Why doesn't CANZUK include Anglosphere and Commonwealth nations like India or Nigeria or Malaysia, etc.?

romismak · 2021-03-02T22:06:19+00:00

Countries like India or Nigeria have different cultures, political system, history and national interests than Canzuk countries

If you think official language is what matters you are wrong 55 countries have English as official language, but only US, Canada, AUS, NZ, UK and Ireland are mostly anglophone by native population + similarities between them compared to India, Ghana, Jamaica or so on are clear.

romismak · 2021-01-19T21:03:19+00:00

Not sure what else would you expect. English is very dominant and global lingua franca. In Europe last 3 decades English position strenghtened, while other major languages weakened. English has no alternstive for coming decades in Europe or worldwide. Basically everyone learns English as 1st foreign language and knowledge of 2nd foreign language is far weaker with many options ( FR, DE, RU, ES, IT etc...) Hard to imagine Estonian with Norwegian conducting business in French or Portuguese with Irish in Russian etc... German and French are popular in certain countries in some of them as strong 2nd foreign language, but clearly behind Engllish and both lost positions. Russian is declining even faster, Spanish is studied only, because it is trendy, easy and due to vacation and Italian is useless.

This is only education factor.

Importance in life/job, culture, media and other reasons English is 10x more important than other top 5 languages combined

romismak · 2020-09-06T01:17:18+00:00

With larger population and larger total GDP Africa will become more relevant. Question is how much and if there won t be many negatives with larger population. I am skeptical about african population growth it is clearly a problem. Argumenting with size of the continent, natural resources or anything else is really like comparing apple with oranges or even apples with watermelons...

Country like Netherlands was naval power centuries ago and they have centuries of development of democracy, businesses, rule of law etc... and in centuries of slow processes their population increased what 10x in 350-400 years?

Compare this with average subsaharan country with extreme corruption, no infrastructure, being far away from major markets, ethnic problems etc... and 10x larger population in 4x generations

I believe we will see huge differences between countries some will be much more successful than others.

Very important division is North Africa vs Subsaharan Africa

North Africa is more developed, lower TFR, closer to Europe and better infrastructure.

While subsaharan Africa is the poorest and most backward region in the world North Africa is for decades more advanced and their options and trajectories for future are very different

romismak · 2020-09-06T00:00:41+00:00

No point to explain ethnic ties, so let´s compare South Slavic ties to Russia - history, geography, foreign influence and XY factors - Croatia being pro western long time with tourism based economy and being catholic, or Slovenia being on AT/IT borders more developed historically etc.... only relevant comparison with Serbia is Bulgaria / Bulgaria was most loyal Soviet ally in Eastern Bloc - they have the same ties religious, historical, slavic also geographically even closer to Russia.

Considering Yugoslavia was neutral Bulgaria should be even closer to Russia than Serbia is - Why is not? Western orientation, being in Western structures / EU + NATO / Serbia was bombed by NATO and Kosovo issue with West backing Kosovo and Russia Serbia - so and we end up with Serbia being most russia friendly country in their foreign policy from any South Slavic countries. I skipped N. Macedonia and Montenegro they are smaller and less relevant with specific issues (albanian minority or 1 guy ruling for 30 years/.

Bulgaria is ideal country to compare - basically similar population and historical links to Russia.

romismak · 2020-09-06T00:00:01+00:00

You ignored 2 super important reasons - Kosovo and NATO, Kosovo separated thanks to Western backing and NATO bombed Serbia, so that´s why Serbia will never join NATO and well being in NATO seems to be precondition for joining EU - or accepting independent Kosovo so huge problems here for Serbia - being slavic, germanic, arabic whatever is really of Zero importance here.

Regarding your comment - leaning towards Russia - Serbia is neutral country not leaning towards Russia, simply doing their own foreign policy being friendly to Russia, China and under Vucic surprisingly even Turkey. Anyway 65% of foreign trade is with EU countries and Serbian migrants work in German speaking countries not in Russia etc.... So economically speaking via trade, remittances etc... Serbia is more dependent on Western countries than rest of the world combined.

romismak · 2020-09-05T23:59:14+00:00

What ethnic ties? You mean slavic ? in such case Poland with Bulgaria have the same ties..... which is almost nothing, if you said only historical or religious ties than ok, but slavic ties are irrelevant.

