Why and How States Expand

Why do states expand?
Why do some build lasting unions while others assemble fragile empires?
And why do certain expansion projects collapse quickly while others hold together for centuries?

These may seem like enormous, unanswerable questions. But when we zoom out from the details of individual wars and leaders, a surprising pattern emerges. Behind the turbulence of history lie a few simple structural logics that explain why states pursue expansion and how they attempt to integrate others.

To uncover these patterns, we can use an analytical tool borrowed from systems science: ontology.

This blog — Part 1 of a two-part series — introduces a clear, intuitive ontological framework for understanding expansion.
In Part 2, we apply this lens to the Russia–Ukraine war and explore what the framework reveals about the conflict’s long-term stability.

1. Ontologies: A Clear Lens for a Complex World

Despite its philosophical origins, an ontology is, at its core, a simple tool.
It is a structured way of describing the basic elements of a complex system:

Who acts? (states, empires, elites, populations)
Why do they act? (security, ideology, resources, prestige)
How do they act? (annexation, treaties, persuasion, coercion)
What constrains them? (economy, legitimacy, resistance, geography)
What results over time? (integration, fragmentation, collapse)

In everyday terms, an ontology is just a clean map that helps us understand messy realities.

It does not judge states or leaders.
It clarifies structure — the recurring logic behind their choices.

Using ontologies to study expansion allows us to compare:

the Roman Empire,
Napoleonic France,
the Third Reich,
the Soviet Union,
modern China,
the European Union,
and today’s Russia

in one coherent framework.

2. The Basic Ontology of Expansion: What All States Share

Across civilizations and eras, states expand for a limited set of reasons and through a limited set of mechanisms.
Ontologies help us organize these into five essential categories.

A. Actors

States, empires, federations, unions
Political elites steering expansion
Military and security institutions
Populations whose identity or expectations shape legitimacy

B. Motivations

Despite their diversity, expansions usually combine these five motives:

Security — buffer zones, strategic depth, safer borders
Material gain — resources, land, trade routes, taxation
Prestige / status — recognition as a major power
Ideological mission — spreading religion, revolution, or “civilization”
Domestic cohesion — rallying societal unity through external action

C. Capacities

Economic strength
Military capability
Administrative reach
Legitimacy and narrative control

D. Mechanisms

Conquest and annexation
Indirect rule or spheres of influence
Colonization or settlement
Economic integration and treaty-based accession
Political harmonization

E. Outcomes

Long-term integration
Temporary control followed by revolt
Gradual institutional cohesion
Sudden collapse

These building blocks are universal — they appear from ancient empires to modern unions.

But how these blocks combine gives rise to very different expansion types.

3. Four Expansion Logics Found Across History

When we apply ontological structure to thousands of years of state behavior, four distinct expansion logics emerge.
These are not moral categories — they are functional descriptions of how expansion works.

Type A — Coercive, Predatory Expansion

Logic: We conquer; you submit.

This type relies on force, domination, and extraction.
Integrated populations receive no equality, only subordination.

Examples:
The Third Reich, extreme colonialism, ISIS, and other violent domination projects.

Stability:
Very low.
Control collapses when coercive superiority is lost.

Type B — Administrative Empire Building

Logic: We rule, but we build enough structure to hold the system together.

These expansions mix conquest with governance: roads, law, local autonomy, and partial integration.

Examples:
Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Habsburg Empire, aspects of the British Empire.

Stability:
Medium-term — can last centuries but eventually fade when local identities grow stronger than imperial cohesion.

Type C — Ideological Expansion

Logic: We expand because our worldview is the future and demands it.

Expansion is justified by universal ideals or historical destiny.

Examples:
Napoleonic France, the USSR, revolutionary or religious expansions, and parts of modern China’s unification projects.

Stability:
Highly variable.
Strong while ideology is believed and institutions perform well; prone to sudden collapse when belief fades.

Type D — Voluntary, Rule-Based Integration

Logic: We expand because others want to join us.

This is the modern form of expansion based on mutual benefit and shared rules.

Example:
The European Union’s enlargement — countries apply, negotiate entry conditions, and join voluntarily.

Stability:
High.
Slow, often bureaucratic, but inherently resilient because it is built on consent, shared decision-making, and tangible advantages.

4. Why These Types Matter — Especially Today

The four expansion logics help us understand not just history, but present-day geopolitics.

They reveal:

why some expansions endure,
why others provoke resistance,
why certain systems escalate into conflict,
and why voluntary frameworks outperform coercive ones over time.

They also help us see deeper patterns behind contemporary events.
In particular, they offer a powerful lens through which to understand the Russia–Ukraine war.

Because the conflict is not simply about territory.
It is a confrontation between two contrasting expansion logics:

Russia’s coercive–ideological model (Type A + C)
Europe’s voluntary–rule-based model (Type D)

This clash of logics — not just the clash of armies — shapes the trajectory and likely outcome of the war.

5. What Comes Next: Applying the Lens to the Russia–Ukraine War

In Part 2, our next Blog, we will use this ontology to interpret the Russian invasion of Ukraine and examine what the framework reveals about the conflict’s stability outlook.

We will show how four key hypotheses:

1. the EU’s systemic challenge to Russia’s model,

2. Russia’s reliance on ideology where incentives are weak,

3. the structural logic behind Russia’s escalation into war, and

4. the long-term unsustainability of Russia’s expansion strategy

fit naturally into the four expansion types introduced here.

This will allow us to move beyond daily headlines and view the war through a deeper, structural lens — one that highlights not only why the conflict erupted, but what its long-term prospects truly are.

Conclusion

Ontologies allow us to describe the fundamental categories shaping state behavior.
They simplify complexity without oversimplifying reality.

By understanding the why and how of expansions, we acquire a powerful tool for interpreting the past and anticipating the future.

And as we will see in Part 2, this ontology sheds sharp light on the dynamics of Russia’s war in Ukraine — and on the structural fragility of the expansion model driving it.

Search This Blog

EUROPE-IS-US

Understanding States Expansion Through Ontology Analytics — The 4 Basic Expansion Types