[lberk]

> To be honest, so is every successful country. That is why they are successful, because they once had or still have power over others.

I'm curious, do you include Hong Kong in that classification? How about Estonia? I'm curious what 'power' you consider those countries have, or exert, over others.

[angry-hacker]

Hong Kong is tricky one, but I wouldn't classify Estonia as such. While Estonia is successful considering its past, they are nowhere on the level of other developed Western countries. (yet)

[lberk]

> Hong Kong is tricky one

Please elaborate, I'm genuinely interested in why you consider them an, exception(?), or example, to your blanket rule that successful countries have power over others.

> While Estonia is successful considering its past , they are nowhere on the level of other developed Western countries.

So Estonia hasn't met your criteria for a 'successful' country (what is your criteria btw?). Is their relative success compared to neighbouring baltic states a result of them exerting force or power over their neighbours or others? Or something else?

> (yet)

Is the only thing stopping them from becoming successful, exerting force or demonstrating power over others, or are they currently suffering from an oppressive regime doing likewise to them (which is holding them back)?