> exactly the same any state with "western culture" would have done in the same situation
Until like a couple years ago, autarky was generally not in the Western playbook. Itβs a stupid idea that tends to be embraced by stupid people. The only ones who have done it sustainably are the Kims, as a nuclear monarchy over a totalitarian state.
They have not been in the same situation, and that is sufficient explanation. No cultural geists need to be posited.
The point of autarky isn't that you want to isolate yourself from the world, but that because you credibly could, you're in a much stronger negotiating position in all those mutually beneficial deals you would like to make.
> that because you credibly could, you're in a much stronger negotiating position in all those mutually beneficial deals you would like to make
Except it doesn't put one in a stronger position. It systematically weakens the economy. It only makes sense for domestic power-consolidation since a poor economy that can't trade with anyone except the state is entirely beholden to whoever controls the state.
Until like a couple years ago, autarky was generally not in the Western playbook. Itβs a stupid idea that tends to be embraced by stupid people. The only ones who have done it sustainably are the Kims, as a nuclear monarchy over a totalitarian state.