Balance of Power

[Feanor]

My knowledge of most of these countries is marginal to non-existant, so I will comment on the country I know enough to talk about with a degree of authority; Russia.

Several points to keep in mind: the question of the Russian economy stands firm. The Russian economy has seen huge growth, however it still remains unclear whether this is inflated growth of the consumer goods sector funded by record high oil and gas revenues, or genuine economic diversification. The demographics situation is reversing, albeit slowly. While birthrates are rising and very quickly, the death rate is not dropping in the long term. There is also a deficit of specialists in many fields, including the defense industry and the health industry, partially due to low salary, and partially due to the immigration drain and the poor condition of the education system. The Russian military is recovering from the disastarous decade following the collapse of the USSR, however this recovery is also slow and very painful. Until a real re-armament program is in place, rather then small and non-coordinated orders of defense equipment, the changes to the Russian army strength will be fairly minor. Most notably however are the major recenty military exercises especially in the air force area. The number of contract soldiers has been estimated at 30-40% of the military, with a large number of high readyness units formed exclusively from contract soldiers.

plus sides
-large military, capable of sustained operations (to an extent)
-a (mostly) modern tank and armored vehicle fleet
-a strategic airforce
-a blue water capable Navy (though unlikely to be able to deploy more then one task force in a blue water role)
-strategic RLS network

minus sides
-large numbers of conscripts still accepted each year (est. 300 000 annually)
-no comprehensive modernization or procurement programs
-lack of a clear military doctrine
-poor training of troops, especially airforce
-small military budget (given force size)
-corruption

My prediction is that if the Russian economy genuinely diversifies, corruption is dealt with, and the demographic crisis is resolved, then the current efforts (however insignificant in the short term) will lead to a modern, professional, and very large military in the forseeable future.

 

[aricho87]

New Balance of Power

First of all i am no expert, don't claim to be and will never be.
second i have terriable english so give me a brake and do your best reading it!

The balance of power in the global arena is going to change dramatically in the next 2-3 decades. Most importantly we are going to see a major shift of economic power from tradionally western powers to emerging eastern powers. From my point of view, coming from Australia i can see how the world balance of power is changing right before my eye's.

Long has the USA been the worlds most economical and militarily rich country in the world domain, however this dominance is coming to an end.

The vast majority of the USA's power which it derives it's economic power came from it manufacturing ability pre and post WWII. This manufacturing power exploded along with its population after the war, while the vast majority of Europe and Asia were re-building for decades after the war. Due to the fact that the USA came out of the war without any major loss to both population and matarial wise by comparison to the countries throughout europe and asia it gave them a huge head start on the rest of the world.

The USA since WWII and through to the modern day has sustained its domianance by also being one of the most technically effeicent however this domianance is starting to diminish due to the fact that manufacturing can only become so effeicent before economies of scale kicks in and producers(china & india) who can create items for much less will take over in this area of expertise.

The USA has also been the centre stage for all economic activity throughout the world for the last 50 years and the point where by other countries need to trade from is diminishing as the amount of goods produced and the quality increases for a fraction of the price.

Militarily the USA has been superior you could say since the end of WWII and while other major countires had to re-build their economy, the USA had the economy to support the military budget of an imperial power. The USA long built up an armed forces to battle with the soviets or countries of the Eastern block and due to its distance from the battle always had power projections of its forces in mind. This power projection can be seen in a varitey of ways from military bases (Navel, air force and Army Depots) around the world, aircraft carries and the vast naval fleets to satelites that patrol the worlds surfaces. These assests in mind the USA has always been on the front foot, in an offensive mind set, always taking the fight to the enemy.

While the americans have been fighting there regional conflicts around the world, the other emerging major players (china & india) have been developing both their economies and their armed forces. Although india being the worlds 2nd most populous nation and being part of the nuclear club, this country does not seem to be putting its self in any provocative positions that could create a large economic or military confrontation ( apart from minor regional conflicts, ie kashmire).

China on the other hand is being pro-active to becoming the next world superpower and is activily looking at spreading its sphere of influence. China has been active in both the asia pacific region, as well as starting to activily support african nations in re-development and development of raw material industries. It is well known that china has been in the market for a true blue water navy starting with a aircraft carrier, moving its naval force doctrine from brown water navy developed to defend the coast to a navy with power projection elements such as a carrier would provide.

China's modernization of its military will go along way to bring it upto some where close to what the USA currently has, however it will take some time to construct and develop the doctrine needed to maintain and stratagise such a navy.

