Stratfor Forecast 2015 - 2025

[Martinus]

The EU, being a European union, is largely defined by geography - the countries that are a part are simply those that share a geographically identified label.

So it isn't like these countries necessarily have tangible characteristics that unite them and make it make "sense" for them to unit. The driving reason for unification is not shared culture, economic status, ethnicity, etc., etc. - none of the things that would normally suggest that other political entities might make more sense as a single entity.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but doesn't it then suggest that if you are going to have such a union, you need to then force the union into a mold of shared economic and political fates, rather than going half way, as it seems now?

I know I am not articulating this well...but basically, what I am saying is that if the EU is a real thing, then shouldn't Germany treat Greece not like a separate political entity they have an interest in helping to succeed, but only an interest, but rather as an actual part and parcel of the German(EU) state, and their success cannot by definition be considered separately from the success of Germany in general? Hence giving them loans isn't really the answer, any more than giving Eastern Germany a loan was the answer when they re-unified. Of course, that also requires Greece to act as a part and parcel as well.

It seems to me that for the EU to actually work, they need to treat each country more like a US state, rather than truly separate nations with some political and economic ties.

Otherwise, it isn't really a Union, is it? It is just an alliance.

Seems to me like Europe needs to go all in on this Union idea, or drop it as a bad idea. Either there is a single European nation/state, or there is not.

Right now, it seems to me like Europe is getting a lot of the negatives of a federal government layer sitting on top of a national government layer, but without the actual power to matter.

But the more I think about this, the more it seems kind of impossible to actually do, unless you limit the EU to only those countries that are actually already very similar to one another to begin with...

That's the problem, really - the EU is a work in progress. It is not a federation yet but it is something more than an alliance. But it is not possible "to treat each country as a US state" without transferring more powers to the "federal" government - something that many countries are loathe to do.

This internal contradiction is what causes a lot of trouble.

[Valmy]

That's the problem, really - the EU is a work in progress. It is not a federation yet but it is something more than an alliance. But it is not possible "to treat each country as a US state" without transferring more powers to the "federal" government - something that many countries are loathe to do.

This internal contradiction is what causes a lot of trouble.

Yep.  You would also need an overhaul on how EU entities operate to make them directly accountable to the European people and bypass the national governments.  Which is not something that is likely to happen without some sort of extreme event compelling it.

As it is there is no entity with much legitimacy looking after the interests of the EU.

[The Minsky Moment]

We predicted the inability of Europe to survive economic crises, China's decline and the course of the U.S.-jihadist war.

HUH?

Back on planet earth, Europe survived the economic crisis and China's *rise* is the single most critical geopolitical fact of the entire period covered by their past forecasts.   There is no such thing as a "US-jihadist war" so whatever "course" they may have predicted must be off as well.

With these boasting points, I didn't bother to read the rest.

The mere fact that they claim to have some special ability to forecast the future is enough to disqualify them as a useful source in my book.  I'll stick to my dartboard, thank you, at least it doesn't spin itself.

[mongers]

The founder doesn't seem so keen to trumpet his success with this one:

http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/18335-1/George+Friedman.aspx

The Coming War with Japan
Ms. LeBard and Mr. Friedman discussed their book, The Coming War With Japan, which hypothesizes that increasing economic and political conflicts between the U.S. and Japan will lead to conflict, political or military, in the next two generations. As the U.S.-Soviet conflict dominated the global political scene during the previous two generations, the trade battles between the U.S. and Japan will expand into conflict that will dominate the next two. The authors discussed their work at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania where they teach, their experiences and research that went into the book, and related the book's hypothesis to U.S. policy concerning Japan.

[Eddie Teach]

There is no such thing as a "US-jihadist war"

Do the jihadists realize this?

[Valmy]

I remember the days of hating the Japanese.  That was weird.

[Valmy]

There is no such thing as a "US-jihadist war"

Do the jihadists realize this?

They don't seem to, they spend all their time killing Kurds and Syrians.

[Zanza]

That's the problem, really - the EU is a work in progress. It is not a federation yet but it is something more than an alliance. But it is not possible "to treat each country as a US state" without transferring more powers to the "federal" government - something that many countries are loathe to do.

This internal contradiction is what causes a lot of trouble.

State rights! 

