Geostrategic Review: 15 most powerful countries 2014

Scofflaw · 10-01-2014 12:41am #1

Found this mildly interesting, and not very far from my own impression of the relative capabilities of countries on the world stage.

http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2014/01/european-geostrategy-audit-major-powers-worlds-fifteen-most-powerful-countries-2014/

If the image doesn't show, the top 10 and their strengths are:

Country|Strength|Type
US|100.0|Superpower
UK|48.6|Global Power
France|39.0|Regional Power
China|37.6|Regional Power
Russia|30.3|Regional Power
Japan|20.0|Regional Power
Germany|19.0|Regional Power
Australia|17.6|Regional Power
Canada|1.7|Regional Power
India|15.7|Regional Power

That suggests that the UK is more powerful than China or Russia, which is probably now true - I think familiarity blinds us rather the capabilities of our nearest neighbour, and encourages a rather contemptuous narrative of a 'failing Britain' that thinks much better of itself than it deserves. But the 'strength' figures are as a % of US strength, and the idea of a UK that's pretty much half as strong as the US is almost disturbing.

This review, on the other hand, suggests that the reason the UK thinks of itself as a global power is because it is one, and possibly the most powerful after its major ally the US.

You'd need to read the whole article for the full reasoning behind the ranking, but the reason powers like China and Russia don't come out so well is that their numerically impressive military forces are often poorly equipped, led, and trained, and lack the power to project strength much beyond their borders.

Not sure other people would find the rankings as intuitively likely as I do, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton · 10-01-2014 2:16am

Surprised that Israel is not on the list, considering it is based not on the overall size of armies but on technological, diplomatic and cultural factors, as well as ability to mobilise.

However, surely much if not most of the uks power derives from their "special relationship" with the US, their nuclear capacity is primarily based on trident and their only solo run foreign engagement in recent times was the Falklands.

Iwasfrozen · 10-01-2014 2:45am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However, surely much if not most of the uks power derives from their "special relationship" with the US, their nuclear capacity is primarily based on trident and their only solo run foreign engagement in recent times was the Falklands.

But the very fact they were able to unilaterally project such power on the far side of the globe speaks of the UK's power. Not many other countries could do that.

RDM_83 again · 10-01-2014 3:44am

Stealing part of Bidips comment on the page which seems to have a very valid criticism.
I also wonder about the ranking of the UK in terms of military reach as compared to France as France have shown an ability and a willingness to intervene in conflicts in the 21st century that have not had the USA involved.

Finally, I would like to finish with not so much a criticism as a question: your final ranking has made me raise my eyebrow on more than one occassion (though I admit that it’s hard to substantiate my reasons for this) so, looking for an explanation, I looked at your “full audit” to find that it was rather lacking rather than full. It assigns neat scores to each individual country based on such things as diplomatic influence and military power… but fails to explain why each country was assigned its score. Some of these are outright dubious (Australia has more cultural pull than Germany, Japan and China?) so it would be nice to include an explanatory note next time.

It seems that, in the end, your project was too ambitious. A lack of proper historical investigation means you’ve not proven that population size and GNI don’t matter, you’ve merely affirmed that matters in most cases, barring a large technology gap.

Jelle1880 · 10-01-2014 10:21am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Found this mildly interesting, and not very far from my own impression of the relative capabilities of countries on the world stage.

http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2014/01/european-geostrategy-audit-major-powers-worlds-fifteen-most-powerful-countries-2014/

If the image doesn't show, the top 10 and their strengths are:

Country|Strength|Type
US|100.0|Superpower
UK|48.6|Global Power
France|39.0|Regional Power
China|37.6|Regional Power
Russia|30.3|Regional Power
Japan|20.0|Regional Power
Germany|19.0|Regional Power
Australia|17.6|Regional Power
Canada|1.7|Regional Power
India|15.7|Regional Power

That suggests that the UK is more powerful than China or Russia, which is probably now true - I think familiarity blinds us rather the capabilities of our nearest neighbour, and encourages a rather contemptuous narrative of a 'failing Britain' that thinks much better of itself than it deserves. But the 'strength' figures are as a % of US strength, and the idea of a UK that's pretty much half as strong as the US is almost disturbing.