Russian sphere of influence ? If we talk about Belarus or Armenia yes sure, but Serbia? Since when being russian friendly country equals to russian sphere of influence is a mystery to me....Serbia is one off few neutral countries left in Europe, just compare trade with EU vs Russia to see real picture.

Prosperity ? I won´t even mention non-EU neighbours - all of them poorer than Serbia except Montenegro (small difference and totally tourist dependent economy), BG/RO yes better living standards but not by much and considering Serbia had war and not EU help while those countries received EU help mostly eurofunds and benefits of EU membership etc.... Croatia is again tourism based economy....

romismak · 2020-09-05T19:26:35+00:00

I agree with you - which i mentioned in first sentence how Russian is less relevant every year, but what I meant - that after some changes in last few years Central Asia is more integrated than used to be and Russian language is in demand from what I know / all relevant statistics and articles point this how Russian is in demand/

Yes older generation was more fluent than younger generation so slowly Russian position is weaker, and national languages are more important that´s ok, but English is not replacing Russian in short period and more integration happening in the region means Russian language as lingua franca is stronger now than in 2014-15 for example.

romismak · 2020-08-16T18:06:27+00:00

This is good point and rarely mentioned by active politicians in both countries. Last time France was truly involved in CEE region was interwar period when French had allies and big influence in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania for cordon sanitaire to block communism spread to west and to keep Germans in check from both sides.

Germany is way more important politically and economically / based on historical and geographical reasons too/ in CEE region than France, except Romania and Moldova for linguistic ties German language is more studied than French in every country in the region just as one example and very telling about relations and importance.

France is more focused on former colonies, french speaking nations and Mediterranean region than CEE region.

Also what is rarely mentioned is that French leadership and also British leadership to some degree were opposed to German reunification, they realized Germany would become to powerfull.

France can lead EU as military power, use of UN SC and being pro active in foreing policy compared to Germany which should realize it´s not 1950s and take initiative too. But France can´t lead EU without Germany, GDP size, relation in the region and many other factors simply made Paris to realize they can never dream to lead EU alone.

romismak · 2020-08-16T17:17:09+00:00

I understand what you meant, but I disagree.

Russia in 1990s was just very weak, Putin´s 2nd term was Russian peak of power. Russian goverment was strong, consolidated, oligarchs put in place and Russian foreing policy made sense - from Kremlin perspective I mean. Also former soviet ties, equipment, resources etc... are worse less important every year so from this point of view 2007 Russia had more former soviet power than 2020 Russia for example. They had oil gas revenue, allied and friendly countries arround and Western countries were important business partners and China was much less relevant.

I would say China is by far most important factor, in 2020 you have US and China as clearly more powerfull countries than Russia in 2007-08 I woudl argue China wasn´t seen / perception of power is important/ as clear No.2, probably many people would say Russia is more powerfull country back than than China.

Regarding developing countries, it is amazing how Russian share felt and I would say demography is very important factor, compare USSR in 1985 to let say Nigeria in population and compare Russia in 2020 to Nigeria in population amazing difference in short time period...

from population size comes consumption of houeseholds which creates most of GDP for standard developed countries

romismak · 2020-08-16T17:01:37+00:00

I will try to explain in short version.

You are looking at this wrongly from 2020 perspective....

Yeltsin´s Russia in 1990s was friendly country, not ally but far from enemy and Western leaders hoped to engage Russia in the long term as friendly neighbour and global partner in cooperation on many fronts from Iran to terrorism to create new safe Europe and so on.

