Militarized Zones As Fragmenting A Territory

We tend to think “militarized zones” exist at the borders of a few nations that are suffering from war, but in fact militarized zones exist in and influence the composition of every nation, even peaceful ones. Militarized zones don't exist at the borders exclusively but are bought based on monetary decisions, such as the price of land, the price of fuel to connect one zone with another etc.

Militarized zones used to be clustered around and formed by a single figure. That is how “personal militarization projects” arose, with the personal goal of one single figure dictating the formation of militarized zones. With the submission of land under the monetary system, the military was able to expand its militarized zones simply by purchasing land rather than invading it, that is, the military could act like any business client. Afterwards the size of the purchased land for militarized zones began to dictate such things as the size of the military, its ranks, its activities and the content of subsequent personal militarization projects the higher ranks wished to implement.

As much as the military can be present in many places where it can afford to be present, it can also be absent from a lot of places which need military protection because it cannot afford to establish a militarized zone in there. As a result, paradoxically some populations are overprotected while others more privileged are vulnerable.

Whether it happens because of monetary purchase or by invasion, the building of militarized zones in different parts of the territory causes the people of the different parts to feel autonomy and eventually leads to the fragmentation of the single territory into smaller states. Meaning that, it is the differentiation of one militarized zone from another based on location that causes the single territory to fragment into smaller states. Even in civilians, a “state-making” mentality and initiative forms around a militarized zone.