Talk:Regional power/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

USA and Israel are transcontinental?

USA and Israel listed under transcontinental countries, which are qualified as "regional powers whose borders are significantly into other continents [... the list] does not reflect their sphere of influence." Israel is AFAIK geographically wholly inside Asia, although the eastern end of Mediterranean is often culturally counted with Europe, and while one could consider Hawaii not part of a continent, other powers not listed in this list also have sizable parts on other continents (for example Guiana is nearly a seventh of France's territory). Daß Wölf 08:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You may not consider it very impressive, but the Sinai is often considered part of "political Africa" (since part of Egypt), and Israel has obviously had a lot of involvement in the Sinai. AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, even counting Sinai as Africa, I wouldn't say Israel's borders are currently much more significantly into Africa than e.g. Spain's Ceuta and Melilla. Daß Wölf 22:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The Israeli occupation of Sinai (1967-1982) ended 37 years ago. Does Israel still hold any area in the region? Dimadick (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "transcontinental regional power" in International Relations theory. I am not sure where this idea even came up. It's totally against WP:OR.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know much about international relations but the hybrid half-political, half straight geographical definition did strike me as odd and somewhat arbitrary. I'm not opposed to removal of the whole section. Daß Wölf 22:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Collebud88: Would you please state your reasoning for undoing a part of my edit? Daß Wölf 22:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Vietnam a Regional Power?

If Vietnam a Regional Power? then what is Indonesia? is it possible to have more than one Regional Power so close to each other? --EvoSwatch (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible to have "neighboring" regional powers. Spheres of influence may be overlapping.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Mexico

Mexico is being re-inserted without discussion by Collebud88.

It was discussed in 2007 on this talk page that Mexico is not a regional power. Things haven't changed at all.

"Mexico’s strong links to the United States, the two countries are not political allies; and although it forms part of Latin America, Mexico is not a regional leader. Both circumstances are key elements in its inability to establish an international presence. "[1]

• "[2] And also see this one. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Mexico is a regional power. There is no consensus against that. The archive link you provide actually goes on to indicate that the sources indicate Mexico is a regional power.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 06:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide sources that would at least describe how Mexico is a regional power? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course Mexico is a regional power. Here are three sources to start with:

1/ https://search.proquest.com/openview/eb8797a0649560e89b9dfd4292130ea6/1?cbl=41558&pq-origsite=gscholar 2/ https://search.proquest.com/openview/78f08c43249223904b6bc5240d85bc73/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41558 3/ How to compare regional powers: analytical concepts and research topics Review of International Studies Vol. 36, No. 4 (October 2010), pp. 881-901 (21 pages) Published by: Cambridge University Press Detlef Notle Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the article, at present, is that it defines regions strictly as continents. However, just within the Western Hemisphere, different regions exist; some even overlap and others exist within other regions. For example, Latin America is a region. However, the Caribbean is also a region, as well as the Southern Cone and Central America. Sure, South America can also be a region. Some analysts also identify an Andean region. Within International Affairs Theory, this explains the existence of buffer states like Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Uruguay. Within those different regions, different regional powers exist. For example, Colombia is a regional power in the Caribbean, but it's not a regional power in Latin America. Mexico is a regional power in Latin America, but it's not a regional power in the Southern Cone. Chile, Brazil, and Argentina are regional powers in South America (ABC Powers), but Chile is not necessarily counted as a regional power in Latin America.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem. IMO, this is an example where an article was originally constructed on the wrong basis, and it is that basis that needs to be changed before any meaningful expansion of the article is possible. Editors are often quite reluctant to do that because it usually means starting again with a complete re-write. However, by not doing that we are left with articles that experience constant change and constant squabbles. In this case, the necessary change, to the definition of 'regional power', appears to be reasonably simple to do without altering the whole article - but it still will require more work than just changing a few words. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The definition of a regional power depends upon parameters given by academia and not our personal opinions and I will not mind rewriting entire article if am contradicted successfully. If we are going to use certain attributes and ignoring the disputes & inconsistencies with status of that country as a regional power, list is going to be unduly long with many problematic entries in that case. There has been an RfC to avoid countries with ambiguous status.

A regional power essentially exerts its influence across that geographical area, plays a key role in regional security structure and has a significant voice in global affairs as suggested by sources. Mexico's status as a significant middle power is undisputed and proposal to term it as a regional power has been rare, suffers per given parameters and easily contradicted by sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Middle Power is a separate definition. Regional powers don't have to be Great Powers. Even Tahiti could be a regional power. Of course, depending on the academic sources. Along those lines, plenty of academic sources (including those presented by Roger) indicate that Mexico is a regional power. Your refusal to accept that is not a problem; we are not required to "convince" you of anything as you do not own the article. If you insist in removing cited content, you will be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard and so on.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 04:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrator noticeboards don't help with sorting out content dispute. Your treatment of Mexico as an obvious regional power contradicts the above sources I provided and there is a reason why it hasnt been included in this article so far. What Roger has provided does not indicate how those sources pass WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and they are not accessible to me. You need to look for the quotations from the sources which would describe Mexico as the regional power. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Mexico, which earlier had some potential and ambition to become a regional power, is the first Latin American country to draw the conclusion that joining North America - in the form of NAFTA - is the only possible way out of stagnation." The Quest for Regional Integration in the Twenty First Century, African Books Collective, 2012.
• "other countries, such as Mexico, largely abstain from global or regional power projection."The Power of the Chinese Dragon, Springer, 26-Jan-2016.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the second quote above confirms Mexico is a regional power, which I presume was not your intention. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources to affirm or deny that Mexico is a regional power. This 2015 study by Derwich Karol is more reliable ([3]). In effect, it indicates that Mexico is not a regional power. It also explains the reasons as to why this is the case.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Replace Vietnam.