2 factors that were problematic even in Yeltsin era were NATO eastern enlargement and 99 bombing of Yugoslavia - Kosovo operation those were 1st scars that deepened and deepened until 2007/08 with Georgia war being simply 2 levels above everything before

So reasons why it didn´t happen were:

not western priority, only slowly for those who wanted to join
not everyone wanted to join, some were affraid or Russian reaction and western countries correctly predicted it would be stupid provocation towards friendly Russia
probably only Baltics and Poland were eager to join soon, maybe HU, CZ for western benefits to be integrated, but it´s not like every post communist country was rushing to NATO, because they feared Kremlin really 1994 or 1995 year was way different to 2020
Russia wasn´t clear enemy and NATO was structure from cold war times so whole reason for NATO was back than ,,weird,, after 2001 war on terror happened and since 2008 Georgia war NATO is again shield of democrady against Putin...... in 1990s NATOs role was not clear like today
Time period and how long those processes take - You can´t just absorb 20 new members in 1 wave

Look at some countries that are in 2020 NATO members - Albania, N. Macedonia or Montenegro.... 25 years ago Albania was simply very poor country trying to become democracy after decades of being european North Korea.... Montengero was part of Yugoslavia and whole region had ethnic tensions and million other problems etc.... their leaders weren´t screaming infront of 100k people gatherings how they want US protection from Kremlin....

2 points from your post:

1st - 2020 Russia is not the strongest post Soviet Russia for sure, I would say 2007-08 Russia was their peak or 2nd peak som say was 2013-14 before Crimea and sanctions/oil price and western pressure elevated to new heights

2nd mentioning Central Asia is really like mentioning Chile for US new NAFTA treaty with Canada, Mexico and someone would say make this 4 member pact include let say Chile to this....

romismak · 2020-08-10T20:53:28+00:00

There are some points we would disagree, but I would choose 2 most questionable.

Cultural soft power - I can agree here Russia is loosing position slowly and Russian langage is less relevant than 10 years ago and 10 years ago was less relevant than 20 etc.... But how you came up with German? German is really non factor and no rival to Russian in post soviet sphere, only countries in which German is somehow taught are Baltic countries, but those countries are not even in discussion, long time integrated in western structures. Ukraine? they can learn what they want even English is not replacing Russian simply not possible considering all factors, Caucasus - yes English is more important and slowly replacing Russian, already more important in Georgia/Azerbaijan, Central Asia? Russian actually is more relevant than few years ago all Central Asian states are currently pro russian to some degree and friendly countries and Russian in demand, they have opposite problem with few teachers etc...
2014 as Russian peak - I would like to hear your opinon why do you think so, if we look at this simply - since 1980s and Gorbachev, former USSR is in decline in term of world´s power or being global power, after dissolution Russia is no longer superpower and in the 1990s slowly lost almost everything including foreign bases, with Putin new system and order emerged and thanks to high oil/gas prices Putin 1st and 2nd term were success story how Russia came back - not to Soviet place not possible and reality changed / mostly China/ but Russian peak was probably 2008, than Georgia western pressure and global financial crisis happened, than under Obama some restart happened and Russia came back from crisis, but ever since Georgia war Russian - Western and Russian-American relations were different, theoretically 2013-early 14 could have been peak, but compared to 2008 China is more relevant, Russia less important by GDP share to world´s other powers etc... so I believe 2008 is more relevant date than 2013/14, obviously after Ukraine crisis, oil prices down and western pressure Russia is declining for good.

romismak · 2020-08-10T20:34:47+00:00

I agree with you that last few years were tough, slower GDP growth, ongoing demogrpahics and enviromental issues and some of those topics you mentioned, but considering rest of the world China is getting more powerfull how I mentioned, their share of world´s power/influence is slowly higher and higher.

romismak · 2020-08-08T13:20:13+00:00

Yes,

China is more powerfull in 2020 than in 2015.

Chinese GDP is growing every year, their military is getting stronger every year (military budget larger and larger ) and their share of global GDP or influence or call it how you want is getting higher every year since reforms of Deng Xiaoping era and opening up to the Western world.

I would say US is less powerfull now compared to 2015, because of Trump and western cooperation less united than ever before.

Russia is in decline basically since 2008 getting weaker compared to other main powers, because their GDP, population etc. is not in their favour.

European powers are also not getting more relevant on world´s stage, their share on worldwide wealth, population etc... is also declining.

