Believe me, it is an interesting thought, but out of consideration of not confusing other forumers with my long-winded ramblings. Maybe you can still achieve the answer you desire in one post, by simplifying your question to maybe just one or a few of the more important factors that you listed above? Just a thought...

 

However, i will try too focus  this as a completely unprofessional opinion/analysis on what i think, are the two factors that play's the biggest part of being a regional power: The economy and military of the nations of a region! I'm sure i will leave out much, seeing that there are just so many unbelievable complex variables to look at, then one post can ever hope to cover. I hope my thought's don't seem too incredibly disjointed in this post, given it's length?!

 

1.) In South America i am surprised you mentioned Brazil! It seems from the few govt. reports that i have had a chance too read, my impression is that Washington has quietly recognized Brazil as the main regional power in that area. The decent size of her economy and the strength of it's military and rather large population means too me that if she had too face an exterior national crisis which is usally represented in the form of a territorial war (Given the history of the region), it would make the country a force too be reckoned with and perhaps... make itself extremely useful diplomatically, in bringing peace back in the region, if so required. Especially when she works with other powers in the region (I'm thinking the A,B,C powers from the past). 

 

2.) Very complex! European land powers such as Germany and Russia should always be at the top of consideration when dealing/discussing about the European region! However, as powerful as they are or could be if unleashed w/o restraint; Without an adequate navy, they will never be able too effectively regionally impress the old navy hands of the region. i.e. the British. I would "never" discount or neglect the British when i think of European regional powers? What good is there of being powerful on land, if it doesn't tranlate to the sea as well, especially in today's globalized economic climate. All the British would have to do in a time of a regional war, is blow the chunnel and snub their noses at any continental power while still relying on her navy and trade/contact with commonwealth nations, as well with the US! In short, she would still have the usal support of the anglosphere nations! The French as well, should never be discounted because of all the well reported and documented policy failures of days gone by. I for one will always respect her fighting forces, over the usally incompetent political leadership she suffers from, more often then not! If you remove the US and too a lesser extent the UN, from the equation, then the four powers  have a high probability of returning to the great game of "balance of power" in the region! Then what could we expect again... except just another blood-bath on the European continent. Many may still place their hopes on the EU from keeping the events from occuring, but i think it is still way too politically disorganised, except too a small extent economically, to do much good! Perhaps in the 22 century, the region will be much more organised politically than they are now?

 

3.) I would have included this as the N. African region myself. In my view, the predominant powers being in order of: Israel, Egypt and then to an certain extent Iran; Even though Iran is sandwiched between the two regions of Africa to it's further west and the southern Asian continent a bit more closer too it's immediate east, thier politics put them squarely in the African/Mediterranean region. Israel being the no-brainer of the bunch. Why i consider Egypt too be above even the Iranians has pretty much to do with, and even though their economy is pretty much equal after all considerations, is that... with the Egyptian military simply being much more modernized and to a much higher standard then the Iranians currently are. The Iranians OTOH... instead of focusing on modernizing their military and scoial infrastructure, has been putting most of their political finacial focus for the past several decades on carrying out their policies primarily too their west. i.e proxy wars. Even though as it appears to me, that it has pretty much come too backfire on them, seeing that they are much more isolated in almost every way, then the world currently recognizes. I do however think they have poured some small amount of money into their military . But i think most of what is said in the Iranian press could be pure bluff regarding their military strength (With the exception though... of them going nuclear, which is serious issue i think... for everybody, including themseleves.) in order to buy some time too find a way out of their near, but not almost, world isolation.

 

Of course, one certainly cannot forget Turkey and Greece either! Then again, seeing how many forumer's come here from both of those countries, that is a major can of worms i prefer not too touch!

