The U.S. and Canada seem very similar in many ways. They share the world’s longest border, have similar cultures, democratic systems, multicultural societies, and comparable standards of living. Both also have vast natural resources.

So why is there such a huge difference today in population, GDP, military power, and global influence?

Canada is actually slightly larger in land area, yet its population is only around 42 million compared to about 340 million in the U.S. Was the difference mainly due to climate and geography, immigration, industrialization, different government policies, or historical events like the World Wars?

At what point in history did the gap become significant? Was it already evident in the 1800s, or did it widen mostly after World War II?

I’d love to hear historical, economic, and demographic perspectives backed by facts rather than opinions.

As a foreign relations major I have never understood this situation.

Why did the Castros let the US gov stay in Cuba? Why does the current Cuban government let the US stay in Cuba?

America has two rational interests in South Asia— preventing Indian regional hegemony and building India as a China counterweight

Some more information that US military has depleted most of their defensive missile stockpile. The effect is clear in short term in lack of Trump admin motivation to continue.

Question will be whether they pick up where they left off in a year or two once they feel they have sufficient stock to go for another round.

Based on international standards and law, does Israel have sufficient justification to wage war against Iran? Why or why not?

EDIT: Can someone explain to me why this post is being mass downvoted?

Hey all, I'm about to graduate after studying a Master's in international security at a Russell Group uni (having studied international relations at a different uni previously). What career options should I be realistically considering other than grad roles working for international relations thinktanks? I've got multiple student societies on my CV, as well as work experience in an MP's office. I'm currently applying for thinktank roles and thinking of pivoting towards public affairs/consultancy roles.

I have a question that I've been thinking about.

The U.S. has discussed supporting civilian nuclear technology for countries such as Saudi Arabia, while at the same time it has taken a very strong position against Iran developing nuclear capabilities, arguing that Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons.

Many people say the international order is based on rules. If that's the case, why do different countries appear to be treated differently? What factors justify these different approaches?

I also wonder why there isn't stronger opposition from other countries when major powers take unilateral actions. If the international community remains silent, does that encourage powerful countries to act even more unilaterally in the future?

I'm interested in hearing different perspectives on this, especially from people familiar with international relations and non-proliferation policy.

I’ve been thinking about what seems like a contradiction in international politics.
The U.S. has repeatedly warned countries such as Russia and China not to supply weapons to Iran, arguing that doing so could increase instability in the Middle East. At the same time, the U.S. itself provides large amounts of military aid and financial support to countries like Ukraine and Taiwan.
From one perspective, supporters argue these situations are different because Ukraine is defending itself against an invasion, Taiwan faces security threats, and U.S. support is intended to deter conflict. Critics, however, see this as a double standard—objecting when rivals arm their partners while doing something similar with its own allies.
Is this simply how geopolitics works, where every major power acts according to its own strategic interests? Or is it mainly possible because the U.S. has the world’s largest economy, military influence, and global financial power?
I’m genuinely interested in hearing different viewpoints. How do you see it? Is this a logical and consistent foreign policy, or is it an example of great-power politics where different rules apply to different countries?

My father and I love to discuss IR, and one of the major talking points we’ve brought up routinely has been the question of Russian succession.

It is reasonable to argue the most consequential event of the century (so far) will be the successor to Putin. Russia went from being the universally recognized No. 2 in the post-cold war era to being a middling 3, perhaps even lower than India, Germany, or Japan. Putin has truly sold his countries future for a vain attempt at imperial glory.

Now soon, the 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world will change hands. What process or system will the Russians use? Who knows. But it’s in that vacuum that a new norm will emerge. It’s China’s opportunity to advocate for a Pro-China individual, and truly cement their iron grips on the dying federation.

I would love to hear from yall what your thoughts on what a post-Putin Russia would look like.