“Winning” in the real world like that of the board game Risk, is subjective to the presumed identity of a nation. For instance, if a nation, such as Switzerland, has built an identity of neutrality, their version of winning may simply be remaining sovereign. Swiss sovereignty could mean that all the nation wants is a functioning economic system, a stable government structure, and a sound public. In contrast, a nation such as the Untied States may assume the role as a beacon for democracy. The United States seeks to establish footholds of democratic principles in other countries, especially developing nations. For the United States to win, democracy would have to be the sole form of government in the world, or at the very least the dominant form of government.
However, the identity of a nation is subject to change. Citizens are able to change the face and therefore change the doctrine of a nation, which ultimately results in a new set of initiatives. These initiatives can range from a new hunt for resources, a new focus on domestic issues rather then those of international importance, or even going as far as a policy of isolationism. Reasons for isolationism or a prelaunch of domestic focus could range from fear of outside influences or a need to maintain stability in the nation. The change in initiatives brings different extents of action in the international arena and there may not always be a goal to “win” simply because a nation has chosen to not play or sit a round out.
The concept of winning in regards to world politics is subject to each nation. The different nations in the world may all have varying values and therefore have different goals to achieve. To win simply means to achieve these goals, but there can come a time when a nation may seek to change their goals in the “game”. This could be from a realization that the nation lacks a capacity to fulfill their current goals or that their sovereignty is in jeopardy.
