Britain is STILL the world’s second most powerful nation!

[nahtanbob]

False. Russia became far more efficient after dissolution of USSR. USSR could not have been dissolved without the help of Russian nationalists such as Boris Yeltsin who restored the Russian tricolor.

The dissolution of USSR is secondary. the loss of influence over Eastern Europe and other 3rd world states is primary

Tu-160 launching cruise missile will give fast response precision strike global projection. It's global reach cannot be denied. Same as China H-6K bomber

no one has won a war firing conventional warheads on missiles
Hitler fired thousands of V-2s at Britain

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

The dissolution of USSR is secondary. the loss of influence over Eastern Europe and other 3rd world states is primary

Maybe. That's your opinion.

 

[nahtanbob]

Maybe. That's your opinion.

cold war started when USSR imposed its hegemony over Eastern Europe
that ain't an opinion

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

cold war started when USSR imposed its hegemony over Eastern Europe
that ain't an opinion

No one can impose hegemony without empire.

 

[nahtanbob]

No one can impose hegemony without empire.

hegemony was fine. the grotesque ideology and suppression of national aspirations was the problem

 

[Dante80]

cold war started when USSR imposed its hegemony over Eastern Europe
that ain't an opinion

To be more precise, the cold war started with the "Long Telegram" that led to the Truman doctrine (that led to the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Blockade etc etc). The origins for this had more to do with the situation in Iran post-war and the promises that Stalin broke, than with what happened in Eastern Europe (that had already been duly divided into spheres of influence).

We are wildly off-topic though..

Btw. With regards to the subject at hand. Instead of reading the Sun article, it is far more interesting to read the actual report that the article cites. I'll link it below, it provides some useful data and shows the way the audit is weighed to produce the results.

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-...dit-of-Geopolitical-Capability-Report-web.pdf

Case in point:.

 

[nahtanbob]

To be more precise, the cold war started with the "Long Telegram" that led to the Truman doctrine (that led to the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Blockade etc etc). The origins for this had more to do with the situation in Iran post-war and the promises that Stalin broke, than with what happened in Eastern Europe (that had already been duly divided into spheres of influence).

We are wildly off-topic though..

you are partly right Soviets controlled Eastern Europe one way or the other. it is the threat of future Soviet actions that led to the cold war

To be more precise, the cold war started with the "Long Telegram" that led to the Truman doctrine (that led to the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Blockade etc etc). The origins for this had more to do with the situation in Iran post-war and the promises that Stalin broke, than with what happened in Eastern Europe (that had already been duly divided into spheres of influence).

We are wildly off-topic though..

Btw. With regards to the subject at hand. Instead of reading the Sun article, it is far more interesting to read the actual report that the article cites. I'll link it below, it provides some useful data and shows the way the audit is weighed to produce the results.

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-...dit-of-Geopolitical-Capability-Report-web.pdf

I skimmed through the report. The methodology was interesting. I will have more comments once I read it thoroughly

 

[Tshering22]

you are partly right Soviets controlled Eastern Europe one way or the other. it is the threat of future Soviet actions that led to the cold war

I skimmed through the report. The methodology was interesting. I will have more comments once I read it thoroughly

Tell me something; as an American, do you really see Britain having any meaningful security role in the upcoming future, given the face that we are headed towards a multipolar world?

In a world where Russia, China and USA are major powers while regional powers like Japan, Germany, India, France, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey etc. are capable of holding on their own, where do you see Britain's relevance as a major force projecting country?

 

[Dante80]

To provide a personal summary, the reports' conclusion is flawed in my opinion, especially as far as countries like China are concerned. There are some reasons for this.

1. Data availability for a factor and a certain country when it is not obtained is not measured as a predictive mean among the G-20 countries, but is simply discarded. This skews the results. For example, China shows one of the lowest cultural prestige scores in the G-20 due to said unavailability of data (stemming from an inevitable reliance in western sources). You can find the omissions of data listed in the E. section of the report (China has the most).

2. Some of the factors are measured from subjective or incomplete sources. For example military force projection is weighed by using "Jane’s Fighting Ships 2018 edition". Another example, sporting attainment gives the same weight between a country's' FIFA ranking and its Olympic Medal production.

3. The weighing of the factors (as shown in fig2 above) is somewhat controversial, because we are specifically assessing Geopolitical capability. For example, when you weigh economic clout and military prowess at the same 15% percent as cultural prestige, you are skewing the results.

 

[nahtanbob]

Tell me something; as an American, do you really see Britain having any meaningful security role in the upcoming future, given the face that we are headed towards a multipolar world?

In a world where Russia, China and USA are major powers while regional powers like Japan, Germany, India, France, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey etc. are capable of holding on their own, where do you see Britain's relevance as a major force projecting country?

read the report
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-...dit-of-Geopolitical-Capability-Report-web.pdf