[CountDeMoney]

The founder doesn't seem so keen to trumpet his success with this one:

http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/18335-1/George+Friedman.aspx

The Coming War with Japan
Ms. LeBard and Mr. Friedman discussed their book, The Coming War With Japan, which hypothesizes that increasing economic and political conflicts between the U.S. and Japan will lead to conflict, political or military, in the next two generations. As the U.S.-Soviet conflict dominated the global political scene during the previous two generations, the trade battles between the U.S. and Japan will expand into conflict that will dominate the next two. The authors discussed their work at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania where they teach, their experiences and research that went into the book, and related the book's hypothesis to U.S. policy concerning Japan.

Right block, wrong house.

[Richard Hakluyt]

We predicted the inability of Europe to survive economic crises, China's decline and the course of the U.S.-jihadist war.

HUH?

Back on planet earth, Europe survived the economic crisis and China's *rise* is the single most critical geopolitical fact of the entire period covered by their past forecasts.   There is no such thing as a "US-jihadist war" so whatever "course" they may have predicted must be off as well.

With these boasting points, I didn't bother to read the rest.

The mere fact that they claim to have some special ability to forecast the future is enough to disqualify them as a useful source in my book.  I'll stick to my dartboard, thank you, at least it doesn't spin itself.

You are being too harsh, I thought it was one of Tim's better efforts.

[Sheilbh]

That's why the point they are making - i.e. the EU not formally disbanding, but slowly becoming more and more irrelevant - is the more likely scenario. This is not such a new thing either - already the multi-speed Europe is a fact and if the Eurozone becomes more troubled, this trend will continue. Meanwhile, there is already a number of localized blocs, pacts and alliances within the EU.

Yeah. It's weird but to an extent the reason for the European project is the European project. If the momentum towards ever greater union and further integration is checked then it may be tough for the EU to keep all the plates spinning. And you see it in the language of Eurocrats. Just the other day I was reading the Belgian ECB member saying that mutual debt and political union are 'inevitable' as consequences of monetary union it's just working out how to get there. I'm not that sure myself.

I always find it odd the amount of attention Britain gets when we talk about the Euro-future, because UKIP are killing what they love (as they increase in prominence so does support for staying in the EU) and we've always been an annoying half-committed member. I'd be far, far more worried about what's happening in France and Italy because they're EU-core. Britain having a tantrum is a given, it's mentioned in the treaties. Core, founder states causing trouble is of more consequence and more novel.

I also think one of the possibly dangerous side effects of Grexit would be that it would be the first major reversal I can think of for Europe. We've got, in the sexy talk of Brussels, variable geometry and variable speed but the European process hasn't ever really had a reverse gear and it'd be interesting to see the consequences of a member state going back on such a major piece of integration.

I think the other risks to the EU are from the Eurozone. It seems to have caused the political fragmentation of Europe into more national politics rather than ideological politics at a European level. I'm also not sure the area's converging, I think for example we might see inflation in Germany above 2% while inflation expectations in the rest of the Eurozone remain pretty subdued which would create a dilemma for the ECB.

It certainly seems the most challenging time for the European project so far - though the EU normally does well out of crises and I suspect, though this may be totally wrong, that if Juncker survives he may be the most important Commission President since Delors. But presumably Merkel will go at the end of this term(?), would anyone bet on Rajoy, Cameron, Renzi or Hollande still being in office in 2020 - or on who's likely to succeed them? It seems fairly tough to predict how Europe'll go in the next five years far less the next ten.

I love the pro-Poland stuff too Visegrad Group HO! (except for Hungary )

[Zanza]

But presumably Merkel will go at the end of this term(?)

Why? She is the most popular politician in Germany and almost certain to be reelected.

[Sheilbh]

Why? She is the most popular politician in Germany and almost certain to be reelected.

I don't know why, I thought she would for some reason. Three full terms seems long enough?

And again I don't know why, and this may be wrong, but she seems more like the sort of leader who'd want to go on her own terms.

On the popularity front it's incredible and there's no doubt she's the most impressive politician in Europe, but I think gravity catches up with everyone eventually ('all political careers end in failure').

Having said that I suppose Kohl had four terms - she's already overtaken Adenauer, no?

[Zanza]

No, Merkel is her tenth year. Adenauer had 13, Kohl 16.

Bismarck had 28. 

[Eddie Teach]

Bismarck had 28. 

He also had a boss.