Actually there are not that many countries that achieved this, but there are some, and the UAE is the best example. I consider the UAE leaders to be some of the best statesman of the post WW2 world.
If playing it easy mode is the high standard of statesmanship then I'll give you this one time.
The UAE and Singapore are the examples I always use when it comes to good leadership, when small countries can hit far above their weight because of intelligent and visionary leaders.
Countries outside the West are free to become wealthy if they want to, but they have to be led by intelligent people.
Technically their model is only sustainable with the Americans preventing any major power surrounding them to impose their will. There's nothing very special from these two.
Once the American lose its ability to police the world, the very existence of these countries (Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain icluded) is under a big question mark.
Russia meanwhile didn't need that kind of American assurance, nor do they actively finds ways to have one. There's simply no comparison between the brilliance of Putin and the circumstances he faced, with those country you mentioned.
The average Gulf Arabs live a good life, because they had better leadership than their neighbors. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia are examples of successful countries because they had intelligent leaders.
But it is not their fault that their neighbors were led by stupid Putin-like leaders who caused war and poverty. The fact that Syria, Iraq, Iran or Yemen are in the current deplorable state is not the fault of the Gulf countries. It is their own fault. They could have hosted US military bases and be US allies too, and develop their countries using their oil exports, but instead they chose to just kill each other.
The average Gulf Arabs have a good life, due to the fact that they are oil rich, and America didn't mess them up.
This is not the same with the likes of Iraq, Iran or Yemen who faces sanctions. Like I said, if wealth is the ultimate goal, then Putin whould've copied the Arab monarchs. But then again statesmanship is not always about Wealth and standard of life, sometimes it has something to do with showing grit and political superiority (like imposing your will on neighboring countries).
Gaddafi is the definition of a failed leader. He ended up murdered by his own people, leaving the country in civil war and destroyed at the end of his reign.
The Civil War is made possible by the West who actively assisted the rebels with air power. Now those rebels are fighting each other one by one and the country is destroyed.
Don't get me wrong am not a Gaddafi admirer, he is a Secularists while I am a Theocrat. But let's be honest here at least, it's the West who destroyed Libya.
We have a very different perception of what great leadership means. I think a historical example of great leader is Octavian Augustus, while you think a great leader is Adolf Hitler. Both have left a big legacy behind them. One a legacy of development and success, while the other a legacy of destruction and ruin.
I DO REALLY LIKE Octavian Augustus, but Putin isn't fighting his political wars while being the world's hegemon. He started from a low position, climb his way up, wrestle control from cities, to oblasts and finally make himself (although democratically elected) the supreme ruler of Russia. And now he's wrestling back Ukraine, the most important Russian land outside of Russia, and he is winning.
As much as you admire Augustus, you really have to give credit to Putin.
You just gave another example of a bad leader. Why is it so important to mantain ”independence outside the West”, if the price for this is reduced development and quality of life?
He is sort of a 'bad leader' ngl, am no fans of Soekarno. I merely put him as an example of how hard is it to achieve the two main problem of a statesmen outside of the West, namely :
1. Political Independence
2. Running the State
Some leaders are good at running No.2 but not No.1, others are good in running No.1 but not No.2.
Gaddafi, seems to be able to run 1 and 2 just fine until his downfall. Putin as well, even though not perfect.
Good leaders have integrated their countries in the Western world order and their countries have prospered from it. Bad leaders have opposed this order and have brought ruin and misery to their people.
You are a big admirer of all those bad leaders that have ruined their countries and kept their people in poverty (while they enjoyed Western luxuries), because you think that opposing the West for the sake of it is somehow noble. It is not. It is just stupid.
Do you know the Arab Kingdom, Palmyra ? It used to be a Roman Colony, but prosperous.
Now ask the Arab, do they identify with Palmyra or with the likes of Umayyads and Abbasids ?
Most of them will pride themselves as being descendant of those 2 and not Palmyra.
Does the Abbasids and Umayyads comes into fruition by Arabs becoming subservient to Rome ? The answer is NO. Those 2 are put into existence by the early Muslims (many of whom are hungry and poor) who subjugated Rome through wars.
If you want to be #1, be sure to be independent. Japan thinks that by befriending the West they could be #1. What they get is the lost decade. The West will give some wealth and prosperity, but they hold the leash.
The only way to defeat them is to collapse the order that they set, through political and military warfare. And Russia is doing its share right now in Ukraine.
foreignpolicy.com
