Are landlocked countries at a disadvantage? (closing, litigation, beaches)

[owl6969]

Many countries like Laos and Afghanistan etc.. are in such a disadvantage.

[Davy-040]

Originally Posted by owl6969

Many countries like Laos and Afghanistan etc.. are in such a disadvantage.

True but i think if Ethiopia wasn't landlocked a high % of their population would speak Italian/Arabic today.

[viribusunitis]

Originally Posted by antinimby

^ that may very well be true but everything else being equal, I can't imagine not having a port is not a disadvantage. I'm sure if Switzerland or Austria had a port, they wouldn't be just as successful, if not more.

It doesn't really matter much. Both countries have access to the single market and don't have to pay higher fees/tariffs for using the ports of other countries. Besides, both Switzerland and Austria have access to major rivers (Rhine and Danube) connecting them to both the North Sea/Atlantic Ocean and the Black Sea.

[PDF]

What about the double landlocked countries? Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan. Obviously not successful.

[viribusunitis]

Originally Posted by PDF

What about the double landlocked countries? Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan. Obviously not successful.

Not entirely sure whether you are trying to be sarcastic. But Liechtenstein certainly is very successful.

[Yanagisawa]

Originally Posted by euro123

Mongolia will be the best example: Biggest empire in history but today it's sort of disaster. World's least dense country, just 2 million population and puppet to both America and Russia.

Agreed.

And that's the reason why Russia has been wanting ice-free ports, I guess.

[grega94]

Originally Posted by Yanagisawa

Agreed.

And that's the reason why Russia has been wanting ice-free ports, I guess.

Why does everyone keep saying that? you know that Murmansk is an Ice free port and its on the arctic coast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Murmansk
What Russia wants is better access to the oceans and trade routs, murmansk is kinda isolated, and the climate sucks.
However Russia has other ice free ports:
Novorossiysk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Novorossiysk
Nakhodka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhodka
Kaliningrad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad
Tuapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuapse
Zarubino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Zarubino
Posyet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posyet
and probably a couple others that I missed.

So Russia taking Crimea had nothing to do with having access to an ice free port. What Russia wanted historically was to have a port on the mediterranean so the ottomans couldn't stop them, and access to the indian ocean.

It would be like saying the US annexed California because it wanted access to Ice free ports in LA and San Fran. No they wanted access to a port on the Pacific ocean and thus new markets. see the difference.

[grega94]

Originally Posted by Davy-040

True but i think if Ethiopia wasn't landlocked a high % of their population would speak Italian/Arabic today.

Eretria used to be part of Ethiopia, it only gained independence in 1991 around the same time the USSR broke apart. Here is a map of what it used to look like
http://www.gateway-africa.com/countr...thiopiamap.jpg

Also interestingly Bolivia used to have a pacific coast until chile took it away in the late 1800s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_border_dispute

I wonder how different Bolivia would be if it still owned that land?

Here is a map of what Bolivia used to look like
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...oss-en.svg.png

[Davy-040]

Originally Posted by grega94

Eretria used to be part of Ethiopia[/url]

Not between 1890 and 1950.

[dooer]

Depends

If it goes down to defending themselves from naval invasions, then they are safe!