-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Really? Who wouldn't jump when a nuclear power starts to get moody? Insane ones maybe.
Apart from that, I am pretty sure both of them just wait for the US to sheath its saber to start "jumping" on weaker preys. One in particular has a certain region that is internationally recognized to be part of its country, but is de facto independent because of the mere fact that the US wants it to be so, and enforce the current status quo. To the great chagrin of said power I am sure.
Once yankees are gone, who's going to stop them then? And isn't that one of the key aspect of Hegemony? Enforcing your peace?
- 3
Another nuclear power. Hence why the US isn't a Hegemon. on a European or global scale. It can't enforce its will on Russia or China without risking a nuclear war. Hence why Russia has been able to invade two nations that were friendly, but not allied to, the US during the past two decades. Likewise China is claiming territory in the South. China Sea against the will of the US. A hedgemon wouldn't tolerate such acts of defiance and would act militarily to stop them. Instead the US is limited to sanctions by the threat of MAD. If another country can utterly destroy you, even at the costs of its own destruction, you don't have hedgemony over them.
First the US could have stopped both. Especially in Ukraine where no Russian troop where officially involved in. They just chose not to. But even then, without the US hegemony, Russia would have just Iraq'ed or Libya'd those country.
That's right, because pissing on international laws is not something everyone can get away with. Hegemonic powers can however.
Hegemony also does not mean you rule the world. Again if the US is not a Hegemon then it's simply not a superpower either. The definition of one is embedded in the other.
Here wikipedia:
If the US does not meet that definition then it cannot be considered a superpower either. Simple as that.
By the way, it's completely normal for other powers to constantly challenge the Hegemony. It's all part of the game. Everyone wants to be at the top afterall.
That's right, because pissing on international laws is not something everyone can get away with. Hegemonic powers can however.
Hegemony also does not mean you rule the world. Again if the US is not a Hegemon then it's simply not a superpower either. The definition of one is embedded in the other.
Here wikipedia:
(/hɪˈdʒɛməni/ (listen), UK also /hɪˈɡɛməni/, US also /ˈhɛdʒəmoʊni/) is the political, economic, or military predominance of one state over other states.[1][2] In ancient Greece (8th c. BC – AD 6th c.), hegemony denoted the politico-military dominance of a city-state over other city-states,[3] wherein the dominant state is the hegemon.[4] In the 19th century, hegemony denoted the "social or cultural predominance or ascendancy; predominance by one group within a society or milieu" and "a group or regime which exerts undue influence within a society".[5]
If the US does not meet that definition then it cannot be considered a superpower either. Simple as that.
By the way, it's completely normal for other powers to constantly challenge the Hegemony. It's all part of the game. Everyone wants to be at the top afterall.
- 4
- 3
You do realize that the US and USSR were both considered Super Powers? If that title requires global hedgemony they would need to be each others hedgemon in order to both be Super Powers.
Yeah I know.
The US and the USSR were indeed global hegemony vying for global supremacy. We call this conflict the cold war. And yes multiple hegemonies can coexist. But rarely well or for long without entering in conflict. Such is the cost of claiming supremacy over everyone else.
The USSR collapse left the USA as the sole superpower allowing it to be the undisputed global hegemon. That is, if it is indeed a superpower. And it it is the only one with such status and power, yes.
- 2
Bending history to conform to one word has turned this conversation into a pretzel.
I accept your surrender. But really, one just has to read the dictionnary sometimes. It helps knowing the meaning of words.
- 3
Do I strike you as someone who does not respect the meaning of words?
The problem begins, to repeat myself, when you begin driving square pegs into round holes and force a definition to fit a question whether it applies or not.
- 1
America has become an Imperial Presidency rather than a Republic following the rise of the intelligence state. If it can be proven - and it can - that Europe is instrumental in picking that president, then does that make Europe the Hegemon of America when the president they pick is in power? Or Russia when their candidate sits in the Oval Office?
Bending terms via verbal gymnastics is fun, it does not always yeild the proper answer.
Bending terms via verbal gymnastics is fun, it does not always yeild the proper answer.