Based on the economies of scale and how the projections for both the USA and china currently are, the usa and can only adjust and minimise the affect of china's development by moving aside but putting in place elements which retain large amounts of power (ie controlling oil, natural resources, iron ore etc..).

 

[Dutch Nico]

First of all i am no expert, don't claim to be and will never be.
second i have terriable english so give me a brake and do your best reading it!

The balance of power in the global arena is going to change dramatically in the next 2-3 decades. Most importantly we are going to see a major shift of economic power from tradionally western powers to emerging eastern powers. From my point of view, coming from Australia i can see how the world balance of power is changing right before my eye's.

Long has the USA been the worlds most economical and militarily rich country in the world domain, however this dominance is coming to an end.

The vast majority of the USA's power which it derives it's economic power came from it manufacturing ability pre and post WWII. This manufacturing power exploded along with its population after the war, while the vast majority of Europe and Asia were re-building for decades after the war. Due to the fact that the USA came out of the war without any major loss to both population and matarial wise by comparison to the countries throughout europe and asia it gave them a huge head start on the rest of the world.

The USA since WWII and through to the modern day has sustained its domianance by also being one of the most technically effeicent however this domianance is starting to diminish due to the fact that manufacturing can only become so effeicent before economies of scale kicks in and producers(china & india) who can create items for much less will take over in this area of expertise.

The USA has also been the centre stage for all economic activity throughout the world for the last 50 years and the point where by other countries need to trade from is diminishing as the amount of goods produced and the quality increases for a fraction of the price.

Militarily the USA has been superior you could say since the end of WWII and while other major countires had to re-build their economy, the USA had the economy to support the military budget of an imperial power. The USA long built up an armed forces to battle with the soviets or countries of the Eastern block and due to its distance from the battle always had power projections of its forces in mind. This power projection can be seen in a varitey of ways from military bases (Navel, air force and Army Depots) around the world, aircraft carries and the vast naval fleets to satelites that patrol the worlds surfaces. These assests in mind the USA has always been on the front foot, in an offensive mind set, always taking the fight to the enemy.

While the americans have been fighting there regional conflicts around the world, the other emerging major players (china & india) have been developing both their economies and their armed forces. Although india being the worlds 2nd most populous nation and being part of the nuclear club, this country does not seem to be putting its self in any provocative positions that could create a large economic or military confrontation ( apart from minor regional conflicts, ie kashmire).

China on the other hand is being pro-active to becoming the next world superpower and is activily looking at spreading its sphere of influence. China has been active in both the asia pacific region, as well as starting to activily support african nations in re-development and development of raw material industries. It is well known that china has been in the market for a true blue water navy starting with a aircraft carrier, moving its naval force doctrine from brown water navy developed to defend the coast to a navy with power projection elements such as a carrier would provide.

China's modernization of its military will go along way to bring it upto some where close to what the USA currently has, however it will take some time to construct and develop the doctrine needed to maintain and stratagise such a navy.

Based on the economies of scale and how the projections for both the USA and china currently are, the usa and can only adjust and minimise the affect of china's development by moving aside but putting in place elements which retain large amounts of power (ie controlling oil, natural resources, iron ore etc..).

Bravo bravo m8

I really enjoyed reading this in my opinion is this on of the best views i have ever readed about topic's like this

But i do have one quistion about your good story, where do you put europa and russia i really would like to see what you think about that because if the answare is just as good as this one than i suggest to write a book because its really good this story well done m8

Greetz Dutchnico

 

[aricho87]

Hahaha well since i went into the detail with the Asia - pacific region i didn't really focus on Europe. But for the sake of your reply i will briefly go into it now.

I would say that this opinion of mine about the direction of europe would not be shared by many of you but i do think that europe will gradually loose its power both economically and militarily.

Europes power has in the past been due to the fact that basically every colonial power came from europe before the 19th Century and there sphere of influence engolfed the whole world. Namely Great Britian and her commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Pakistan, India, South Africa, Large proportions of Africa and some experiences in South America), Germany ( throughout Africa), France (indo china, pacific islands and portions of Africa, Canada). These 3 major's and other contries such as russia, portugal, spain and the danish all had colonies across the globe and much of their power went into bringing the resources of these countries back to the mother land. Due to the fact the political and economic structures were so developed before the 19th century this is where the european nations gain and retain their power from.

Europe and its many countries have always raised large armies and navies inparticular to defend its colonies abroad. however due to the indipendence of these colonies and european countries interests overseas there has been a large swing away from military spending and a greater focus on developing their economies to be as efficent as possible. The european nations armies have only been slightly developed by comparison to the past to satisfy the US that the european countries were contributing the NATO.

