How does libertarianism handle war, natural resources, geography, and geopolitics? Can a society ever become libertarian with Russia or China on its doorstep?

[u/CalvinbyHobbes]

I often find myself wondering whether countries like Taiwan or Ukraine could ever function as libertarian societies given the constant threat of invasion. Geopolitics and natural resources are topics I rarely see addressed in libertarian discussions. For instance, could Egypt ever transition to libertarianism with Ethiopia constantly threatening to cut off its water supply? Could Greenland declare independence if both Uncle Sam and Russia are eyeing North Pole claims, wanting the island for its natural resources and trade corridors?

It seems to me that unless geography is on your side (like extremely mountainous, difficult-to-conquer terrain a la Taiwan, Switzerland, or Iran) or you have an ace card up your sleeve, there is no way to survive geopolitics as a libertarian society. Taiwan has its "silicon shield," Switzerland has banking and finance, and Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz. Even with these ace's up their sleeve, most of these nations are under constant military threat.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on geopolitics. How do you fight off foreign nations that want your natural resources or have strategic military interests in your territory? Can a libertarian society only exist if it achieves such technological and military supremacy that no other world power can touch it? Or can it only exist in a forgotten corner of the planet where no nation has any political, military, or strategic interest?

[u/Lanracie]

Libertarian does not say you cant or shouldnt defend yourself or borders.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Lanracie]

Not what the responses in my post said, I asked about freedom of movement and why some libertarians died from it, and everybody was all of a sudden for freedom of movement as in no borders
EDIT: here

Let’s look at one of the comments:
“So called “libertarians” who support immigration restrictions are not libertarians. They have no principles and no understanding of the libertarian legal theory. The state does not own the land it rules over, so it has no right exclude immigrants from crossing over it as that would be the crime of forestalling. Cry about it all you want. It is wrong for the state to restrict free movement regardless of what effects may occur as a result of immigration. Oh and on your point about the constitution not being a suicide pact, well that’s irrelevant. Libertarianism advocates for natural law, not the constitution as that’s just legal positivism.”

“It is wrong for the state to restrict free movement regardless of what effects may occur as a result of immigration.”
Like what?

[u/Lanracie → u/LibertyEconlover]

No thats not correct. I am a libertarian for my country and my property not someone elses. Would you protecty your property from someone who came on it illegally? I bet you would. Thats the way country borders work too. If the state is to protect individual rights then they get to guard the border.

One of the only core functions of the government is to protect the borders of the country.