Is Europe Superpower?

barbarian

Regular Member
Messages
221
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
ankara
Ethnic group
hun
I wonder your opinions:

how do you describe super power?
which countrie(s) or union can be considered as superpowered (is EU or germany one of them)?
which countries are local power?
which countries do you think having the potential to be local or superpower?
 
here is what i think (for now).
- super power must have strong army, financial power, minimum 2-3 countries under their authority in all the important regions around the world, natural abundance, intelligence office, media power, a handsome fachism maked up with democrasy, some amount of nationalism, a well organised deep state in the shadow, uniform wealth level in the country, common nationality in the country, knowledge, and historical carier. some jewish people would be good addition (it is a compliment).

- i believe there is only one superpower on earth now, and that is US.
- EU is not superpower since there is too much different countries having different political targets; weak army; high level of democrasy. and the most importantly, they dont have claim or power on other parts of the world.
- Germany cannot be super power since it, in my opinion, has only strong economy and knowledge.
- Russia, Germany, France, UK, Sweden, Australia, India, China, Brasil (thanks to football), Japan and Mexica. are my choices for local powers.
- China has a chance to be superpower. but they are under the invasion of giants of capital which means that they may loose the control of the country, and they have non uniform race distribution which may, together with social unequalities, cause internal chaos.

i believe India has a chance also but not in the close future since they have the similar disadvantages with china. Brasil is my surprise.

Turkey, Khazakistan, Morocco, Nigeria can be local power in the future if they are lucky enough.
 
Last edited:
I don't have much time to give your selections a thought at the moment, but I notice one thing. You're are (a little guess) third Turkish guy that started a thread/or revived old treads (this year), about military might of countries. Makes me wander what this trend means, if anything? Do you have strong public emphasis on military/or military education in Turkey?

If you want to figure out who is a superpower, check GDP of nations. USA is 15 trillion a year, EU is 15 trillion too ( in case of general danger, they can make lots of weapons and rather quickly, and common danger unites too). At about 4 trillion is China, Japan and Germany. Russia is about 2 trillion, but they have lots of nukes, and vast territory.

Modern warfare like WW2 (except nuclear holocaust) basically depends on destroying enemy's equipment faster than they can produce new. Airplanes and tanks will win the war, so will new technology. If enemy can't see you they won't kill you, like better radars and drone plains. Also the bigger the GDP the better the technology. So eventually it comes back to money. Who has more money will win the war. Well, at least statistically speaking, and if their own country is in danger.
 
I don't think that any EU member state can be described as a separate superpower from the EU. All countries are two inter-dependent economically and bound by EU treaties.

The EU is obviously a superpower, and so are the USA, Russia, China and perhaps also India.

India is not a clear superpower for, despite its huge population, its influence on other countries is minor. Contrarily to Russia, India does not have any privileged relationships with countries in its periphery, and actually is in conflict with its main neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I don't see any other country that qualifies as superpower.
 
- super power must have strong army, financial power, minimum 2-3 countries under their authority in all the important regions around the world, natural abundance, intelligence office, media power, a handsome fachism maked up with democrasy, some amount of nationalism, a well organised deep state in the shadow, uniform wealth level in the country, common nationality in the country, knowledge, and historical carier. some jewish people would be good addition (it is a compliment).
crazy

- Russia, Germany, France, UK, Sweden, Australia, India, China, Brasil (thanks to football), Japan and Mexica. are my choices for local powers.
crazy

I do agree with LeBrok. Not claiming other one's territory abroad and therefor low interest for raising a monumental army doesn't mean not beeing able to produce a huge army on time and subsequently becoming a potential superpower.

Ridiculous to see that Brazil (thnks to football) is a local superpower while Turkey (thnks to ****** up football) is not.
 
I don't have much time to give your selections a thought at the moment, but I notice one thing. You're are (a little guess) third Turkish guy that started a thread/or revived old treads (this year), about military might of countries. Makes me wander what this trend means, if anything? Do you have strong public emphasis on military/or military education in Turkey?

If you want to figure out who is a superpower, check GDP of nations. USA is 15 trillion a year, EU is 15 trillion too ( in case of general danger, they can make lots of weapons and rather quickly, and common danger unites too). At about 4 trillion is China, Japan and Germany. Russia is about 2 trillion, but they have lots of nukes, and vast territory.