This review, on the other hand, suggests that the reason the UK thinks of itself as a global power is because it is one, and possibly the most powerful after its major ally the US.

You'd need to read the whole article for the full reasoning behind the ranking, but the reason powers like China and Russia don't come out so well is that their numerically impressive military forces are often poorly equipped, led, and trained, and lack the power to project strength much beyond their borders.

Not sure other people would find the rankings as intuitively likely as I do, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Isn't this wrong ?

I've heard this before and, while no country is on par with the US when it comes to military power, neither of these two are poorly equipped or poorly led.

China gets a lot of it's missile and aircraft technology through Israel who sell them American technology.

Godge · 10-01-2014 11:05am

Can't see a lot to argue with the first few rankings.

UK deserves to be up there, as has been pointed out, it can deploy itself half a world away and take back the Falklands and it is economically powerful. The influence of the City of London on the economic power issue as well as the pulling cultural power over the former colonies are also not to be underestimated.

However, as you go down the list, it would seem to me that some of the limitations of the methodology come to limit its effectiveness.

In particular, putting Canada and Australia ahead of the likes of Iran and Israel is counter-intuitive.

Iran, effectively, has economic resources in the form of oil, it has military resources too, undoubtedly chemical weapons and probably nuclear weapons. It has projected its power half a world away albeit through terrorism, rather than through open methods. Similar arguments can be made about Israel.

North Korea wouldn't make the list because of its need to periodically starve its population to maintain its military might.

Also I would have China closer to the UK with both themselves and Russia ahead of France.

WakeUp · 10-01-2014 11:19am

I would imagine some of the data used to compile the list is really difficult to measure quantitatively as its constantly changing and has to be taken in context. By 2030 China will be the most powerful country on the planet if predicted trends go to plan. They are struggling to find new fresh water supplies and have to import a lot of their food though the figures and trends still suggest they will take over from the States in the next few decades.

Most of the list seems reasonable enough except for Australia not sure how they calculated their position would like to see how they came to that conclusion. I would also put China above Britain. Britain being an island has a distinct advantage in a conventional war. Though throw in a nuclear exchange with say Russia or China and Britain becomes extremely vulnerable & weak with its smaller landmass and dense population centers. Britain may well be able to project its maritime power across the world but what would happen if they sent their navy to take on the Chinese in Chinese waters? Once they arrived they would lose plenty of ships to sunburn missiles and submarines and such and then what. If they used their tridents the Chinese would launch their ICBMs bye bye Britain. USA,China,Britain top three for me China taking second on behalf of its economic might and future potential though lists like these are always relative and need to be taken in context doused in realism when talking of "power".

riffmongous · 10-01-2014 4:03pm

I am also surpised that France only got regional power status, considering how deeply involved France is with sub-saharan africa, how many military deployments have they had there in recent years? There are also french deployments in south america and the pacific http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_French_military

Edit: Ah I see they only missed out for definition reasons, by 1%.

Scofflaw · 10-01-2014 8:47pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Isn't this wrong ?

I've heard this before and, while no country is on par with the US when it comes to military power, neither of these two are poorly equipped or poorly led.

China gets a lot of it's missile and aircraft technology through Israel who sell them American technology.

I think it's the case that what makes China in particular impressive on paper is the sheer numerical size of its armed forces, but the majority of that apparent might is poorly equipped and led - also any case there's virtually no way for China to bring even their better forces, let alone their mass forces, any distance from their mainland. Any attempt to do so could easily be interdicted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

riffmongous · 10-01-2014 8:53pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it's the case that what makes China in particular impressive on paper is the sheer numerical size of its armed forces, but the majority of that apparent might is poorly equipped and led - also any case there's virtually no way for China to bring even their better forces, let alone their mass forces, any distance from their mainland. Any attempt to do so could easily be interdicted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think China's future power will come not from being able to project it's millitary power, which it can't, but projecting it's economic power particularly it's strength in rare earth metals and using it's millitary to defend it's economic position.

