Yes, and no matter how you twist and turn it, long range wars are less interesting than border wars. And if you're so locked by your own diplomacy that you can't find wars unless you travel half the continent first, then you have to take the downsides as well. You already get the massive advantage of your borders being safe, what more do you want?
And civil dissent if your war isn't popular.
Because, you know, players are capable of doing something against rulers that are boring them? We don't need the game to tutor us with every little thing we do, forcing us to do it a particular way every single time?
Border wars are *typically* more interesting than long-range wars. Not always. If you declare war on your neighbor just because you can, instead of on someone far away because of historical/cultural/religious issues, there are good odds that you can make that long-distance war a lot more interesting than you could make that border war. And sometimes, someone's only neighbors (if they have more than one) are all vastly stronger to them: there's no fun in committing blatant suicide, just because it's more convenient to fight closer than it is farther. To penalize long-distance wars purely because they are long-distance is to make unfun some wars that would have otherwise been fun, quite possible more fun than the alternative.
There is plenty people can do IG against people that are preventing them from having fun. We don't need the game to take our hand every step of the way.
