• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the most powerful nation in Europe?

What is the Most Powerful Nation in Europe?

  • Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany)

    Votes: 36 42.4%
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    Votes: 33 38.8%
  • Cinquième République de la France (Fifth Republic of France)

    Votes: 6 7.1%
  • other

    Votes: 10 11.8%

  • Total voters
    85
After the US, France possesses the most advanced military technology and military industry. Ahead of the UK and possibly Israel and Russia/China.

Forgetting Germany aren't you? I'd bet the Leclerc couldn't stand up to a Leopard, the mechanics in France would get smashed by German mechanics, the German airforce would ground the Frenchies, and don't even get me started on the quality of commanders in Germany...
 
And you say this why? Please, more then because they are a large country.

Because they have oil, huge geographical advantages, bundles of resources, massive nucleur arms and alot of domestic arms manafacture.
 
Russia is not a European nation per se (barring Geography). The thing is the threads which bind much of continental Europe together, namely the Roman heritage, are lacking in Russia.
 
Because they have oil, huge geographical advantages, bundles of resources, massive nucleur arms and alot of domestic arms manafacture.

Not to mention enough corruption to incapacitate the leadership. Russia is like the Soviet Union in the respect that it seems more of a danger then it really is. The nuclear weapons only mean no one will invade and occupy the country. The geography allows hinders any invasion, and it also spreads their army extremely thin. The resources are for the msot part untouched because of the geography. The domestic arms manufacturers build Russian weapons, which used to be Soviet weapons, which used to suck. Their oil will be important, but not for half a decade or so, if their leadership can pull their act together, and utilize all the resources at their disposal.
 
Russia is not a European nation per se (barring Geography). The thing is the threads which bind much of continental Europe together, namely the Roman heritage, are lacking in Russia.

Russia is technically a Eurasian country, considered a part of both Europe and Asia. Russia still has lands west of the Caucasus Mountains.
 
Russia is technically a Eurasian country, considered a part of both Europe and Asia. Russia still has lands west of the Caucasus Mountains.

Im not talking about geography, I'm talking about culture.
 
In the context of a hegemony, I agree with you. No Europerean Nation will be able to establish a hegemony over the others in our lifetime. But in relation to which country is strongest, from your analysis, it seems to be Germany, correct?
I'm saying that if Germany where to get just one medium-powered(at least) ally, Switzerland for its banking, UK for its financials, Italy, France, Poland, Russia, Spain, or Sweden, there would be no debate about it.

Basically, as those of us who are used to the 4x strategy games, their diplomatic affairs are the only barrier in their claim to be undoubtedly "the strongest" in Europe. Untill then, I say its a tie between Germany and UK, Russia too if we want to include it.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention enough corruption to incapacitate the leadership. Russia is like the Soviet Union in the respect that it seems more of a danger then it really is.

Incapacitate the leadership? There is alot of corruption, granted, but not enough to hinder their abilities to exert power in the region.

The nuclear weapons only mean no one will invade and occupy the country. The geography allows hinders any invasion, and it also spreads their army extremely thin.

There are enough nucleur weapons for a bit of everything, not neccessarily just for defence. They have more than the US. It will only take Russia to fully utilize its resources and organize its army before its back on top again. The geography of Russia is strategic for the most part, mountainous and freezing cold area's do not even require a military force as most of the enemy forces would die before they even overcame such conditions. Therefore stretching the army thin is not neccessary and prooves a massive strategic advantage for attacking and defending forces. Add massive oil reserves to the equation and the fact that Europe is reliant as hell of Russia for energy, Russia may not look like the most powerful European nation at first glance, but it definetly is up there.
 
Russia is not a European nation per se (barring Geography). The thing is the threads which bind much of continental Europe together, namely the Roman heritage, are lacking in Russia.

Its a part of Europe nonetheless. Roman heritage is irrelevant, Europe existed before Rome. Infact its contribution in accordance to land mass in Europe would make it the largest European nation with or without the geographically unEuropean parts of Russia.
 
Roman heritage is irrelevant, Europe existed before Rome.

Obviously no classical education, back to school with you.

“Cicero’s true importance in the history of political thought lies in the fact that he gave to the Stoic doctrine of natural law a statement in which it was universally known throughout Western Europe from his own day down to the nineteenth century. From him it passed to the Roman lawyers and not less to the Fathers of the Church. The most important passages were quoted times without number throughout the Middle Ages. … its most striking passages had already been excerpted … and so had become matters of common knowledge.” George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, 1937"

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/cicero.htm
 
Last edited:
Obviously no classical education, back to school with you.

“Cicero’s true importance in the history of political thought lies in the fact that he gave to the Stoic doctrine of natural law a statement in which it was universally known throughout Western Europe from his own day down to the nineteenth century. From him it passed to the Roman lawyers and not less to the Fathers of the Church. The most important passages were quoted times without number throughout the Middle Ages. … its most striking passages had already been excerpted … and so had become matters of common knowledge.” George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, 1937"

Cicero [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

And you think a lack of Roman heritage makes it non-European.

BS.
 
And you think a lack of Roman heritage makes it non-European.

BS.

No, I regard Russia as european. But you declared roman heritage irrelevant, and you will have to do better than that.
 
No, I regard Russia as european. But you declared roman heritage irrelevant, and you will have to do better than that.