Iwasfrozen · 10-01-2014 10:44pm

riffmongous wrote: »

I think China's future power will come not from being able to project it's millitary power, which it can't, but projecting it's economic power particularly it's strength in rare earth metals and using it's millitary to defend it's economic position.

I don't think so, China has huge economic interests in Africa but no way of protecting them.

everdead.ie · 11-01-2014 12:31pm

So essentially going by the list the only other "power" in the same league as the US is the EU but obviously due to language barriers and no doubt a reluctance to work together there would be still be a US advantage?

Scofflaw · 11-01-2014 3:21pm

everdead.ie wrote: »

So essentially going by the list the only other "power" in the same league as the US is the EU but obviously due to language barriers and no doubt a reluctance to work together there would be still be a US advantage?

If we considered the EU as simply the sum of just its major nations, then what we get is the following table:

||Economic Strength|Military Reach|Cultural Pull|Diplomatic Influence|Total Power|Relative Power
1|United States|305.0%|380.0%|145.9%|213.9%|1044.8%|100.0%
2|United Kingdom|85.2%|142.4%|109.9%|170.6%|508.1%|48.6%
3|France|63.9%|126.1%|63.1%|154.0%|407.1%|39.0%
4|China|112.2%|88.7%|48.7%|143.0%|392.6%|37.6%
5|Russia|21.9%|117.7%|26.4%|151.0%|317.0%|30.3%
6|Japan|87.6%|30.5%|45.1%|45.9%|209.1%|20.0%
7|Germany|64.5%|13.2%|51.3%|69.7%|198.7%|19.0%
8|Australia|36.9%|11.5%|79.5%|56.1%|184.0%|17.6%
9|Canada|33.9%|8.0%|73.6%|58.5%|174.0%|16.7%
10|India|25.1%|43.0%|50.6%|45.2%|163.9%|15.7%
11|Italy|36.9%|20.3%|35.4%|48.6%|141.2%|13.5%
12|Spain|30.7%|18.5%|41.6%|48.9%|139.7%|13.4%
13|South Korea|19.1%|11.9%|38.3%|38.4%|107.7%|10.3%
14|Brazil|23.5%|9.8%|29.7%|42.1%|105.1%|10.1%
15|Turkey|8.9%|7.8%|28.2%|35.7%|80.6%|7.7%
16|EU|281.17%|320.28%|301.23%|489.94%|1392.62%|133.29%

If we reduce the military power to zero (not quite accurate, looking at the EU naval force off Somalia), then the overall EU score is 102.64%, which still leaves you with a 'soft' superpower roughly equivalent to the US. Again, I don't think that's inaccurate.

It also allows you to give some idea of the impact of UK withdrawal:

|Economic Strength|Military Reach|Cultural Pull|Diplomatic Influence|Total Power|Relative Power
EU|281.17%|320.28%|301.23%|489.94%|1392.62%|133.29%
EU w/o UK|195.99%|177.94%|191.42%|319.35%|884.70%|84.68%

Very big military impact, obviously, but even without that, the withdrawal of the UK would leave the EU at 67.65% of the US rather than 102.64%, which is a pretty big fall.

With a UK withdrawal, though, the military integration of the EU would likely speed up, and France would probably be willing to be more of a mainstay for the EU. I can't see the US and UK being happy with that situation compared to the current one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry · 13-01-2014 11:22am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However, surely much if not most of the uks power derives from their "special relationship" with the US, their nuclear capacity is primarily based on trident and their only solo run foreign engagement in recent times was the Falklands.

I didn’t fully appreciate the scale of Britain’s military operations before I moved here, but I can see now that I seriously underestimated what a massive part of peoples’ lives the armed forces are. I mean, in Ireland you’ll see the recruitment drives on British TV channels for the Royal Marines, for example, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’ve been surprised by the number of people I’ve met who have family and friends serving (of which they are often fiercely proud) and I was somewhat horrified by the dominance of military life in famous old market towns like Salisbury. Even walking around areas in Central London, like Holborn, for example, an area synonymous with law, you’ll see recruitment stations for the armed forces.

