Merkel supports Macron's proposal for a unified European Army to protect Europe from Russia, China, and the US.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just some neocolonialists unhappy with the fact US does most of the plunder and attacks others unilaterally as it pleases.

So they want their seat at the plunder table, but they need a war machine to make themselves look strong and big.

We've been here before. It's Dr. Strangelove, and sorry but no love for the military.

And I'm sure Russia's military expansionism towards Eastern Europe, and Trump's repeated efforts to undermine alliances with Europe, has nothing to do with it. Nope, must just be imperialism. Obviously all Western nations are automatically the aggressor, and can never have legitimate defensive interests.

[K. A. Pital]

There is always a somewhat legitimate justification for militaristic talk and militaristic action. Usually in the form of external threats - which are partially described truthfully, but far more often exaggerated to achieve political objectives.

We are not talking about nations like poor Yemen here, we are talking about the old powers of the world whose economical and political clout is an inescapable fact.

What they say is one thing, what they do is a totally different thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

There is always a somewhat legitimate justification for militaristic talk and militaristic action. Usually in the form of external threats - which are partially described truthfully, but far more often exaggerated to achieve political objectives.

We are not talking about nations like poor Yemen here, we are talking about the old powers of the world whose economical and political clout is an inescapable fact.

What they say is one thing, what they do is a totally different thing.

Britain, Germany, and France were among the great powers once. About a hundred years ago. They largely spent that power during WWI and WWII, and lost whatever was left in the post-WWII wave of colonial independence movements.

They might, collectively, be able to act as a Great Power if inclined to do so, and if they could become more effectively united. But individually? They are at best middling powers, and simply not playing in the same league as Russia, China, or the USA.

I think you are looking at their history and seeing a much larger threat than these countries actually represent today. Hell, Britain is rapidly on track to failed state status, if you believe the worst-case Brexit projections.

[madd0ct0r]

There is always a somewhat legitimate justification for militaristic talk and militaristic action. Usually in the form of external threats - which are partially described truthfully, but far more often exaggerated to achieve political objectives.

We are not talking about nations like poor Yemen here, we are talking about the old powers of the world whose economical and political clout is an inescapable fact.

What they say is one thing, what they do is a totally different thing.

Britain, Germany, and France were among the great powers once. About a hundred years ago. They largely spent that power during WWI and WWII, and lost whatever was left in the post-WWII wave of colonial independence movements.

They might, collectively, be able to act as a Great Power if inclined to do so, and if they could become more effectively united. But individually? They are at best middling powers, and simply not playing in the same league as Russia, China, or the USA.

I think you are looking at their history and seeing a much larger threat than these countries actually represent today. Hell, Britain is rapidly on track to failed state status, if you believe the worst-case Brexit projections.

I disagree with your assessment of Russia. Russia is as spent as Britian, France and Germany. It has massive structural demorpahic problems, it has massive, pervasisve, alcoholisim problems, it has a steadily aging infrastrucutre, and an ecomomy devolving in a Petrostate, with all the mafiosa implications of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse,

It is not weak. Neither are Britian, France and Germany, Japan and a huge number of nations coming up behind them. But non are capable of acting as the Uni-polar power (but then, the period of the great powers you talk of, that was true there too).

[mr friendly guy]

Britain, Germany, and France were among the great powers once. About a hundred years ago. They largely spent that power during WWI and WWII, and lost whatever was left in the post-WWII wave of colonial independence movements.

They might, collectively, be able to act as a Great Power if inclined to do so, and if they could become more effectively united. But individually? They are at best middling powers, and simply not playing in the same league as Russia, China, or the USA.

I think you are looking at their history and seeing a much larger threat than these countries actually represent today. Hell, Britain is rapidly on track to failed state status, if you believe the worst-case Brexit projections.

The economy of either Britain, Germany or France is larger than Russia's. Russia strength lies in its military capability and energy supply, and less so its economic strength. However that advantage would be narrowed in war time as countries with larger economies gear it towards military production. Those European countries are still great powers, although Germany is mainly in the economic realm rather than military these days.

As for whether they still have influence, just have a look at France in its former African colonies and that should answer the question about France's power status.

[Thanas]

Not really sure if you can call Germany a great power to be honest. We might be a global soft power, but there is very little hard power to back it up that is not centered on Europe only.

[The Romulan Republic]

Russia is economically weaker I'll grant, but it definitely punches above its economic weight class militarily and in terms of the global political influence it wields.