A imperial prince being able to influence the imperial election means the Emperor is a vassal of every imperial states rather than the reverse? You indeed look confused about certain things.
I don't know why people thinks that Hegemony necessarily means totalitarian control when such things have never existed. Should I point out the numerous conflict that arose each time Macedon had a new King? A Tyranny perhaps, but never a totalitarian one.
But to answer your point, if it's true that European states can influence the presidential election that's actually another evidence of the Hegemonic influence that the US hold over the continent. It's in the Europeans interest that the Emperor is good and weak afterall. (and in the best case scenario, their "puppet")
Because that's actual question, why so many countries dump so much money to influence American affairs? That's because American affairs are a global concern. Such is the power of Washington.
I don't know why people thinks that Hegemony necessarily means totalitarian control when such things have never existed. Should I point out the numerous conflict that arose each time Macedon had a new King? A Tyranny perhaps, but never a totalitarian one.
But to answer your point, if it's true that European states can influence the presidential election that's actually another evidence of the Hegemonic influence that the US hold over the continent. It's in the Europeans interest that the Emperor is good and weak afterall. (and in the best case scenario, their "puppet")
Because that's actual question, why so many countries dump so much money to influence American affairs? That's because American affairs are a global concern. Such is the power of Washington.
Last edited:
- 1
It is not.
It is evidence that the modern world has progressed beyond the political understanding of ancient Greeks. And attempting to understand this political landscape from their perspective is limiting at best.
This vast majority of this conversation is not scholarship - with a few notable exceptions - but word gamesmanship. People scoring points and claiming mock victories rather than attempting to understand the matter as a whole.
That's true. That's why the word hegemon is redundant with Great Powers and Superpowers. Both terms already include the preeminent and domineering role that the old greek term ascribed to the old cities states of Athens, Sparta, Thebes and later on, to the Kingdom of Macedon. And much more indeed.
Yes, the term Hegemon works best in small, primative, historical settings where there is a clear and obvious advantage of one power over another. Hegemon, Great Powers, and Superpowers are all distinct terms to describe specific periods in human political history. Each term has a precise meaning and applies to specific things occurring at the time it was coined.
Today, by my estimation, there are four major powers in the world: United States, Russia, China, and Europe. Each one of these entities revolves around a core faction of Intelligence services that operate not in the open, but in the shadows in ways Plato could have never dreamed. None of these four countries respond to the will of the people, national agendas are formulated in the shadows and its will imposed upon them. It is the relationship between these powers that defines the modern world, and I'm not sure any of the four can be entirely trusted.
Last edited:
- 1
Neither one was a global hegemon, but they had regional hegemony. The USA rose to global hegemony for a while during the 1990s, but that ended in 2001 or 2003 depending on who you ask. Nowadays the USA are still the predominant power in many parts of the world but they are being contested regionally.
Power and predominance are also multi faceted things, so you can have a position of predominance in certain fields of conflict (economic, military, cyber,...) and parity in others. It's not all or nothing, and the amount of deference that other nations must do to a stronger power depends on where they have their pain points and the greatest need for the stronger power's support/acquiescence.
- 3
Eh, we're getting to the definitions stage of OT arguments again. Pedant to the rescue!
Hegemony is not a word in common usage, it's international politics jargon. Its meaning varies a bit according to analysts or scientists working definitions but the general meaning of it is quite well-established. It is a level of influence over other states that is much higher than ordinary but below direct control. It means other states listen when you speak and usually try to follow your advice. It means that states trying to better their own position either work with you or they look for ways to get around you.
It also means (on this I think @IsadorBG is a bit vague) that within your sphere of influence you have no equal, no other state whose advice is taken just as seriously. The only way you can have two or more hegemons is if each has their sphere of influence. During the Cold War, SU and US were both hegemons within their own sphere, but they were never, and could never be, co-hegemonic over the same set of states. (There's a good argument that the US was a global hegemon because its sphere of influence was worldwide but the SU's more geographically limited sphere was not a part of it.)