Then there’s the fact that the Ministry of Defence’s budget is absolutely colossal (about £37 billion).

Jonny7 · 13-01-2014 1:26pm

It's all very relative

Measuring "power" is far from an exact science - but yah I would expect these rough results

Again, it's a user submitted site, I would presume someone with a German or French persuasion could produce a similar piece ranking those higher up the scale as they choose to interpret data

Gambas · 13-01-2014 1:38pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we reduce the military power to zero (not quite accurate, looking at the EU naval force off Somalia), then the overall EU score is 102.64%, which still leaves you with a 'soft' superpower roughly equivalent to the US. Again, I don't think that's inaccurate.

The problem is that in the EU there isn't the usual tight relationship between power and the force that can be applied in any one direction. Basically the EU's response to any issue is always less than the sum of its parts because of the various conflicting agenda.

djpbarry · 13-01-2014 2:25pm

Gambas wrote: »

Basically the EU's response to any issue is always less than the sum of its parts because of the various conflicting agenda.

There aren't various "conflicts", there's just the one: the UK versus everyone else.

Gambas · 13-01-2014 3:26pm

djpbarry wrote: »

There aren't various "conflicts", there's just the one: the UK versus everyone else.

That's internal EU politics rather than outward. The French are equally as stubborn/pushy where they have an angle, and pretty much the same goes for every country. Even we can be less than fully supportive depending on how the projection of EU power relates to anything of major importance to us, from beef exports to neutrality.

helimachoptor · 13-01-2014 3:31pm

At this point the uk has no carriers on helicopter transport ships, their attach choppers are generally lynx variants and I think a couple of squadrons on apaches, while yes they'd take back the Falklands even with that I think unless they have a land base near by their struggle to take back anything else.

They also now have to use US tankers to do in flight refuelling as their own as not in service.

Scofflaw · 13-01-2014 4:44pm

Gambas wrote: »

The problem is that in the EU there isn't the usual tight relationship between power and the force that can be applied in any one direction. Basically the EU's response to any issue is always less than the sum of its parts because of the various conflicting agenda.

Sure, although the extent and effect of such disunity varies. With respect to trade and economic weight, for example, that's largely expressed through the EU itself as negotiator, which gives you an outcome closer to potential. On foreign aid I would think the fact that the values being applied generally line up with each other would give something of the same effect.

Diplomatically, and in intelligence work, it's harder to say, although the extent of intel sharing between the Member States seems to be quite large.

Disunity is most obvious and important in the area of foreign policy hard and soft, but I think that when the response is unified (as generally has to be the case before anything happens, it being a veto area) most of the EU's soft power probably gets pointed at the problem.

One could say, of course, that internal differences in any democratic polity always act to reduce the correlation between potential force and applied force - if you have a vocal bunch of US Senators opposed to a US action, that action is likely to apply less force than it otherwise would.

cordially,
Scofflaw

14-01-2014 12:56am

MY RANK
1.US
2.CHINA
3.RUSSIA
4.UK>GERMANY>FRINANCE
5.AUSTRLIA
6.JAPAN

Iwasfrozen · 14-01-2014 1:13am

0958 wrote: »

MY RANK
1.US
2.CHINA
3.RUSSIA
4.UK>GERMANY>FRINANCE
5.AUSTRLIA
6.JAPAN

Why?

14-01-2014 1:20am

Just personal feeling and the trend in 10yrs
Hard to tell exact evidence

Muahahaha · 14-01-2014 1:41am

Some expressed surprise at Australia's position but I think you can't underestimate Australian influence across Asia and the Pacific. China is a major trading partner of theirs but also Japan, India and Malaysia too. Australian mining companies practically run the Indonesian mining industry and they have big influence there too. Apart from all that they are booming economically and they have the US and the UK as key allies as evidenced by their sharing of data on citizens and also the war games they conduct with them every couple of years. Australia is in the lucky position of having the ears of the Americans and British whilst still maintaining large influence across Asia and the Pacific. In geographic terms their reach is huge.

