The Irrational Fighting over Territory

In the olden days (say before 2000), wars were about territory.  This was due to a couple of reasons, not just pride and vanity.
.

Territory provided some real advantages.  Before 1940, it provided a buffer from attack.  That is, there were no planes (as we think of them) and any land between you and an enemy was a deterrent.  An ocean (or straight or channel) was even better than land.
.
Additionally in the economy of the pre-1940s territory brought wealth.  It provide raw materials for industry and a captive population to sell goods to.
.
It was also, in many ways, a measurement of power.  Great Britain had the largest empire on Earth, France the second, etc.  The bigger you were, the less likely you were to be attacked.
.
And there was the low cost of conflict.  The European Empires from about 1500 - 1960 had a remarkable advantage in technology and thus firepower.  Taking territory and exploiting it was (from purely economic stand-point) a money maker.
.
But now, territory is a sucker's game.  Every place has people now.  There was a time when great swathes of land lacked people who were able to keep it as there own.  But now nearly every place is populated.  And no one likes being forcibly incorporated into a different nation.  In fact, the great movement has been in the opposite direction.  South Sudan broke from Sudan, Eritrea broke from Ethiopia, Yugoslavia broke into 8 countries, the Soviet Union into 15.  Countries are now being formed around nationalities in most places (the United States and Canada are happy exceptions to this where nationality is, essentially, "earned").
.

Trying to take territory now just starts wars from the people that have their own idea of nationality.  Even when war isn't an option for the underdog - and there is a good internal reason for trying to appropriate the land (example, the Crimean Peninsula by Russia) - the outcome is ugly.  The Crimea is a money pit for Russia.  They are paying billions for that particular piece of pride.  Just as Israel is paying billions to hold on to the West Bank and the United States is paying billions to try to set borders in the Middle East.
.
No, the new political game is to fight over markets and access rights, without claiming the land.  China is probably the best country at this.  They have agents, agreements and economic projects all over Africa, South East Asia and are moving into Latin America.  No country is countering this.  However, the United States is playing this game in a way.  Whereas China controls their economy, in the United States, corporations drive the economy.  And while the United States government doesn't have agents in Africa or South East Asia, US Corporations certainly do - as do many European Corporations.
.
I think the take away here is that the United States used to be ahead of the curve in political gamesmanship (we forced open Japan for international trade in the 1850s instead of trying to capture it) But now, the government is increasingly stuck in a no win situation where we focus on territory in places with no solution.
.

Corporations are working on opening the world