Modern warfare like WW2 (except nuclear holocaust) basically depends on destroying enemy's equipment faster than they can produce new. Airplanes and tanks will win the war, so will new technology. If enemy can't see you they won't kill you, like better radars and drone plains. Also the bigger the GDP the better the technology. So eventually it comes back to money. Who has more money will win the war. Well, at least statistically speaking, and if their own country is in danger.

This tread is not about military might it is about the definition of superpower. Army is only one of the criteria in my list. but it is one of the most important. it is not about i am turkish or education in turkey, although turkish nations in history have everytime concentrated on strong army and it may be in our genetic structure :disappointed:. Romans, Persians, Ottomans, Japan(?), Germany, UK, Russia, America had all stong army when they were in their primes. It is, for me, a historical fact.

So if you think GDP is the main criteria to decide, why France lost to Germany in WW2 in seconds. why America looks like only power (again, it is my idea) on earth. and why EU trying to create a EU army.

i dont want to focus on only one criteria in this discussion. infact, i didnt think about "what is th superpower" too much before. i just want to learn and have some fun, and i wonder what european people think about EU.
 
Last edited:
France wasn't ready for the war, they just though they were. They also quit after first battle or so. To picture what I really meant look at guys that fought hard to the end. Germany lost when they couldn't produce enough airplanes, tanks and gasoline. Japan fell technologically and was losing airplanes 10-1 at the end, and ships too. US on other hand had 10,000 bombers in Europe and was producing couple ships a day. US and Canada also supplied Russia with food, raw materials, military equipment etc. It is estimated that half of calories consumed by Russian solders in 1944 was from America, and they were still starving. Most likely Russia wouldn't survive without US help.
When I said that GDP makes superpower it was simplification, but it's pretty much right with few exceptions.
 
crazy

crazy

i hope "crazy" has good meaning :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE] Ridiculous to see that Brazil (thnks to football) is a local superpower while Turkey (thnks to ****** up football) is not.[/QUOTE]
that was joke about brazil. i put it there because they have huge natural abundance, dynamic economy, high population etc.

[/QUOTE] Turkey (thnks to ****** up football) [/QUOTE]
??
 
I don't think that any EU member state can be described as a separate superpower from the EU. All countries are two inter-dependent economically and bound by EU treaties.

The EU is obviously a superpower, and so are the USA, Russia, China and perhaps also India.

India is not a clear superpower for, despite its huge population, its influence on other countries is minor. Contrarily to Russia, India does not have any privileged relationships with countries in its periphery, and actually is in conflict with its main neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I don't see any other country that qualifies as superpower.
i dont think Russia is superpower. They just took their armies back from Georgia, when US army came to Black sea. But, they are getting stronger in economy. and their political power on neighboring countries is still high.

I am not sure about China and India but their economy look too foreign- addicted to me.
 
i dont think Russia is superpower. They just took their armies back from Georgia, when US army came to Black sea.
It depends on what you mean by "Georgia". If you mean the same thing as the US and Turkey mean, the Russian troops are there and are not going anywhere in the nearest future. If by "Georgia" you mean the place that Russia and some other countries mean, the Russian troops never planned to occupy it or violate its independency in any form. The presence of foreign troops on the territory that Russia recognizes as Georgia led to the de jure recognition of independency of previously de facto independent from Tbilisi Abkhazia and South Osetia. It the geopolitical sense it was the reply of Russia on the recongnition of the independence of Kosovo by the US&others.
 
It depends on what you mean by "Georgia". If you mean the same thing as the US and Turkey mean, the Russian troops are there and are not going anywhere in the nearest future. If by "Georgia" you mean the place that Russia and some other countries mean, the Russian troops never planned to occupy it or violate its independency in any form. The presence of foreign troops on the territory that Russia recognizes as Georgia led to the de jure recognition of independency of previously de facto independent from Tbilisi Abkhazia and South Osetia. It the geopolitical sense it was the reply of Russia on the recongnition of the independence of Kosovo by the US&others.
although, in my opinion, Russia was completeley right what he had done in that crisis. they went back from georgia (not from osetia) just after US war ships came in black sea, to a port of georgia (first time since 1921 after Montreaux agreement) . However, you seem like more related to russian politics than me, may be i am wrong. but, i know that russia loose control on poland, ukraine, georgia, azerbaican, hungary, and most of its former associates. and they have, now, 100 billion dollar missile system in front of their nose, in poland. and they are almost neighboor with US (Iraq).
 
What's that? You have to write something serious if you want people talk to you seriously.
cool down my friend. i didnt mean anything bad. in contrast, i appreciated what you wrote.

i just want to say US is in Iraq. and so, US almost neighbour with russia.

sorry for my bad english
 
- i believe there is only one superpower on earth now, and that is US.
- EU is not superpower since there is too much different countries having different political targets; weak army; high level of democrasy. and the most importantly, they dont have claim or power on other parts of the world.
- Germany cannot be super power since it, in my opinion, has only strong economy and knowledge.
- Russia, Germany, France, UK, Sweden, Australia, India, China, Brasil (thanks to football), Japan and Mexica. are my choices for local powers.
- China has a chance to be superpower. but they are under the invasion of giants of capital which means that they may loose the control of the country, and they have non uniform race distribution which may, together with social unequalities, cause internal chaos.
i believe India has a chance also but not in the close future since they have the similar disadvantages with china. Brasil is my surprise.
Turkey, Khazakistan, Morocco, Nigeria can be local power in the future if they are lucky enough.

Yeah sure, and Radovan Karadzic will be the next president of the United Nations. :indifferent:

I don't know how any mexican government could be able to control any continent when they aren't even able to control their own nation, btw.

Greetings.
 
Yeah sure, and Radovan Karadzic will be the next president of the United Nations. :indifferent:

I don't know how any mexican government could be able to control any continent when they aren't even able to control their own nation, btw.

Greetings.
its nice to see such a friendly, and sophisticated contributors here.

may be you can also add some serious explanations for what you are trying to say, sir.
 
Well, Lynx made another friend, lol. He never wrote anything positive about Mexico, or Latin America. He thinks they all hate Spain, so he hates them back. That's the explanation. Am I wrong Lynx?
 
Well, LeBrok continues with her harassment towards me. Did I said anything offensive or incorrect about Mexico?

OK. I'll correct myself: Mexico is a future superpower, they don't have any kind of internal security problem, there are no narco groups ruling in the country, Ciudad Juarez get bad press and Robert Rodriguez is the best filmmaker to ever exist.

Are you happy now, Lebrok?
 
The point was to introduce you to our new friends, and show what they can expect from you. Job well done lynx.
 
i dont think Russia is superpower. They just took their armies back from Georgia, when US army came to Black sea. But, they are getting stronger in economy. and their political power on neighboring countries is still high.

I am not sure about China and India but their economy look too foreign- addicted to me.

Russia is not superpower and truly to say I don't think that we need it again in USSR style, then we subsidized half of backward third world countries (including the various dictatorships) for the sake of loyalty, often in own detriment; spent a lot of forces and resources on weapons that were not used, kept in leash Eastern Europe in conflict with their wishes etc... it's all were mistakes.
Modern term "superpower" means the country which constantly pokes own nose into the affairs of other countries, spends billions to maintain puppets around the world, fighting wars over resources. From my point of view it's stupid, I am sure that simple Americans don't care much about situation in the Middle East, Irak or Libya. Normal ordinary people care about their personal prosperity.
The normal country with a sense of dignity should have reasonable military force to protect its own sovereignty from intruders & and various "democratic" noses from the abroad, but not to dictate different sick ideologies around the world like communism or ideology of "forced democratization", wage wars for resources.

There is no sense to occupy Georgia because no one planned it & Georgia by itself is a encumbrance. Yes, encumbrance becasue it's poor country even by the standards of post-Soviet space. Georgia and Central Asia have always been a economic encumbrance for the Soviet Union. Georgia got the hit in the nose for her aggressive actions, nothing more.

As for EU, I think that what Europe need is mutual assistance. When Italy met the problem with influx of immigrants, no one helped. That shows that no one cares really. So that is ridiculous to speak about EU as about superpower.
 

This thread has been viewed 49029 times.

Back
Top