Why are unitary states objectively inferior to federal states...

Why are unitary states objectively inferior to federal states? Look at these unitary states fare compared to countries using the actual good federal system of government

>France- Beheaded all their federalists and exterminated all other cultures in France, Paris is bloated shithole
>UK-Pseudofederation, but still with London being disproportionately important
>Italy-Goes without saying

Now the federal nations
>USA-Wealthy and succesful, every state has a say, makes toppling an oppressive government easier, most influential and wealthy city isn't Washington (Thank Christ)
>Germany-Under the Empire worked like a charm, still works pretty well
>Russia-Turned into superpower with a federal government

Pic related, green are nations with federal governments

I agree, the Londoncentrism of the UK is so frustrating.

>Russia
>Superpower
Nice meme

Yeah, I agree, people shouldn't judge The UK because of London. I mean, London is so much better then the rest of the country.

>cuck nations and poo in loo

pretty superior huh OP?

The USSR was, it went from a shithole backwater to a world class nation

you do realise that México and india are in that fucking map, right?

I specifically didn't list nations that would be shit either way, like Canada and India. Australia can go on the based federation list though

I should have clarified that I meant countries with actual potential. Italy could be a much better nation if they weren't a garbage unitary state.

It is also worth noting that there are more shitholes that are unitary states than there are shithole federations. The vast majority of Africa is unitary, for example, and all of central America.

>Russia
>India
>Pakistan
>Myanmar
>Nigeria
>Sudan
>Ethiopia

>Objectively superior to Great Britain in any way, shape or form

ahaha haha hahahaha ahahahah haa

ha

t. Achmed

>It is also worth noting that there are more shitholes that are unitary states than there are shithole federations.

It is also worth noting that there are more shitholes that are federations than there are based federations.

In my country people consider word "federation" a derogatory term, because Ukraine is united, whatever the fuck that means.

commie propoganda, Russian Empire was also one of the top nations in their time.

Nice trips jelly

We don't need federalism, we need a system where the regions that can be trusted with their money (the north) have all the power they want while the regions that can't be trusted nor have any money (the south) is under strict control

Russian empire had isolationist politics and was pretty backwards science wise. USSR was in "war" with USA so apart from a couple of eastern European countries they pretty much just exploited they were still completely isolated from the western world so nothing much changed except they got nuclear weapons.

Is this a joke? The Russian Empire was a shithole backwater that was only relevant because of how large it was. The USSR was also a scientific and political superpower.

Britain, all Anglo nations are federations. Why do you cling to your nonsense European system of government?

That's what Robespierre thought in France too. Look how that turned out, many cultures exterminated.

You conquered the South, they're your problem

>Ukraine
>Country
How do you guys keep things together? I hear that Neo Nazis vs Russian Communists civil war is still going on, but you guys haven't gone full Syria somehow.

>list of the ethnicities in Londonistan

>Russia
>superpower

kek

>Russia
>federation
In name only. In reality all of the tax money is sent to Moscow before some of it (less than half, usually) is returned to the local budgets. By the way, this regional governments do not get any say in issues more important than "where do we build a new highway". Passing any kind of relevant local legislation is a big no-no, despite the formal presence of state parliaments.

>The Russian Empire was a shithole backwater that was only relevant because of how large it was
eh, I would argue things were contantly getting better after 1861

I guess things like minimum wage or communal fees are irrelevant.

Imagine the U.S with no state governments whatsoever. That would be really weird and definitely would get rid of a lot of cultures.

Which cultures were eliminated in the UK and France?

Also Russia has the highest Buddhist population in all of Europe with that Kalmykia region, without a federation that wouldn't be possible.

Russia isn't as strong economically however they have the 2nd strongest military and they are the only country, still, capable of sending humans to the ISS right now.

The UK was less so, but in France the Breton, Occitan, Alsatian, Gascon, and the Basque communities were all obliterated by the state by having their languages and culture forcibly Frenchified. This was done because the Republican government didn't like the idea of there being other cultures in France than the degenerate leftist Parisian culture, and beat schoolchildren who dared to speak the dialect that their people had spoken for millennia. At least we have reservations nowadays for the squaws, no such luck for the peoples of "France".

Countries that have Kings and Queens (which is rationally stupid) are empirically more free and more socially just than countries that dont.

Think about that for a second. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Spain, Luxembourg, the UK. All very free, very stable countries.

Monarchy gives a country democracy, unity, tradition, a sense of its historical morality which can be updated with modern values. Among the 10 richest countries of the world, 7 are monarchies.

We have the same problem with Dublin. Ireland needs to federalise into the Cúige again

To be more specific, wealthy modern countries where the monarch has no real political power are better. Unless you think Oman and Saudi Arabia are utopias?

A unitary state is almost invariably unnatural.

In those countries religion plays a more significant part in the proceedings. Western Europe, canada, and Australia are far more secular.

That extends to the monarch as well, hence why those countries are all crown republics. Australia has even used that exact term to describe themselves

>The Australian Republic Advisory Committee, which was created in 1993 by Paul Keating, then Prime Minister, described the country as a crowned republic because they said it was "a state in which sovereignty resides in its people, and in which all public offices, except that at the very apex of the system, are filled by persons deriving their authority directly or indirectly from the people" so "it may be appropriate to regard Australia as a crowned republic".