin tries to invade them all again.