If you had made the argument that a contributing factor which defines a European state are certain cultural attributes which are derived from Roman heritage, then i would understand. But a lack of it is not enough to say Russia is not European so in this case it is irrelevant yes. But that wouldnt push aside the fact that "Europeans" are people of European descent, and a European nation is a nation geographically present in Europe, with no mention of Roman heritage.
 
If you had made the argument that a contributing factor which defines a European state are certain cultural attributes which are derived from Roman heritage, then i would understand. But a lack of it is not enough to say Russia is not European so in this case it is irrelevant yes. But that wouldnt push aside the fact that "Europeans" are people of European descent, and a European nation is a nation geographically present in Europe, with no mention of Roman heritage.

There is an abundance of roman heritage in Russia, I allready showed you the connection between Cicero, the law, and the church. The orthodox church in itself traces its development back to the classical, roman period.

The question what defines european is not only geographical, unless you're debating about geography. In terms of geography, Russia is partly european.
 
Last edited:
In general in this debate I think a lot of people here tend to overestimate the UK, while forgetting Turkey and excluding Russia on various accounts.

While its true that both Turkey and Russia have most their land in Asia, Russia at least have most of its important military stuff and population centers in Europe, including in non-Russian territory, for example Ukraine(which had a huge piece of old soviet militaty capability and industry).
I myself may underestimate Germany in their current capacity, but I am very aware that Germany by far is the most powerful military nation in Europe when they so please to be, far ahead of everyone else, including Russia and Turkey.

Its very interesting to add theoretical hegemony and potantial war scenarios into this mix, making Russia with all the natural resources a massive contender.
 
Last edited:
There is an abundance of roman heritage in Russia, I allready showed you the connection between Cicero, the law, and the church. The orthodox church in itself traces its development back to the classical, roman period.

The question what defines european is not only geographical, unless you're debating about geography. In terms of geography, Russia is partly european.

Romanism in Russia originated via Byzantine influence rather than classical Roman as is the case for many other Romance cultures in Western Europe - even then, Orthodoxy is more Greek than Roman in any case.
 
Romanism in Russia originated via Byzantine influence rather than classical Roman as is the case for many other Romance cultures in Western Europe - even then, Orthodoxy is more Greek than Roman in any case.
Nice opinion, but it's baseless and false.

Tell me, where does the word tsar come from?
 
Nice opinion, but it's baseless and false.

Not really, Russia was exposed to Romaic culture via the Byzantines whose culture had diverged from classical roman at that point.

Tell me, where does the word tsar come from?

Are you going to tell me next that Iran is a Roman culture because Shah is a cognate of Caesar? :rofl
 
Nice opinion, but it's baseless and false.

Tell me, where does the word tsar come from?

Tsar comes from Caesar. It came into use when Ivan the first married a descendent of Julius Caesar. And after that it stuck.
 
Not really, Russia was exposed to Romaic culture via the Byzantines whose culture had diverged from classical roman at that point.

Are you going to tell me next that Iran is a Roman culture because Shah is a cognate of Caesar? :rofl

You're forgetting why they started using the term. Focus on that and you'll find your answer. William of Orange was married to Anna Pavlovna, Maximillian 1 recognised the Russian empire. The point is, Russia adopted law that had its roots in roman times (cicero). And that's just one aspect, you also seem to have forgotten the influence of the renaissance, classicism and neo-classicism.
 
You're forgetting why they started using the term. Focus on that and you'll find your answer. William of Orange was married to Anna Pavlovna, Maximillian 1 recognised the Russian empire. The point is, Russia adopted law that had its roots in roman times (cicero). And that's just one aspect, you also seem to have forgotten the influence of the renaissance, classicism and neo-classicism.

As opposed to France, Italy, Spain, Greece, and to a lesser extent Germany which have direct heritage in Romaic culture? Russia is in a class of its own in terms of culture versus Western Europe, with divergent interests and political alleigances.

Just because Ivan married Sophia Palaiologos doesn't make Russian culture any more Western European. :lol:
 
Last edited:
As opposed to France, Italy, Spain, Greece, and to a lesser extent Germany which have direct heritage in Romaic culture? Russia is in a class of its own in terms of culture versus Western Europe, with divergent interests and political alleigances.

Just because Ivan married Sophia Palaiologos doesn't make Russian culture any more Western European. :lol:
It wasn't out of love, get it?

So now you have to differenciate between different types of heritage, in order to maintain your ground.

You can argue if Russia is a european country or not. I'd say it's more european than anything else, maybe a status aparte within Europe, but still, european. If you want to make the case that Russia is not european, roman heritage wont do you much good though.

direct heritage..., new concept for me.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't out of love, get it?

Ah, so now you have to differenciate between different types of heritage, in order to maintain your ground.

I was bitching about heritage and culture from the start. I don't know what forum you were reading from.:2wave:

You can argue if Russia is a european country or not. I'd say it's more european than anything else, maybe a status aparte within Europe, but still, european. If you want to make the case that Russia is not european, roman heritage wont do you much good though.

And I would say the former Soviet sphere is a socio-cultural sphere of its own versus Western Europe and the Anglosphere.
 
I was bitching about heritage and culture from the start. I don't know what forum you were reading from.:2wave:
:doh

You quoted my comment, not the other way around.

I'll never make that mistake again.
 
Back
Top Bottom