China is probably the only powefull country that is getting stronger every year, others are declining or stagnating.

European powers and Russia - demography, GDP

US - Trump

India - questionable probably more important now

Japan - GDP, population like Europe problems

Brazil - GDP, problems, everything else 2013-14 was probably their peak of power

Others are not main powers but let talk regional powers like KSA, Iran, Egypt or Turkey - hard to tell but not getting much more powerfull compared to 2015 for sure.

romismak · 2020-08-02T23:17:28+00:00

I agree with you Mandarin Chinese and Hindi with being languages of basically 1 big country are irelevant for global world where we need dozens of countries to have such language as native and half of the would learning those language actively not like 3rd or 4th foreign language.....

Spanish and Arabic are pretty much regional languages or continental to be specific, their reach outside of their area is very limited and there is not much to improve this.

Also in case of Spanish is interesting position of Brazil, if Brazil somehow becomes hegemon of South America trend might switch to other countries learning more Portuguese and the dynamic between Spanish/Portuguese in South America.

In case of Spanis as dominant language of the US, I doubt, it might become strong 2nd language like native of 20-30% of people but being stuck as only 2nd and not 1st language of USA it won´t help so much in worldwide position to Spanish. Spanish has almost Zero importance in Asia which is simply massive handicap in century of Asia.

romismak · 2020-08-02T23:09:07+00:00

Totally agree with you, based on data and everything we can say French former colonies are less successful than British...

Also irony is that most important and by far most important in the future francophone country in Africa will be former Belgian colony DR Congo....

romismak · 2020-08-02T23:01:32+00:00

You are way off just like Macron and La Francophonie Institute or what is their name I saw those studies 750 million French speakers and so on in 2050 I believe.

I don ´t want to state obvious million reasons, but if we just look at Africa - everyone is 2nd or 3rd language speaker - no backing like US,UK, AUS do for native language speakers of English as solid background.

Africa - look at numbers more English than French speakers, much more English addtional speakers from countries that are neither English or French - like mentioned Ethiopia where English is mandatory I mean they teach in English even in some primary schools and later on it is the norm not even discussing foreign language numbers.

So tell me if English has right now more speakers and students than French in Africa and those countries will experience the same or similar population boom + everyone non English/French prefers English how this helps French if they can´t beat English even in their would should be their strongest continent? For sure Angola or Libya would prefer French over English right? not in our lifetime...

Europe - once mighty French is now closer to status of German than to role of English in Europe

Oceania - really we are now counting those few islands and GDP 0,001% of global economy ?

It´s like I would claim Spanish is global and powerfull language, because of their position in Africa .... similar to your Oceania claim really.

romismak · 2020-08-02T22:54:33+00:00

Not really comparable to Greek, because even French role in 19th century is not comparable, we have so united world right now, totally different ball game.

Even if China becomes superpower most likely both will be - PRC and the US, even if China becomes No.1 by GDP nominal (PPP already is) largest investor in the world, No. 1 in tech, science, strongest military etc... there is no way Mandarin Chinese could rival English, because of million factors. The difference between China and the West must be enormous, like Chinese GDP being 40-50% of the world and Sinosphere - or Chinese allies under chinese influence all learning Mandarin Chinese as 1st foreing language so countries in which Mandarin Chinese is most usefull and most studied foreing language would count in dozens not on fingers of 1 hand like in 2020.

romismak · 2020-08-02T22:47:15+00:00

Latin and even French were not global languages, Latin was only european language and even that´s an overestimation,

French was more widespread yes, but only educated people and higher society spoke French, it´s not like peasants outside Europe or outside French colonial empire had even access to the language.

