Sweden still has among the finest air forces in the world. I think that alone probably places them in the top 30. Though they have downgraded the size of their airforce in recent years and are near the bottom of this list. Perhaps in a few more years as we see the rising power of Asian countries and a few in Africa, Sweden will be knocked off the list entirely. But for now, honestly, who would you replace them with?
This is my theory: GFP doesn't publish their algorithm. But they do say a couple things about it. One thing is that landlocked countries are not "penalized" for not having a navy. It's my opinion that for most countries which are not landlocked this probably means that they are, in effect, heavily penalized for having a coastline. If they are comparing naval strength against some sort of mean, then the fact that America's naval power so *completely* outclasses everyone else, it's just totally embarrassing how weak every other navy in the world is compared to America's (even including countries like Russia and the UK), then I think what happens is that countries that are landlocked in effect get a pretty substantial boost to their ranking. By far the oddest countries to ever show up in the top 30 are Ethiopia, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic. All land-locked countries.
It sucks to be a North Korean
Regarding Japan, it's actually true that the Japanese constitution prohibits the development of "war potential" and specifically renounces war as a means of settling disputes. The constitution was written by the USA after World War 2. However, starting in 1950 largely in response to developments in Korea, Japan began building up something like a national guard. That has evolved into the Japan Self Defense Force, one of the finest national guard forces in the world. And more recently (last year, in fact), the Japanese government has approved a full-scale rearmament of the country as a way of countering the increased military spending and posturing of China and the continued craziness emanating from North Korea. Not that that decision had any effect on these rankings, but it shows attitudes have slowly been changing since 1945.
I get your point, but if you wanted to pick a weak country easily won, I don't think Finland was the best choice of all Sweden's neighbours. Just saying...
In addition to the precipitous drops of those three countries which fell off the top 30 entirely, there were big declines in the numbers posted by Iran, Sweden, and a few other countries; as well as big gains for the three newcomers to the top 30 already mentioned, and also Turkey, Japan, Canada, Poland, and Australia. China continues to close the gap between itself and Russia, but has not yet surpassed it's comrade to the North. The USA, of course, retains its commanding lead.
try my Andorra quiz here.
Drop that hundo!!!
I even guessed Taiwan, ahah!
*sad British noises*
I suspect that this measure is rated as a better one than most because of the of the sheer number of variables it accounts for, from an impressive set of data. It’s clearly one of the best as a quantitative analysis, but therein lies its inherent and unavoidable flaw: in the real world, there are far too many variables which can’t be quantified and fed into algorithms. For example, how could they quantify the UK’s relative advantage over France as an island; or, how much advantage does Switzerland gain by being surrounded by Alps? What role does morale play in conflict, or home advantage? Relative competence/experience amongst the general staff? Some things, you just can’t assign a number to.
I already said that they would not be kicked off the list. Even if their position may, and probably should, be revised downward... which... maybe wouldn't even require any special exceptions or adjustments to the algorithm that GFP uses to generate the list if you consider the staggering number of losses Russia has suffered in terms of equipment and personnel... simply adjusting the stats and reapplying the algorithm would do that.
As for their campaign of war crimes in Ukraine... I don't know what you count as a "win" for them, especially given that their starting objective was to take over Kyiv within a couple of weeks and dominate the entire country probably within a month, installing some kind of obedient Russian puppet government there that would agree to recognize Russian annexation of Crimea and "independence" of Russian puppet states in the Donbass...
No idea where you're getting your information about stagnant territory movements (with Russians retreating all over the place lately, even from territory Moscow claims to have annexed), or the casualties being "generally even" (with Russian losses recently eclipsing 90,000, according to non-Russian media). Ukraine obviously has the momentum currently and Russia has been thoroughly humiliated.
But there's no way anyone being serious could call this anything other than a complete and total disaster for Russia the likes of which the world has rarely even seen before. Hard to think of anything at all recent that was even comparable. Going back into history there are more examples... Agincourt... Thermopylae... The Battle of Britain... the Russo-Japanese War, or perhaps the American Revolution. But even if Russia carves out some kind of victory after everything else that has happened, this will still go down as one of biggest muck-ups in military history, with one side getting absolutely spanked by an inferior enemy.
Copyright H Brothers Inc, 2008–2023
| Go To Top
| View Mobile Site