• Skua@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    Well that’s true of nearly anywhere next to a lake or river, right? I think we’d count Manaus in Brazil or Kazan in Russia as being landlocked despite being next to large navigable rivers that go to the ocean

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      Different definitions of the word “landlocked” have different meanings. There’s one sense that’s more relating to logistics, where a country/state/whatever is landlocked if it doesn’t have something that functions like a port, not just a dock, or could if desired.
      In that sense, Chicago is not landlocked because they have a port that can receive freight. Other places on the great lakes could although they might not due to whatever reason.

      The other definition has more to do with controlling access to oceanic waters. Chicagos access to the ocean is at the mercy of Canada and all the states that control the st Lawrence seaway.

      So if you’re discussing economics you care that Bolivia can get freight shipping. If you’re discussing geopolitics you care that Bolivia needs to form agreements with other countries to ensure that access remains uninterrupted.

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        I remembered my geography wrong

        It does go to the Black Sea, which then goes on to the Turkish Straits, the Mediterranean, the Strait of Gibraltar, and then the ocean though. I think if Chicago counts then Kazan has to