Can nation-states ever stop being empires without being overwhelmingly defeated--

[eridani]

--in a major war? Why, yes they can! Britain did it after WW II. Sure, they were in a financial hole after the war, but they were on the winning side. Also, the USSR did the same thing. Again, financial troubles, but they just packed up their armies in all their conquered satellites and brought them home.

If they could do it, why can't we?

[PowerToThePeople]

1. USA still has some credit to be maxed out

before the capitalists run away holding all the cash.

[Fumesucker]

2. They used to extend the courtesy of calling it rain

I miss those days.

[Democracyinkind]

3. If you believe that the British packed up their empire post 1945,

then you are following a very narrow definition of empire. Giving up colonies is not giving up empire. Sometimes such changes are merely cosmetic.

Another way to frame it is that the anglo-american establishment merged their imperial projects in the early 20th century and have succesfully defeated and incorporated its German and Japanese counterparts in an improved, transnational project.

Thanks to my Job I get to talk to many people who are relevant in shaping the EU's security policy. To say the least, McKinderism is still well and alive. The ultimate prize is still the "heartland" and Russia, China and the Orient still the main obstacles in seizing that prize. Which, to the historically literate, is all well within the limits of the discourse on empire as it existed in the outgoing 19th century.

Summing up, there are different ways to think about empire, and they all hinge on the definition used. I would argue that viewing imperialism in a narrow legal and geographical sense (such as "those countries are free and independent today&quot leads to missing the more interesting and meaningful aspects.