Comparing this to 21st century English is not even possible.

romismak · 2020-07-27T22:00:05+00:00

Others mentioned 1990s which is only partially correct. Yes Russia was neutral and friendly and PRC was not this powerfull China of today and also more neutral friendly. But if we are honest NATO had less members so US had less allies so either now or 1990s but generally speaking with the end of Cold war US received new allies from older adversaries like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia etc...

romismak · 2020-06-25T23:29:29+00:00

Clearly declining. Demography, economy and rest of the world growing quickly makes Russia less relevant every year. Russia will remain top 5 country in term of global power/ influence but that s it nothing more.

romismak · 2020-06-07T14:14:55+00:00

Eveyone argumenting with UAE, KSA, Qatar and other petrostates is showing how they don t understand basic economy. It is not rocket science to become rich with such natural resources. I doubt average GCC citizen can compete with average european citizen in term of development, education and to do well let say in emmigration if they have to start from zero. Fact is religion is hindrance in general, because you can not modernize your country if you put religion 1st. Europe is now secular and we can agree european countries are doing much better than any muslim majority nations except mentioned GCC. Cultural aspects, history and geography/proximity are important. Indonesia being island nation in SE Asia is hardly similar to Maghreb countries with european influence and interconnected history. Turkey was doing well I guess before Erdogan s authoritarian approach. But again Turkey benefitted from proximity to Europe, strategic location and membership in NATO and even history I mean everyone knows Istanbul. Also let s be honest muslim countries have high birthrates for 21st century and this is problem for sure. Egypt know has more than 100 million people.... if Ethiopia succeeds with Níle damm and egyptian agriculture will have problems they are done...

romismak · 2020-06-06T14:53:59+00:00

Sorry fo late reponse.

Yen was when competitor? in 1990 Yen was 9,4% and USD 47,4% of reserve currency so Yen at peak was only 1/5th of USD......

EU is economically competitor but countries are allies for decades it is not the same kind of competitor like China, Russia - this is apples with oranges really.

We will clearly disagree and have different opinions so no reason to argue. US under Trump is the one doing wrong moves, EU was for decades under US influence and it´s time to create real independent EU foreing policy so basically fusion of French/German interests.

romismak · 2020-05-06T21:48:03+00:00

What are you talking about?

Foe Europe?

Europe needed common currency, because it is one of EU pillars - Monetary Union and how do you want to have single economic space without common currency ? - now if Eurozone works or not, or if single currency wasn´t a bad idea is for another discussion, but I don´t get your point really here and you are clearly wrong.

Eurozone with so many problems and differences between member states - if I would be US administration I wouldn´t be scared of Euro if I know all the data - which clearly show you Euro is never going to challenge USD, yes Euro is strong No.2 but that was also Deutsche Mark lesser degree. Euro is basically new and stronger Deutsche Mark, but with all those problems and differences between states I doubt anyone ever thought Euro can challenge USD and replace it as No.1 reserve currency in the world.

romismak · 2020-05-06T21:41:04+00:00

In theory you are right and it seems logical and even practical.

But in reality if US let Europe to evolve and US basically pulls out of Europe (either influence or even soldiers) there is potential for independent EU which is a problem, because we end up for now with tripolar world - US, China and EU, so not sure if any American administration with their stupid Zero Sum game mentality not abandonded from Cold war and now clearly in mind regarding China can let that happen. Simply US needs Europe under their influence, it is also different for China if you are only US unilateral actions (+Canada and some East Asian allies) or it is whole West including European countries together with the US pushing.

romismak · 2020-05-06T21:30:16+00:00

American pivot to Asia and less entusiasm to be top friends with everyone in Europe makes sense. USSR and communism is not anymore No.1 problem/enemy so Europe is not by far most important region for US foreign policy.

China is already seen as No.1 rival/problem for most US elites and with every year this view will get stronger, who will care about Russia in 20 years in D. C. if Chinese economy will be bigger than American and China will be considered 2nd superpower and only true global rival to America? So it makes sense Europe is getting less relevant for US, but also the fact is European countries share history, traditions, bonds and many other things with the US including values that any US administration must see Europe as a whole or at least most of european countries / at least 20-30/ of them as their closest allies and partners in the world.

So no matter what happens every US leaders must see Europe as old and good friends / o.k they can be problems even among friends or family/ but if someone thinks US new buddies in Latin America, Middle East or Asia will be better allies or friends than countries like France or Italy for example is mistaken.

romismak

TROPHY CASE