The sole reason have decreased the importance of europe in the balance of world power is due to the fact that for every developed european nation their is a country in asia with twice the population and develop to the same standard. A vast majority of the worlds trade already lays in the Asia pacific and this will only increase with the increasing middle class ( of china's 1.2 billion only something like 300million are classed as middle class).

Now to Russia, i have mixed opinion's on russia as i think they are still in a transition period in their progress from communism to a fully fledged democracy. I hold hope for russia as i believe they could once again become a dominate nation on the world stage. They have such a vast country which is most likely to be rich in natural resources, however cold it may be. They have established institutions, schools, education and hospitals which with foreign intervention and government investment can become the backbone of the country.

Militarily, russia has a decaying navy which can be contributed to cost cutting and inferrior workmanship caused by government red tape throughout the 80's and 90's. The russian air force has probably been the least affected of all the services, however its force structure does need to be revamped to bring it up to date to fight a modern air war ( electronic warfare planes, airforce oil tankers, transport planes and command & control planes). The russian army which has always played the numbers game of completely overwheelming the enemy has decreased and probably needs to continue this trend and decrease the number of conscripts to create a more professional army, highly trained and skilled.

Of all the major players russia is the hardest to predict because they have both so much potential and there is so much political and economic turmoil.

 

[Chrom]

Ha
Of all the major players russia is the hardest to predict because they have both so much potential and there is so much political and economic turmoil.

Russia have much left-over goodies from USSR time, but relatively low (by Asian super-powers standards) population will not allow it to compete with them. Same fate await US - but US is in much better position, being richer from start and with twice population in the end. Still US population do not reach China or India level. However, Western block as whole can certainly compete with any of future Asian super-powers.

Russia alone cant, and will either join one of existing powers or most likely remains independent power of smaller scale.

On general scale, the proliferation of internet and remote education will allow poor countries to introduce decent education level for everyone, broadly competing with 1st-world education.

 

[JHC]

one question here thu, u speak about natural resources etc, but what i think is that it wont be so important in the future, cause if you look back 30 years ago, i dont think they how lived back then could imagining all the stuffs we have today. i mean gas, oil etc mighty not play a big part in 20-30 years cause of new inventions. but this is clearly a interesting subject, but i dont totally agree with you when it comes to Europe, and i cant really explain why atm.

It is requested that you (& everyone else) use proper writing & avoid using shortcut internet chat words. I.e. Write "You" instead of 'U", "Though" instead of "Though." Thank you!

-SABRE

 

[Atilla [TR]]

:dbanana

Tibet and Turkestan independence have no future.. The West don't care enough to go to war with China.

No body does not need to declare war with China have you seen the population difference in those areas? Chinese are heavily outnumbered and all that stands there are military units. Tibet I have to say has no good reason to leave China's hands, there is no natural resources in Tibet does not border any sea and oceans, only thing going for them is if neighboring countries help, which does not seem possible by how much those neighboring countries rely on China. Turkestan is very different there is lots of Oil there, and there are Turkic countries that span all the way to Europe that could help and prepare for war. While I do not see the latter happening if anything happens to the Turks there then they would.

 

[quillin]

I didn't read all the stuff in here, just the first post but i understand the question you are all asking here.

Anayway, the balance of power. I, and the geopolitical analysist that i know, had this discussion a while ago. We rather think that, military speaking, the balance of power will be shifted and that we will have NATO opposite of the SCO (Shanghai traiding organistation). Basicly, when it comes to superpowers we think that the USA will remain a decent superpower on the NATO side and Russia and China on the SCO side. India is bit of a doubt. It is neutral but a observing member of the SCO. They tend to Russian side but I think they remain largly neutral in the whole thing.

 

[aricho87]

one question here thu, u speak about natural resources etc, but what i think is that it wont be so important in the future, cause if you look back 30 years ago, i dont think they how lived back then could imagining all the stuffs we have today. i mean gas, oil etc mighty not play a big part in 20-30 years cause of new inventions. but this is clearly a interesting subject, but i dont totally agree with you when it comes to Europe, and i cant really explain why atm.

I strongly disagree with that statement and would like to give you some examples of the importance of natural resources and the importance they have.

Over the last 30 years there has been one region in constant disputes and conflict. Middle east, the middle east has been the largest supplier of petrolium products for well over 40 years and there has been a number of small and large conflicts faught in the region to control those products. From what i've heard in 1973 the world reached a point where by it had already consumed well over 50% of the worlds supply of petrolium, while it only hit peak production in the early 1980's. So the amount of petrolium which is left to the worlds economy is becoming more and more scarce, hence america's willingness to go to war with Iraq twice in 15 years. America of all countries understands the importance of controlling this limited asset as it is still the worlds largest consumer of petrolium.

Coming from my bias opinion, since i'm from Australia, i'd say its importance in the world economy is going to increase further and further as we are the leading producer of iron ore and a few other resources. Aus has seen increasing ties with china which is well away from the cold war climate of isolation from eastern block countries. China depends on Aus for its thirst for iron ore, as do many other nations but nothing as heavily as the chineese do.

In my opinion the importance of these natural resouces will only increase with the limited supply of them increasing only becoming more apparant. Synthetic products will be made to replace these but for the forseeable future the world economy will revolve around these.

With Europe i know its hard to put your finger on one position with them, but their revelence on the global economy will only decrease with the rise of the asian countires, they will continue to however be a player in the financial world so should have some revelence in the future of the world economy.

 

[Feanor]

World oil supply estimates are higher then ever right now. Oil trade will be a major part but oil won't be scarce for some time.

 

[flyboyEB]

I have to disagree with what some people are saying about Australia becoming an important regional power. Which region? If you mean the Pacific, then yes, we already are and will be for a long time. But I doubt Australia will become a power in S.E Asia, simply because we don't have the population and we're quite a distance from the rest of the region. Unless we get a government which starts a military build up that would make the USSR proud (introduce conscription, spend a lot more on defence and increase the size of the Australian Defence Force tenfold) we're not a major military power in a region full of Vietnam, China, India and Japan, who have massive militaries. Not to say Australia can't look after itself, but we're not going to try to muscle in on large countries that are a long way away.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I have to disagree with what some people are saying about Australia becoming an important regional power. Which region? If you mean the Pacific, then yes, we already are and will be for a long time. But I doubt Australia will become a power in S.E Asia, simply because we don't have the population and we're quite a distance from the rest of the region. Unless we get a government which starts a military build up that would make the USSR proud (introduce conscription, spend a lot more on defence and increase the size of the Australian Defence Force tenfold) we're not a major military power in a region full of Vietnam, China, India and Japan, who have massive militaries. Not to say Australia can't look after itself, but we're not going to try to muscle in on large countries that are a long way away.

To be fair Japan, China and India lack the power projection capability to be considered major SEA's powers. They are south and north aisian powers presently. Vietnam, allthough huge, again lacks technological sophoistocation and expeditionary capability. When compared to the rest of South East Aisa proper (rather than South or North Aisa) like Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phlipines, Buruni and Singapore (maybe Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos & Burma/Mynmar if you want to go north), Australia could definatly be considered a major South East Asian power as it stands now, with only Singapore being comperable in agregate capability. Only the major Aisian powers are superior.

 

[flyboyEB]

To be fair Japan, China and India lack the power projection capability to be considered major SEA's powers. They are south and north aisian powers presently. Vietnam, allthough huge, again lacks technological sophoistocation and expeditionary capability. When compared to the rest of South East Aisa proper (rather than South or North Aisa) like Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phlipines, Buruni and Singapore (maybe Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos & Burma/Mynmar if you want to go north), Australia could definatly be considered a major South East Asian power as it stands now, with only Singapore being comperable in agregate capability. Only the major Aisian powers are superior.

True that. If the definition of S.E Asia doesn't include China or the other big militaries then I guess Australia is a regional power. But do we have 'power projection' capability in South East Asia anyway? The new Canberra Class could surely help a fair bit in that respect in the near future

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

True that. If the definition of S.E Asia doesn't include China or the other big militaries then I guess Australia is a regional power. But do we have 'power projection' capability in South East Asia anyway? The new Canberra Class could surely help a fair bit in that respect in the near future

We definatly do out as far as singapore, and if the navys wish list is met significantly beyond that. The question is do we count as an SE Asion nation? geographically i believe we do.

 

[Chino]

The question of actual capability of power projection aside, there is the historical williness of Australia to "power project" as far as the Asian region is concerned.

WW2, Emergency, Korean War, Vietnam War, Timor etc...

You can even say there is a certain expectation for Australia to continue in this regional role.

OTOH Singapore does not play this role well no matter how huge our military become.

Besides the problem of ours being a conscript army, I sense there are other political, historical, racial sensitivities that prevents Singapore from being acknowledged - or accepted - as a regional power by others in the region.

 

[flyboyEB]

Besides the problem of ours being a conscript army, I sense there are other political, historical, racial sensitivities that prevents Singapore from being acknowledged - or accepted - as a regional power by others in the region.

Malaysia in particular?

 

[Chino]

Malaysia in particular?

Ironically...

Malaysia actually treat their ethnic Chinese population better (compared to Indonesia and Philippines). And culturally and historically Singapore and Malaysia have a lot of common grounds.

Politically we have more problems with Malaysia but this is simply because we are geographically too close to each other.

 

[ArmyAmy]

This is a question no-one really knows the answer too really... But heres my thoughts,

The US although important will not be in the spotlight, It can't keep going the way it is and because of the way its put itself economically (with the predicted recesion and all not saying it will happen though).

Europe, hello power, Europe in my eyes are the winds of change setting the example on how a united union can function although it may have some hard slog correcting its mistakes and others mistakes and will probably be expected to take up the slack on international peacekeeping etc.

Africa although will not rise at all it will become more dominatn in internal affairs (African Union etc.) and will probably right itself and put it on the path to that of the model of the EU.

The middle East will become like south East asia after vietnam forgotten (not saying it will be either richer or poorer though).

South America will keep going the way its going although it will probably develop its own industrial capability.

China will become the big bad enemy of the west, I think Russia and china have a lot to talk about, Im not saying that there will be another cold war put it will come close, I also see china loosing its economic prosperity as more and more countries realise they cannot depend on china for everything especially if it decides I dont like you one day.

Just my 2 c

Are you clairvoyant? You may have read my mind. I think it will take Africa ears to realize its full potential and independence but I do see it on the horizon. And China yeah ditto they will probably remain a major manufacturing hub but they wont be the world only super manufacturer. As any good business man know you don't put all your eggs in one basket especially if the basket was made in china ;-)

 

[IrishHitman]

If the EU Reform (Lisbon) Treaty is passed, the EU is set to become a military superpower. The Treaty sets common foreign and security policy, and even goes so far as to insure that military buildup of Europe happens.
The EU will be even more powerful than China, for many reasons, chief among them being technical and economic ability, as well as the threat of a rearming and latently hostile Russia to the East.
So, in my opinion, the focus will not shift entirely to Asia.

As for Asia, India has the impressive military support of BOTH the US and Russia in terms of purchase of equipment, although it still remains closer to Russia at the moment. Given enough time and under the right circumstances, the China-India-Pakistan situation could spiral out of control, and the West knows it.

China cannot even take Taiwan without resorting to nuclear arms, because of the sheer uselessness of their navy. Although it would be foolish to discount them entirely, I don't see them ever becoming top superpower while their economy relies completely and utterly on the West.

Frankly, I don't see the EU-US relations souring into utter rivalry unless a serious confrontation happens. Mind you, the US media is very anti-EU, claiming that the EU will take away the US's current position as "world-leader". Which is, of course, typical of them, but the US doesn't exactly get much praise in the press over here either.

The African Union and the European Union have very close links as it is, and I foresee alot more cooperation between the two in future.

 

[Chino]

...the EU is set to become a military superpower.
The EU will be even more powerful than China...

It is ridiculous compare military power of EU vs China.

Furthermore, irregardless of how many pieces of paper is signed, EU will always be made up of many different countries, each with their own private and possibly conflicting agendas.

But even NATO has become a bit of a lame duck post-Cold War. EU a military power? In theory, maybe...

As for Asia, India has the impressive military support of BOTH the US and Russia in terms of purchase of equipment,

Unfortunately, "impressive military support" sometimes changes.... absolutely nothing. (Reference South Vietnam.)

China cannot even take Taiwan without resorting to nuclear arms, because of the sheer uselessness of their navy.

Oh, you mean China has ACTUALLY invaded Taiwan and failed?

C'mon... even the Taiwanese are not as confident and they would know better than you? Wouldn't they?

In fact, how much do you think you know about the actual history and political cat-and-mousing that both of them are playing?

There are at least A HUNDRED THOUSAND Taiwanese living and working in Shanghai alone as we speak. The figure quoted is usually much higher.

Does this look like a state of war?

In fact, both China and Taiwan are practically on the way to re-unification in everything but name.

So the fact that an invasion hasn't occurred is maybe because they are NOT in a hurrry to kill each other - nothing to do with actual military capabilities or otherwise.

And it would take a Kilkenny or Guinness Stout-guzzling Irishman a very long time and you still WON'T understand the exact nature of what's going on between the two.

Although it would be foolish to discount them entirely, I don't see them ever becoming top superpower while their economy relies completely and utterly on the West.

Yes, very foolish indeed.

One thing is very clear: China KNOWS it is not liked by the west. And that China must have enough military clout to make sure this discrimination does not get expression beyond a few pathetic protests here and there etc.

But top superpower?

They will never be that strong, number one... and two, I don't think they have that desire.