 

4.) Asia in it's entirity, i'm afraid i might upset many Pakastani's here (though it's certainly not maliciously intentional on my part!), i fail too see how they might be considered a regional power? They could barely control events to their northwest back in the 90's. Now the events from that time seems too be coming back to haunt them, especially with the loss of control in their own territory of Warzistan, while at the same time events from that section are causing alot of problems for Nato in the Afghanistan's southwest (Don't get me started on the poppy drug problem in that particular area!). Still, it seems to me, as time keeps marching on... more control is being wrested from  the Pakistani govt. and control being handed over to the likes of Al-Qaida? Pakistan's economy, i don't know... but like everything else in my post, i "guess" it reflects the uncertainty of what the nation is currently going through?

 

The main focus should be, i think, on three key player's in the Asian region. Primarily the futures of China, Japan and India. I think i am going to stop here for a while and take a breather and give myself a chance too compose my thoughts a little more before finishing. That is if i haven't already bored everyone too tears with my opinions? If that is the case, then i will just leave at that!

 

Regarding Pakistan. I have no bones to pick with you about Pakistan's military. However, as you noted yourself, she has a major issue with internal political stability, which would hamper any coherent direction of her regional policy desires at this time, in which... the same could be said for any nation/power. The fact she has nukes means only so much that she has no worries of being invaded by any of her regional neighbors anytime soon, that is unless, heaven forbid... she were too break up or engage in a civil war and lose total control of the where abouts of those nukes! (A black market bonanza for terrorists!) However, if she were more stable then we otherwise understand her to be, your point would be more powerfully valid.

 

How much is really understood in Pakistan, then besides the unstable nature of dictatorships she had too suffer through; Then the just as equally powerful an role the taliban has played in increasing/pushing her way past the point of stable equilibrium? i.e. see my point of Warzistan for an example!

 

Also regarding the 9-11 attacks being planned in Pakistan, the implications of what you are implying cannot be considered a trivial understatement in the very least. I would prefer something too back that up, before plenty of conspiracy minded people take up that statement, verbatim? Unless many in Pakistan know something that most of the world doesn't?

 

 

 

 

I didn't even get to the Oceania region. Heck, i couldn't even finish my earlier posted opinion, due to it's length and my own private responsbilities.

 

This isn't meant as a sop to our antipodean allies/friends, but i have always held Oz in an extremely high regard in consideration of the surrounding region! As far as i know, the US govt feels the same, seeing that Oz has recently acquired what only the British had... unrestricted access to US intelligence.

 

The Chinese military is still too far way from being modernized as most would like too think, atleast in my book? A few divisions here and new airplanes there, doesn't really translate into a well balanced mordern force as of yet. It's only been a decade atleast since they have really gotten serious about trying too modernize! In time i haven't much of a doubt they will achieve it. However, in case of an immediate emergency, the number of men under arms would be in her favor. The navy is probably the more interesting of the armed forces, solely for their desire for an eventual blue water navy. Newer submarines that can target most places within the pacific area, some newer surface ships and the quiet recogntion within the leadership of acquiring the prize of most modern navies, the aircraft carrier. Economically, however... not many are really asking, what if the economy were to go bust. For me, it's primarily due to the secretive nature of their governemnt that leaves me and probably many others wondering too much with very reall info to pore over at all! Perhaps that is for another thread?

 

India may not have much of an well documented economic headstart like the Chinese. But her military i believe is quite a bit more experienced, most especially in her navy, but to be more specific... in aircraft carrier operations then their Chinese counterparts. In terms of land forces, i think they are nearly equal, though the Indian army, again i think, is probably more well balanced then their Chinese counterparts. The airforce on the other hand, from most reports i have had the pleasure of reading, is really quite good. Especially after joint excercises between the US - Indians airforces over the past couple of years had left many US pilots uniquely impressed with their Indian counterparts, primarily in their air tactics!

 

The Japanese military though it is small, is still widley feared, i think, by many nations who were effected by them from the WWII era, especially considering the Chinese. Well respected by the US and perhaps not widely loved by her regional neighbors due to the past, i believe that if any major conflict were too break our in the region that would directly effect them, she just might take off the kid gloves that her constitution has so far held in check and become directly involved militarily again in the region. No one in the region of course, really want too see that happen. Economically, she proven too have a resilent economy that has seen ups and downs of the market over the past century. Now, not that i am trying too pick on the Chinese here, but they are after all, relative newcomers too this and have no proven track record of weathering the stroms that are just a way of economic life in our modern times.

 

two other minor players that i think deserve honorable mention: The South Koreans and Singapore.

 

Of course, as mentioned earlier, there is the Australians in the Oceania region. Debatably the best ally the US has ever had in it's history so far! Involved themseleves in every single war  the US has ever had the displeasure of being in since WWII! Their army has been noted as extremely tough, even by the Japanese of the WWII era, highly trained, and technologically competent too a very high degree. Economically i assume, there isn't much difference between them and Japanese except in the size of their GDP's, respectively. Then again, i too would love too hear what Leonidas thinks about this as well?  Hint, hint... nudge, nudge...

 

 

 

However, what concerns me a quite a bit currently, is that there are some reports i have been reading about the declining effectiveness of the Pakistan military, most particulary in the Warzistan district. Perhaps you could shine some light on the subject?

 

Well, we have some guns. Actually, we could have developed our own nukes long ago if we wished. We have more than enough brain power to do so. And you also know that Brazil can make aircrafts, rockets and missiles without that much effort.

 

However, what do we win with a regional arms race? If Brazil get the nuke, Argentina does too, then Chile and Peru. We would expend all our money in toys, instead of development.

 

For some strange reason, in South America we preffer to colaborate. We have excelent relations with all the countries and there is not a shadow of war in the horizon. The only guy that have us worried is Chavez, who is buying submarines and high tech soviet planes, just in case some power tries to intervine in Venezuela.

 

Nothing is perfect, though. But our region, in terms of people that has died in regular wars, is one of the safiest corners of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's also looking to expand its nave which is the weakest branch of the Egyptian military.

 

I'm saying this based on military might and not foreign support.

 

Egypt's man power reserves and special forces are rivaled in the Middle East even next to Israel. If America didn't exist Israel would've been consumed decades ago. In fact when the Eygptians surged into Israeli territory in the Yom Kippur war it is said had not the Israelis received heavy support from America the Egyptian army would've been in Tel Aviv within 3 days.

 

Not to mention they have aerial supremacy for the most part but their navy can be easily be defeated unless of course Big Brother America comes to the rescue again.

 

Interesting thought, leaves quite a bit out. Then again, i am not known for my brevity, once i really get going. It is nice to forget quite a bit of history, given the complications of well over several millennial of human conflict that is often waged at any given time and in no particular region. Nothing is ever as simple as we like them too be. So i will be short this time, with just  one simple question to start out with, which may explain quite a bit too me:

 

 Did the history of the Soviet involvement around the world disappear completely along with their government back in 91'? I just find this all odd too a certain degree. Am i the only one?

 

 

 

In my opinion Turkey and Israel have better armies than Egypt.

1- In Europe is France (lesser extent Germany and Russia)

 

2- Middle east is Izrael (lesser extent Saudi Arabia and Iran)

 

3- Far east is China (lesser extent Japan and India)

 

This are regional powers,but it does not mean that they have more influence Globaly then other countrys near them.For example in Europe France is a bigger power then Britain but it does not nesesarily have more influence globaly.

Britain could be the Europes regional power but it does not have a high level of indipendence on decision taking in relation to U.S policy.It has also more interior problems relating to its Nuclear program,Royal Family,Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

In Africa we have Nigeria as a regional power but i think it should have a level of indipendence in decision takin to be considered one.I think it is havily influenced (if not completely dependent on it) by US diplomacy.

 

In conclusion regional powers with a certain level of indipendence relating to the one global power,are France,Izrael,China,(Russia).

 

I think Russia is an odd case. The expansion of NATO and the EU have pushed Russia's influence in Europe to the periphery. Russia seems to be more of a Central Asia Power, wish some influence in the Balkans(in the form of support for Serbia), though the US aquisition of bases in Romania and Bulgaria may mean that Russia will only have influence over Belarus, Serbia, and The Ukraine. This is probably the most unnoticed geopolitical development of the last 7 years, but the US is boxing in Russia in Eastern Europe and the Caucaus. It's been trying to do the same in Central Asia, but that was reversed when Uzbekistan kicked everybody except Germany out of their country. The US is currently blunting Russia in the Caucaus with forces in Georgia.

 

 

 

 

 

Turkey and Egypt's army are very close in terms of military power rankings with Turkey get the slight advantage but to think Turkey's much stronger than Egypt is a big mistake. Egypt's army is a major power for some reason people don't seem to understand that.

 

Andrew, how big is the Egyptian military and where do they get their equipment from?

 

And more importantly Britain, not only left the Middle East divided so that it couldn't unite and pose a threat, but imposed "royal families" in charge who could act as puppets of the British regime. They did this intentionally so that the region could never rise as a power.

 

Also, India has made some difference to regional military equations; they helped Bangladesh gain its independence from Pakistan.

 

I believe Egypt's army has some around 300,000 active troops and 400,000 man power reserves. (Rough estimates.) The big advantage we have over Turkey is the navy and the airforce this can also be said for Iran.

 

Egypt is 17th in terms of military rankings and Turkey is 8th.

 

Turkey spends a ton on foreign equipment and on the military much moreso than Egypt does.

 

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp - http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp

 

As you can see, Egypt is a major power just behind Turkey in the Middle East but Turkey isn't really considered part of the Middle East though.

 

EDIT: Also Egypt is remodeling their military to make it more up to date so this should change.

Originally posted by Zagros What aspect of the ME does Egypt dominate?

 

It basically created Pan-Arabism and is the chief military leader of the Middle East. It is also, probably as of now, the most stable nation in the Middle East and bridges the gap between the Middle East and Europe.

 

Their air force also has been greatly improved and updated since the cold war era. With over 200 F-16's, they are the fourth largest operator of the aircraft in the world.

 

Israels existence is guaranteed only through their air force, and if the Egyptian military can stop it, then they're set to be THE regional power of the Middle East.

 

Feanor, I'm Turkish and Egyptian and I must say culturally and geographically Turkey shares almost nothing besides history and religion with the Middle East. They are both on divergent paths and and pretty soon Turkey may be a part of the EU. Most Turks identify themselves different from Arabs and other Middle Eastern peoples. They have practically no connection or they are severed to other Middle East nations.

 

And I understand Turkey's not exactly European either but it is becoming more European while the Middle East is becoming more anti-Western and radically so.

 

Besides, Egypt is stronger militarily if you compare it to Iran. I don't know if you have but if you do compare it then to Turkey and you will see what I'm talking about. Egypt is also planned to mass modernize its army within a few years.

Also in Africa, isn't there a French saying. France is the most powerful country in Africa........... Ask Gadaffi.

 

If you go by this reckoning, which I did not use for this question, Then the US is considered to be the most powerful country in North East Asia, Europe, and The Middle East. But for this discussion we seem to be talking about powers that geographically located in a region.

Though I agree that France tends to play a large role in Africa.

 

Pan-Arabism was started by Nasser who opposed the West and later dispelled by Sadat and Hosni who supported the West but the movement is still alive among its people.

 

And Zagros I do not mean to be rude or antagonize you but is your belief in this Pan-Arabism have something to do with your Persian heritage?

 

I am actually indifferent to pan-Arabism, in fact I would prefer it if Arabs united under one state on Arab land instead of having such bickering, cowardly subservient leaders - they are a shame unto their heritage. 

I don't think it would be because there is a common enemy of all middle eastern countries and has been for the last 200 years.  If these Arabs would follow Arab interests instead of being played off against Iran then there is nothing to worry about since Iran is itself a large and powerful country anyway, making war highly undesirable.

 

In addition,  in no one province do Arabs actually constitute a majority, More than half of Khuzistan is actually Lor/Bakhtiari and urban Persian.  One pan Arabist leader did try to play the fact that there are Iranian Arabs against Iran and failed miserably.  His first name began with s and ended with m.

 

I still remember the animosity between the two nationalities, and didn't wish too enflame the sensibilities of the two groups. Thus... the less said, the better it is for everyone!