6 ms·

I can understand America and China being the only two realistic options for a superpower at the moment. What I don't understand is the idea that the EU as a su

by Bakary 4y ago

I can understand America and China being the only two realistic options for a superpower at the moment. What I don't understand is the idea that the EU as a superpower is less plausible than Russia?

saltcured 4y ago
I can't speak for the earlier commenter, but I think there is a large gap between what the EU does today and what it would need to do to be a "superpower". It is left to our imaginations to guess at such a future, and so disagreements may just stem from different imagined scenarios. I don't think the US would be a superpower if the treaties, tariffs, and military control were parceled out to the individual states and each state governor and state assembly decided when to work as a block and when to act independently.
anon9384929 4y ago
It can’t even keep its most important members in. European pride will be its downfall. When asked, Americans are Americans first, then whatever state they come from second. Europeans are whatever state they come from first, European second. Most European countries haven’t seen per capita GDP growth since the beginning of the millennium. They’d rather preserve their “culture” than compete and survive, and it’s starting to show up in the data.
- Bakary 4y ago
  I understand that the EU is a poor candidate to be a superpower. But how can it be a worse candidate than Russia, which can't even control Ukraine?
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    To be fair, I've been making that comment since well before the Ukraine invasion, I may have to update it...
disgruntledphd2 4y ago
It's just not where the EU is right now. I was at an EU young people summit almost twenty years ago now, and I pointed out that the EU would need an army to stop future genocides like the Balkans. I was shouted down by basically everyone in the room. I'm not convinced that much has changed since, and you definitely can't be a super power without an army.

by Bakary 4y ago

I can understand America and China being the only two realistic options for a superpower at the moment. What I don't understand is the idea that the EU as a superpower is less plausible than Russia?

saltcured 4y ago

I can't speak for the earlier commenter, but I think there is a large gap between what the EU does today and what it would need to do to be a "superpower". It is left to our imaginations to guess at such a future, and so disagreements may just stem from different imagined scenarios. I don't think the US would be a superpower if the treaties, tariffs, and military control were parceled out to the individual states and each state governor and state assembly decided when to work as a block and when to act independently.

anon9384929 4y ago

It can’t even keep its most important members in. European pride will be its downfall. When asked, Americans are Americans first, then whatever state they come from second. Europeans are whatever state they come from first, European second. Most European countries haven’t seen per capita GDP growth since the beginning of the millennium. They’d rather preserve their “culture” than compete and survive, and it’s starting to show up in the data.

Bakary 4y ago
I understand that the EU is a poor candidate to be a superpower. But how can it be a worse candidate than Russia, which can't even control Ukraine?
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  To be fair, I've been making that comment since well before the Ukraine invasion, I may have to update it...

disgruntledphd2 4y ago

It's just not where the EU is right now. I was at an EU young people summit almost twenty years ago now, and I pointed out that the EU would need an army to stop future genocides like the Balkans. I was shouted down by basically everyone in the room. I'm not convinced that much has changed since, and you definitely can't be a super power without an army.