Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54

Thread: Is Russia still a key world power?

  1. #16
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    A country that covers two continents is by definition a world power. Otherwise, Poland and China would have had borders at the Urals.
    Chimo

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    A country that covers two continents is by definition a world power. Otherwise, Poland and China would have had borders at the Urals.
    The case of Great Britain doesn't support that stance. Britain is an island, yet it was able to create global empire. It is the drive that counts.

  3. #18
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Versus View Post
    The case of Great Britain doesn't support that stance. Britain is an island, yet it was able to create global empire. It is the drive that counts.
    The ability to fight two offensive wars in two different regions on the earth is by definition a world power.
    Chimo

  4. #19
    Contributor cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 12
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    633
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The ability to fight two offensive wars in two different regions on the earth is by definition a world power.
    Russia is not able to do this today. The US is the only country with that ability left standing.

  5. #20
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Russia can't take on China, the Ukraines, and Iran?
    Chimo

  6. #21
    Colonist Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    02 Mar 08
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Versus View Post
    The case of Great Britain doesn't support that stance. Britain is an island, yet it was able to create global empire. It is the drive that counts.
    You're mixing two very different thing. Britain as a political system didn't provide the drive. It gave license to a company that gave it drive. I.E Private enterprise. The RN basically became defacto guarantor of the governments licenses. Things happened along the way that changed things, but yeah. Comapanies are companies, and basically what we bash the British for way back when, companies still do today, where they can.
    Ego Numquam

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,413
    There’s some interesting ideas being kicked around here, for which I thank the contributors.

    Not necessarily a nation-state? So, does that make Islam or Buddhism a Superpower?

    Two oceans? Does that make Mexico a Superpower? How about five Central American bi coastal nations, or Colombia? Where does South Africa fit in, or Egypt?

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    There’s some interesting ideas being kicked around here, for which I thank the contributors.

    Not necessarily a nation-state? So, does that make Islam or Buddhism a Superpower?
    More like EU and their soft power.

    Two oceans? Does that make Mexico a Superpower? How about five Central American bi coastal nations, or Colombia? Where does South Africa fit in, or Egypt?
    It was two continents, but oh well, Turkey?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    There’s some interesting ideas being kicked around here, for which I thank the contributors.

    Not necessarily a nation-state? So, does that make Islam or Buddhism a Superpower?

    Two oceans? Does that make Mexico a Superpower? How about five Central American bi coastal nations, or Colombia? Where does South Africa fit in, or Egypt?
    Islam yes, Buddhism no.

    Current system of global economy, by my humble opinion, is just a improved version of British colonial/imperial system. The only difference is that role of the enforcer has been given to the US military, but the benefactors are the same as they were during the 19th century, aka international corporations and banks. All that has been merged into one system, one entity that has one ideology, which is globalization, where borders and state sovereignty has no meaning and the emphasis is on free movement of capital and goods.

    While studying British foreign policy, I was amazed to find out, how much influence the private corporations had back than. Actually I was amazed that something that most of the people think, at least here, that the global conglomerates and corporations are the things of 20th and 21st century, actually existed in the 15th century. Seen like that, British empire looks more like a company than as state or super power. That is strongly reflected in the travel journals that I had to read in order to complete the autopsy study, the way how British voyagers describe the world that they are traveling trough and the language used in those descriptions is fascinating. They sound like inventory lists without any poetic or romantic description. No culture, no history, no people, just how much something is present, where it is present and in which quantity. Also when they travel and when they deal with the culture, the language is like an user manual for governing that country and its people. Where ever they go there is that, sense of detachment and the rationale that always has that functionalism attached to it.
    If there is any consolation in this, American descriptions of the world sound like C++ lines of code.

    There are two global processes currently in the world that aim to create global dominance. One is globalization and other one is Islamisation and they are in conflict with one another. First one has the means but its spiritual ideology is close to zero, as it tends to reduce everything to functionality,while other one has the strong spiritual drive but no means, rather than pure biological expansion, to achieve its goal. Its like robot vs biology, or Protos vs Zerg from Star craft. Or to put it more simply, ideology vs religion, faith vs reasoning.
    Last edited by Versus; 21 Feb 16, at 11:24.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,607
    Oblivion is a interesting movie to watch, as it has many subliminal messages attached to it. Here is my whacked review of that movie.

    Tom Cruise is a clone,aka the new age man, (American), guided by the wise woman whom has a British accent and they represent that bond of Anglo Saxon narrative. They are all govern by the machine in space, that has pyramid shape, which represents free masons and their ideology. Than there is a sleeping beauty that falls from space, which is Russia, as the girl has the Russian accent. Russia falling from space, represents its desire to be accepted by the West, a stride that it always had but was constantly denied. The shattered moon represents the conflict with Islam. The outcasts, are the Catholics whom give "the soul" to the American clone, which than goes and destroys its maker (self sacrifice which is the Jesus theme) and frees the world. Outcasts than go and settle in Russia as it is the only place that has been preserved and suitable for life after the war between globalists and Islam.