The word hegemon is Greek and its first application was to the influence Athens exercised over its allies in the Delian League. In its early years this control was through informal influence, later on it mutated into more direct forms of control which are even characterized by many historians as an Athenian Empire. You don't need a word like hegemony for that later stage, it's useful only for the early stage.
As to the time period, the word has been applied to the US more often than to any other state in history. In Europe the US only exercised formal control over parts of Germany and Austria after WW2 for some time, it never applied military power to keep its allies in line, and yet its voice was always heard and usually followed, its stance was decisive for most alliance decisions. It makes no sense to describe NATO policies as the outcome of negotiations between equals. One can't accurately describe this without discussing how much weight the US could throw around.
The terms great power or superpower refer to something entirely different, namely the capacity to exercise military force on a scale that's matched only by others of that rank. A state can be a great power without ever having hegemony over any other state. Conversely, a regional hegemon need not be considered a great power on a global scale. Because one can exercise influence through other means than military power, e.g. through economic or cultural contacts, it's possible that a state that doesn't count as a military great power is nevertheless hegemonic. The influence of Germany within the EU is a neat example IMO.
Edit: fixed a misplaced comma.
Hegemony is not a word in common usage, it's international politics jargon. Its meaning varies a bit according to analysts or scientists working definitions but the general meaning of it is quite well-established. It is a level of influence over other states that is much higher than ordinary but below direct control. It means other states listen when you speak and usually try to follow your advice. It means that states trying to better their own position either work with you or they look for ways to get around you.
It also means (on this I think @IsadorBG is a bit vague) that within your sphere of influence you have no equal, no other state whose advice is taken just as seriously. The only way you can have two or more hegemons is if each has their sphere of influence. During the Cold War, SU and US were both hegemons within their own sphere, but they were never, and could never be, co-hegemonic over the same set of states. (There's a good argument that the US was a global hegemon because its sphere of influence was worldwide but the SU's more geographically limited sphere was not a part of it.)
The word hegemon is Greek and its first application was to the influence Athens exercised over its allies in the Delian League. In its early years this control was through informal influence, later on it mutated into more direct forms of control which are even characterized by many historians as an Athenian Empire. You don't need a word like hegemony for that later stage, it's useful only for the early stage.
As to the time period, the word has been applied to the US more often than to any other state in history. In Europe the US only exercised formal control over parts of Germany and Austria after WW2 for some time, it never applied military power to keep its allies in line, and yet its voice was always heard and usually followed, its stance was decisive for most alliance decisions. It makes no sense to describe NATO policies as the outcome of negotiations between equals. One can't accurately describe this without discussing how much weight the US could throw around.
The terms great power or superpower refer to something entirely different, namely the capacity to exercise military force on a scale that's matched only by others of that rank. A state can be a great power without ever having hegemony over any other state. Conversely, a regional hegemon need not be considered a great power on a global scale. Because one can exercise influence through other means than military power, e.g. through economic or cultural contacts, it's possible that a state that doesn't count as a military great power is nevertheless hegemonic. The influence of Germany within the EU is a neat example IMO.
Edit: fixed a misplaced comma.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Agreed. And there are many who will argue, quietly, that this is by design.
What do you even mean by this - 'one power that is indispensable for everyone else'. As mentioned in the most recent posts the problem with this thread is that 'hegemonic status' is a loose term under which some definitions the US may meet the relevant criteria but under others it certainly wouldnt.
The EU directly dictates pan-European policies that is either directly or indirectly relevant to all of Europe - the single currency, schengen, the EU budget and most importantly the ECJ. These directly impact and influence Europe in ways that the US has never done (with the possible exception of post war occupation/ the Marshall Plan).
Certainly the US is a major European partner and is undoubtedly a world superpower with its ability to project military power and its giant economic market. Europe does co-operate closely with the US for reasons which you expand upon, but I would argue that there is very little direct American influence over Europe in contrast to the EU.
Perhaps a comparison which could be made would be to say whether the Ottomans had hegemonic status over Europe during the reign the Sulieman the Magnificent.
Jodel is talking about one central country which has something everyone wants - money, technology, food, medicine, aid - that becomes hated because it is so necessary to all.