I was also wondering why Saudi Arabia doesn't appear on the list, it deems Spain to be more powerful than them, something I find difficult to believe given the amount of countries in the world, including our own, kiss Saudi ass.

Also what about the power to do something like shut down the Suez Canal ? Theoretically at least Egypt has the power to do something that would send the cost of goods and oil skyrocketing for millions of people, not that I could ever see the Egyptians doing it or anything but in theory they do have that power.

Black Swan · 14-01-2014 2:08am

Although missing part of the necessary complexity in ranking nations, defense spending (2012) by nation is interesting. Defense spending by the United States was extraordinary at 645.7 billion USD at 4.12% GDP, while 2nd place China spends 102.4 billion USD, but only 1.24% GDP.

Manach · 14-01-2014 2:39am

Echoing an earlier poster that Iran is not present. Given its economically strong oil industry, being the most powerful Shia country and the possession of a modern(ist) arsenal with a willingness to use them covertly to support allied elements in neighbouring countries.

Iwasfrozen · 14-01-2014 2:40am

0958 wrote: »

Just personal feeling and the trend in 10yrs
Hard to tell exact evidence

I'd go more towards the US, Japan, the UK and Turkey as the main players in the next ten years. China's a red herring imo they'll never be a super power, they have too many people living in sub Saharan poverty and two very big bubbles (property and pensions) about to blow in their face.

BuilderPlumber · 17-01-2014 2:13am

I'd say the main world powers are: USA, UK, France/Germany/EU, China, Russia.
After that you have powerful regional countries: Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia. Most backed by a superpower.
Then, you have the wannabe powers that are really poor countries pretending to be otherwise (the ones only George W Bush types considered threats): Saddam's Iraq, Ahmadinejad's Iran and of course the only survivor of the set, North Korea. Such entities were poor, could be beaten within a month by a superpower, and had gigantic egos based on nothing. 2014 Iran and Iraq have more realistic views but a moderate, mature and positively involved Iran (Hassan Rouhani wants to take it this direction) definitely has potential to be a future superpower or at least a very major client state (see below).
Then, you have the client states: South Korea, United Arab Emirates, etc. All propped up to surround weak enemies of superpowers (usually of the US) to make sure they remain weak.

Cookie_Monster · 17-01-2014 3:11am

Canada is the surprising one for me; no one ever suspects Canada.

nesf · 17-01-2014 7:36am

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it's the case that what makes China in particular impressive on paper is the sheer numerical size of its armed forces, but the majority of that apparent might is poorly equipped and led - also any case there's virtually no way for China to bring even their better forces, let alone their mass forces, any distance from their mainland. Any attempt to do so could easily be interdicted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Remember, the Soviets were very poorly equipped and trained compared to the Nazi forces. To the point of having combat losses of just over 5:1 in 1943 (operation losses of 3:1) when they were turning the war in their favour!!. Having more "stuff" than the other guy can win you a war so long as you don't care about how big the sacrifice is.

Not that it matters as both have nukes so land forces are pretty irrelevant.

nesf · 17-01-2014 7:40am

Manach wrote: »

Echoing an earlier poster that Iran is not present. Given its economically strong oil industry, being the most powerful Shia country and the possession of a modern(ist) arsenal with a willingness to use them covertly to support allied elements in neighbouring countries.

Much of Iran's problem is that they'd get wiped out very fast in a large scale war with most of the countries on that list mainly because you couldn't fight just one country on that list, you'd be fighting them and many of their friends who are also on that list whilst Iran lacks any big ally to bring as whilst Russia and to a lesser extent China would work against any war with Iran they'd be unlikely to actually go to war with a major power over it.

Geostrategic Review: 15 most powerful countries 2014

Comments