    Considering the current state of affairs, I would say that script hasn't been off, by much.

    Needles to say, the wave of Zombie movies and Games, can be seen as a prelude to migrant crisis. Compare any zombie movie with any migrant footage from news and you will see striking similarity. Coincidence?
    Last edited by Versus; 21 Feb 16, at 11:50.

  11. #26
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Two oceans? Does that make Mexico a Superpower? How about five Central American bi coastal nations, or Colombia? Where does South Africa fit in, or Egypt?
    What was the American response against the Atlantic for KATRINA?
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 21 Feb 16, at 16:01.
    Chimo

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,607
    A small add on to my "expose". Every monotheistic religion is by default expansionist and intolerant to other cultures and religions. Buddhism is a polytheistic and that is why it has the biggest chance of survival in the coming years.

  13. #28
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Kublai Khan was a Buddhist.
    Chimo

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
    You're mixing two very different thing. Britain as a political system didn't provide the drive. It gave license to a company that gave it drive. I.E Private enterprise. The RN basically became defacto guarantor of the governments licenses. Things happened along the way that changed things, but yeah. Comapanies are companies, and basically what we bash the British for way back when, companies still do today, where they can.
    How profitable was Ireland - Britain's first subject nation? I thought it mainly served to sustain the British feudalism. What about usurpation of common lands and evictions of people who depended on it, Highland clearances, etc that provided so many foot-soldiers, settlers, administrators and finally champions of the empire? Didn't they serve the immediate economic needs and security of the British political system? Why were most upper-field and flag ranks of the East India Company army even in late 1700s filled with men who held British Army commissions? Didn't that give the Horse Guards de facto command and control over the military progress of the "commercial" empire in Asia?

    The British Empire being an "accidental empire" won by aggressive commercial activities is a convenient fiction; it was fueled as much by domestic political system and hunger for resources as any empire before or since. 19th C British historians and educators often wrote about the Roman Republic growing into Empire driven by the Patricians gobbling up smaller farmers' holdings, depressing wages with foreign slavery and the small farmers being forced to enlist as professional soldiers in hopes of getting a piece of conquered land in Spain or N. Africa or Dalmatia ... I wonder how much of it was code for what was actually happening in their own country.

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by Versus View Post
    Seen like that, British empire looks more like a company than as state or super power.
    It depends on the time period. Between 1820-50, the British East India Company behaved more like a state than a company -- taking so many actions driven by political impulses than profit motive, that the company finally collapsed and had to be "bought out" by the British government in 1857.

    We all love to talk about "corporate citizenship" and all, but no real company lets those activities affect its worker productivity and market growth. By embedding Christian missionaries into its factories, plantations and army units, and allowing them to convert people -- EIC subverted its line and unit cohesion, and tainted the brand image of its products (since the market associated Christians of being indiscriminate eaters of beef and pork - abhorrent to Hindus and Muslims).

    Companies love keeping a small payroll, minimum salaries and prefer to pay for performance -- in this time period, the EIC army was doing exactly the opposite. Regular battalions started getting 20+ European (i.e. expensive) officers, while irregular units were performing very well with just 3-4 European officers; it became more like a government make-work program than a profit-driven enterprise. The EIC army also stopped paying out bata (field service bonus), and rationalized on a uniform pay system (that ossified bureaucracies love).

    Good companies also know when to keep off micro-managing their smaller supply-chain partners, and here the EIC behaved more like an early modern nation-state trying to break its feudatories than a global conglomerate. It instituted the Doctrine of Lapse, whereby the management of the minor principalities lapsed to the EIC when the ruler died without a son.

    All these actions combined to catalyze the Sepoy Mutiny / the First War of Indian Independence in 1857. The EIC went bankrupt, and British crown troops has to be rushed in to suppress the rebellion and old Vicky officially became the Empress. This whole period can be a MBA seminar on "How not to Run Your Business Empire into the Dust 101".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. NATO / Russia military power and nuclear weapons
    By citanon in forum International Politics
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 14 Apr 14,, 22:24
  2. Ahmadinajad Calls Iran Number One World Power
    By Walking Dead in forum International Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01 Mar 08,, 18:13
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09 Jan 08,, 21:49
  4. Russia is building up its power on feet of clay
    By Ray in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 Sep 07,, 06:09
  5. Future World Power?
    By Yanez in forum International Economy
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08 Mar 05,, 05:16

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •