Talk:Middle power

The UK is a great power not a middle power.

The UK is a great power not a middle power also how did the UK make the list but Ireland did not even though the UK is clearly more powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.230.251 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. Ireland according to this list and the Great Power list is neither. While I somewhat believe that UK is a great power, it all depends on the academic. Some academics think UK is a great power, which is why it's on the great power page. And the source on this page says that UK is a middle power. Deavenger (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The constant content removal needs to stop. I've filed a request for page protection. - SimonP (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Hopefully with protection, the IP will stop, and possibly discuss the issue. Deavenger (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that actually UK has only one old light aircaft carrier and is still classified as a Great Power, while Italy with two of them is classified as a Middle Power. The English people need strongly a bath in reality and humility... goodbye from India... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.116.232 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft Carriers do not define Great Powers, nor do they define Middle Powers. A Great Power is often translated as "World Power", which is generally accepted to apply to nations with leading economic, cultural, military, scientific and political influence around the globe. The UK is still by far among the top tier of Great Powers and out performs most of the current great powers economically, culturally, militarily, scientifically and politically. The UKs status as a recognized Nuclear power and member of the United Nations Security Council are major indications of its Great Power status and global importance. The fact that the UK is both relevant and present when it comes to international discussions regarding N Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria etc isn't a token of good will or down to pure chance, but because the UKs global interests, voice and opinions are as relevant and as respected as ever. The point im trying to get at is - the UK exercises all the characteristics of a Great Power and is seen by her Government and most of the world as one too. India on the other hand is largely unimportant and unable to act as a global player. Canada and Australia are consulted with more in international discussions than India. Good luck in the Olympics! You sure as hell need it. Goodbye, Great Britain. Talk^Woe90i 17:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Greece is a middle power

Greece is the most economically and militarily advanced nation in the balkans. Its GDP is above the EU average. It is a fundamental member of the EU and NATO. Greece has the power of veto in referance to FYROM. Its geographical position makes it a global hub for technology, industry and so on. Greece should definetly be added to the list, especially as weaker countries (algeria, austria, belgium, denmark, malaysia etc) are included. Please ammend this mistake!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.100.231 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that Greece is a middle power (without being OR or SYN), as the so called "weaker" countries all have sources stating that they're middle powers. Deavenger (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious from this discussion that everybody just wants their own country on the list, just saying "I think my country should be on the list" without providing any sources is pretty much useless. Calling those other countries "weaker" (weaker by what standard?) is also very POV --81.164.88.254 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Grece has disproved its case for being a middle power in its recent economic collapse. I only see grece as a power when taken as a piece of a greater UE, which is steadilly becoming integrated into one political unit as a superpower.--75.185.247.18 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Greece is 'stronger' according to you than Belgium, Austria, Malaysia and Denmark according to you, the recent economic collapse of Greece shows it is not a middle power but these nations definitely are. Mspence835 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Great Powers should deleted from the list

GreatPower and MiddlePower are different status. it is not well 5 Countries(China, France, Germany, Japan, UK) listed in both GreatPower and MiddlePower. 112.162.197.118 (talk)

While some academics and scholars refer to those countries as great powers, some academics refer to them as middle powers. As the article states "The overlap between the list of middle powers and great powers shows that there is no unanimous agreement among authorities.". Deavenger (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That some academics consider those countries middle powers is well referenced, and they should stay on the list. That said, perhaps we should include a note for those countries that also have references for great power status. - SimonP (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We do. Right before it goes into the list of middle powers, it says that the countries of France, UK, Germany, and Japan are also considered great powers by some academics. Deavenger (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that. That really should address any concerns that people have. - SimonP (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I committed a bad edit(including the US) but this page is really confusing. I don't think that we should put the great powers in the list. It's highly confusing whether that map considers the powers mentioned great powers or middle powers(China and Russia not colored at all, and Britain, France, Japan and Germany dark colored?).Teeninvestor (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan and Germany are definitely great powers. In fact, they belong there probably more than Britain or France.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, not in the military terms by which great powers are traditionally defined, because Japan and Germany lack the comparable power projection provided by the UK and France's air/sea lift and expeditionary capabilities. The original definition of a superpower was, after all, great power plus great mobility of power. Japan and Germany also lack strategic nuclear forces and wouldn't last very long in an all-out military clash with either of the two European great powers. The UK and France also have residual influence outside Europe, especially in Africa, and the UK in some other parts of the Commonwealth. Lachrie (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Russia or China are not up on the map was because at the time the map was updated, we did not have any reliable sources showing Russia or China as middle powers. US definatly cannot be called a middle power at this time. I shall be requesting that the map people to add Russia and China in dark red also sometime tommorow. The great powers (save US) are colored as the academic consensus is kind of split on whether those countries are great powers or middle powers. Deavenger (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be clearer to create one map with the middle powers and great powers both colored with the disputed nations Hatched with both colors--75.185.247.18 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

there is a big difference between countries like Canada,Italy and even Australia

being members of the G8, top 8 export countries for most of the last decade, having gdp's over 1500 billion dollars, Canada having the 2nd highest gdp per capita in the G8, major producer of vehicles, largest trading partner of the US, being one of the main members of the francophonie, commonwealth, makes their decisions important. if middle power includes every major country outside of the US, China, France, UK, Russia, Japan then there should only be 6 middle powers. Italy, Canada, Spain, Brazil, India, South Korea. exports, nominal gdp, how reliant the 6 great powers are on the other ones for trade. Australia might make the list but its exports are a bit low. Grmike (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)grmike

Forgot Germany? Bub 2009-11-03 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.160.136 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, this image here says something else:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Exports_by_country_map_copy2.png

The colour code suggests that these countries all have an equal-ish export size:

Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Spain, Italy, Thailand, South Korea and Saudi Arabia (along with some smaller countries whose names escape me).

India has less exports than those countries, just.

By nominal GDP, not counting countries that are considered Great Powers and including only the countries you considered probables:

7. Italy

9. Spain

10. Brazil

11. Canada

12. India

13. Mexico

14. Australia

15. South Korea

So the GDP's of all those countries are in quick succession. Italy's is almost twice as big as Australia's, but it's only to be expected form a G8 country compared to a G20 country, and one with a third of the population.

I'm sorry for only using Wikipedia here, but considering that for these things we have them sourced I think we can let this slip for now.

Australia and South Korea are also considered Major Non-Nato Allies, something that cannot be said for Brazil - therefore, they have a more official relationship with the dominant Superpower.

Of Australia's main export partners (US, China and Japan), they are one of Japan's main import partners. Due mainly to geographic location the US cheapens out and goes after Mexico and Canada, with China dealing more with South Korea and other Asian nations. Japan imports more Australian stuff than they do South Korean (5% for Australia compared to 4.4% for South Korea). Japan's only other main imports are from the US, China and Saudi (most likely oil).

I'm thinking that we've successfully found our dominant Middle Powers, Australia included thankyou. Going by the criteria you've set, it actually shoes itself in above one of the others in each, both of which you considered clear cut MPs. Comics (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Italy, Mexico, South Korea and Spain are major middle powers as they all have significant GDPs and military budgets. Although significant GDPs and military budgets make these countries more powerful than ordinary middle powers they are weaker than great powers, notably due to a lack of a nuclear capability which could wreak destruction across the globe and lack of a permanent UN Security Council seat and great power veto which grants enormous diplomatic power, in addition to possessing smaller GDPs and military budgets than great powers. Japan and Germany are often cited as great powers despite their lack of nuclear capability and permanent UN Security Council seats because both countries have immense economic power as a result of their huge GDPs and massive share of global trade, and considerable military power as a result of near great power levels of military expenditure. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture incorrect

I'm posting here because it seemed to request in the image discussion not to do it. According to the picture China is a middle power (which it certainly isn't) but it's not listed and as I do not know how to edit pictures I would request that someone else do it as it is clearly contradictory to its own page. Mspence835 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at it even closer and realise that the map is not remotely in line with the countries listed as the likes of Taiwan and Philippines are on the list but left off the map. Mspence835 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the map is based on one particular source but the list is based on several other sources. A clearer indication that the map and list are not meant to be two presentations of the same data may be in order. --Khajidha (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I know it probably sounds out of line but if a Middle Power is defined as "having influence or international recognition". Surely Ireland has had a greater influence on major nations (USA & UK) than countries like New Zealand, Denmark or Singapore. Is there certain criteria that I'm forgetting for qualification on this list. --Jacobfrid (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Questioning the removal of the Czech Republic from the middle powers list (it had a source), I recently re-added it with the source again, yet I was reverted. Could someone explain to me why the Czech Republic cannot be included in this list, despite the fact that an academic has called it a middle power? CuboneKing (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted it back. On a general note, I don't think countries with one source should remain here, but until we agree on such a decision there is no reason to single out Czech Republic while it has one source.Farmanesh (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My vote is for removing the Czech Republic from the list. Our country is small (population, GNP etc.) and its military is nearly non-existent. I realy can´t imagine any reason, why it should be on the list (source doesn´t discuss it further). However, on the other hand... Czech Republic as middle power... sounds good. --Pavlor (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that Czech Republic should not be among middle powers while other countries with smaller population (Austria, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, ) or smaller GNP (Algeria, Morroco, Pakistan, Romania, Ukraine, , Vietnam) or even with smaller GNP and smaller population (Hungary, Uruguay) should be on the list ? ( Interela (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC) )

Doesn't it depend strongly on the level of influence that state is perceived as capable of projecting? Some might see Singapore as an important Middle Power because of its strategic trading position in SE Asia and important economic standing, despite its relatively small geography and population. Comics (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove India from this list

It seems weird to include India as a middle power based simply on one reference from 1997. One paper cannot reflect a real academic consensus or even a reasonable academic case to make India a middle power. Can you find other references that say India has attained status of a middle power on a level comparable to powerful nations like Denmark, Finland, Norway, Thailand, Sweden and the Czech Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aban1313 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop being silly. You're not funny or clever. David (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added references. I may add more. Lachrie (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

India most certainly belongs in the list of middle powers; India is still a backward developing nation whose HUGE uneducated population still believe in witches, hence the many rapes and killings of girls and women accused of being witches. Some as young as 4 years old! Then the fact that India is home to approx 1/3rd of the worlds poor and its GDP per-capita is one of the lowest in the world. Economically India offers nothing to the world except a growing consumer market where nations like Britain have a trade surplus selling goods and services to India's growing but still very small middle class. India's IT sector which Indians often boast about is one of the finest in Asia, but in comparison to their European, N American and even S American counterparts performs very poorly as expected. The lack of infrastructure in India is appalling and is below that of most developing African nations.

India is in receipt of $Billions of foreign aid from Europe and North America. India's GDP of 1.5 trillion is very average for middle power status, but combine that figure with India's massive population and that 1.5 trillion economy counts for nothing - India's taxable value per capita is one of the lowest in the world on par with 3rd world countries. The quality of life in India and life expectancy speaks for its self.

As for India's military it is too small to meet regional demands, with India's armed forces split between its eastern and western borders Pakistan and China would make short work of India. India's armed forces are reliant on manpower recruited from India's peasant classes who are poorly trained and equipped in comparison to other middle powers. India's armed forces are large but not powerful and woefully ineffective lacking beyond regional power and influence. Technologically India is 20 years behind and relies on Israel, France, Russia and Britain to supply weapons technology.

Culturally India is a nobody on the world stage

India is just big, not important.194.46.226.64 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you misread my words. India is not yet even a middle power. India's GDP of 1.7 trillion (please correct your figures) is so small it is irrelevant to the world economy. That is why India should be deleted from the list of middle powers. Even the Indian moon probe is 60 years behind technologically advanced superpowers like UK. At best, India could be included in the list of sub-minor powers, if there is one. There have been some typos in the Queen's speech to English Parliament because of which she read out that she wants a special relationship with India. Aban1313 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313

India is an emerging market and there are historic ties and a large Indian migrant community in Britain. George Osborne also said Britain has a special relationship with Ireland, for similar reasons. India is conventionally classified among the middle powers, as the sources show. Moon probes and special relationships for trade or sentiment have nothing to do with it. Please read WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:SOAP and stop abusing the format of the talk pages by posting uninformed and unreferenced personal opinions. Lachrie (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There is only one old reference that calls India a middle power. India is more like a minor/sub-minor/microscopic power. It is unthinkable that India is as powerful as a major middle power like Denmark! Btw, Britain doesn't HAVE a special relationship with India, in the words of Cameron, it is soliciting one "in a spirit of humility"; there is a BIG difference. Aban1313 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313

It's called diplomacy, acknowledging post-colonial sensitivities in India and using flattery to get around New Delhi's emotional insecurity. If that's your evidence, you have no basis for your case, and more sources have already been added which confirm it. The security reality means that Pakistan is more important to Britain than India. Lachrie (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny how Britain didnt need to flatter India in last 60 years. Suddenly, why? Britain has always thrown its lot with Pakistan, based on an idea of martial races that appealed to the racist core of the UK. Bombed spectacularly for you, didnt it? Now, lick Indian boots and make up for that. Economics rules, and it makes sense to be nice and polite to India, doesnt it? And who told you Britain has an independent stake in the security situation? America makes all those decisions for you... lol at you poodles and your illusions. Aban1313 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313

Compliments are part of diplomacy: Churchill also flattered Nehru when he called him 'the light of the east'. That's why platitudinous press releases don't make very useful references. You're also confusing diplomacy with trade, which involves the exchange of goods and services, not compliments, which are largely immaterial to economic-decision making, except perhaps in underdeveloped countries like India where corruption is endemic, e.g. the IPL scam and Commonwealth Games fiasco. Pakistan is more important to Britain because of the size of its Pakistani community and its terrorism links.

It appears that you have no understanding of international relations, and no constructive contributions to make, and that you're only here to distract editors by posting silly inflammatory comments. You've been causing a major distraction, and if you keep drawing attention to yourself like this, you'll inevitably get yourself blocked again, just like you did with your last suspected sock puppet. Lachrie (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya ya...go with Pakistan, who is stopping you... oh it could be that TATA is now Britain's top industrial employer? Btw, I hope you remember how Obama threw the bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office. Wonder why he didn't use flattery in diplomacy...lol! Now go line up outside the new Tata factory in Wolverhampton for a job. Compliments and best wishes from an underdeveloped country that doesn't matter to the world economy. Oh...and enjoy our $10 billion donation to the IMF to save your EU. And send our compliments to your masters in the US. Aban1313 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313

Technically India has some of the trappings of a great nation - it's a member of the BRICS and BASIC, the G-20 (alongside other emerging economies like Brazil) and the G8+5 whilst also languishing in poverty. I think that's why it's considered a middle power in some literature and an emerging great power in others - it's got some influence on the world stage, but not the right ability to project that influence if it needs to. Like Australia - big economy (comparatively) and a level of influence globally (less than India's, perhaps), teeny-tiny population which can't really project influence around the world. Technically there are small powers, but those are countries that have a severely limited role in global affairs (like New Zealand - tiny population, small-ish economy - probably how the like it too (: ) Comics (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea of India as a middle power is well attested in the literature. It's even part of the Nehruvian philosophical tradition. India has been talked up vaguely in some quarters as an "emerging" power since the seventies. As the saying goes, "India is always emerging, but never arrives". Makeshift claims based on membership of economic organisations or the mere size of domestic product aren't traditional or sufficient criteria; rather, they're expedient improvisations, a form of political rhetoric. Redefining a term to support an argument is a fallacy of equivocation. Every nation has aspirations, and we can always indulge in frivolous speculation, though, as you know, an encyclopaedia isn't really the place for personal POV-pushing. Lachrie (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Show me one reference in last 5 years that says Indian power is comparable to Denmark or Norway or Chile or Finland or Malaysia or Poland or Switzerland or Morocco or Romania or Sweden or Venezuela or Austria. I dont know how anyone can seriously believe that India is part of this club. Show me one academic reference that says Indian economy or military is in any sense in the same club as Finland. As a special aside for you Lachrie, I must say British aspirations now by far outstrip its capabilities. You will need a lot more than your current 47 Typhoons to match those aspirations. Aban1313 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313

I know, but they were only makeshift claims. I wasn't suggesting we change the article to suggest a middle power had to have representation in x number of economic forums haha, I was just using them as examples of how India isn't considered a minor power. Comics (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"India's GDP of 1.7 trillion (please correct your figures)" well;

• IMF est. India $1.6 trillion
• World Bank est. India $1.7 trillion
• CIA est. India $1.5 trillion

Take your pick, IMF is more reliable tho!Lawardsday (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

CIA does not estimate. It just collects from IMF and WB with some time delay Aban1313 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313

Aban1313 is a disruptive troll who's been banned before. They shouldn't be considered to be a genuine user. Quite vivid blur (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Add Colombia to the list

Colombia is considered a middle power and is seen as such by all spanish speaking countries, it has carried military operations in several countries, it has military units deployed in several parts of the world in peace keeping missions and have been in several international wars including the Korean war, the War in Afganistan and a war against Peru. Its part of the UN security council also.

Economically it plays a important role in south american economy.

It has one of the highest economies in the region.

and here is a back up source.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~whmoore/garnet-whmoore/ipi/harmel.conf.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.102.253.8 (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Colombia is already on the list. Comics (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Advanced Power

I think there should be a new category, one for those major middle powers that are obviously stronger than their counterparts but weaker then a great power which would be called an "Advanced Power" which is just in between the two. I think countries such as Brazil, Canada, Australia, India, Germany, Japan, and other major countries of that range should be included into this new category of "Advanced Power".--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you.Australia,Brazil,Canada,Germany,India,Italy,Japan and Spain are MAIN middle powers that can't be compared to the other ones.151.40.7.192 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

To the IP who has now reverted 4 times today: let's discuss what you're trying to do here on the talk page. Otherwise you're going to end up blocked. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Malta a middle power???

It's already a new that Japan and Germany are great powers.If i well remember they lack a lot in military (Germany can be compared to Italy as military) and other things.You cite Malta as middle power!!!!!151.40.7.192 (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)