I think Vietnam should be replaced as there are other countries in SEA that is more likely to be a Regional Power if not already one such as Singapore and Thailand, Philippines and Malaysia are coming close to. Vietnam is just a newly opened country relatively speaking and as much as powerful they are now, they aren't powerful nor mature enough to be classified as "Regional Power" what criteria Vietnam have, other said countries have too and more. EvoSwatch (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Oceania and New Zealand

123.192.182.76 and 222.152.255.9 - please continue today's debate here and do not edit war. :-) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thailand as a regional power in SEA

I feel like Thailand is the secondary regional power of SouthEast Asia after Indonesia.Any opinions? Sobhan mohapatra (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Mainland Southeast Asia and Maritime Southeast Asia have very different historical, cultural, and religious background, they can be treated as separate regions. I reckon Mainland Southeast Asia deserves to have its own regional power. Indonesia is clearly the regional power of Maritime Southeast Asia and Thailand can be the regional power of Mainland Southeast Asia. Vic Park (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand

Can we discuss how New Zealand is a regional power? All of the three articles backing up New Zealand do not explicitly mention it being a regional power.

Obviously that New Zealand has a great deal of influence in the Pacific and is also part of some important organizations, such as The Commonwealth, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, OECD, ANZUS, is an observer in the MERCOSUR and is also part of the ASEAN Plus Six, but in comparison with the others regional powers, New Zealand is not part of preeminent organisations like the BRICS, G7, OPEC nor even the G20.

One of the requirements in order to be considered a regional power is being able to exercise considerable influence on the world scale which isn't New Zealand case, since it barely has any hard power and I'm gonna assume it only has a moderate smart power. It does place fairly well in soft power rankings, though. -- 13:35, 27 March 2022 SpaceEconomist192

Who defines that a regional power should be able to exercise considerable influence on the world scale? If so, what would be the difference between a regional power and a middle power? In my opinion, as long as the country projects significant influence within its own region, it is a regional power.

In New Zealand's case, it is clearly a regional power in Oceania. In fact, I would consider it to be a middle power. New Zealand has a strong and diversified economy, due to the discovery of Zealandia, it was able to claim a very large EEZ and thus became a global maritime power. Compared with other countries which have a similar land size and population, New Zealand is very powerful. It can punch above its weight and project a notable influence on the world stage. Vic Park (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If one of the criteria is that a regional power is the most influential in its local region, then I'm not sure NZ qualifies, since it seems to be less powerful than Australia... AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the balance of power between Australia and New Zealand in Oceania is similar to the balance of power between Brazil and Argentina in South America. Since Argentina has been listed as a secondary regional power in South America, I see no reason why New Zealand wouldn't qualify as a secondary regional power in Oceania. Vic Park (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Kazakhstan and Jamaica

I propose the addition of Kazakhstan (member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and OPEC+) and Jamaica (member of G-15) as the regional power of Central Asia and the Caribbean respectively. Although not powerful countries on a global scale, both countries do project strong influence within their own region. Especially Kazakhstan, it is way more powerful than the other four or five countries in the Central Asian region. Vic Park (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Kazakhstan shares a very long border with Russia, and is a member of the Russia-dominated Eurasian Economic Union and Collective Security Treaty Organization. Headlines such as "Russia's 'mini-Nato' intervenes in Kazakhstan amid growing turmoil" do not suggest regional power status.

Jamaica is only a regional power if you ignore all the mainland nations which surround the Caribbean on three sides... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Russia is influential in the region, but it is not a Central Asian country. If we only consider countries within the region, then Kazakhstan is clearly a standout candidate for regional power status.

As for the Caribbean, the United Nations defines the Caribbean as the insular region of the Americas (i.e. the 13 island countries). Mainland countries surrounding the Caribbean Sea on three sides have been assigned to Northern America (the U.S.), Central America (Mexico and Costa Rica etc.), and South America (Colombia and Venezuela) respectively. Vic Park (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have scholarly sources that would describe how they are regional powers? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't conducted any research on the subject yet, but I would consider Kazakhstan to be a straightforward regional power in Central Asia. Vic Park (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Vic_Park -- You seem to have a formalistic/textual understanding of the meaning of "region". You draw lines on the globe dividing the world into fixed regions, and only consider the countries in each of these boxes in relation to each other. Many other people have a functional/dynamic understanding of the meaning of "region", and would not consider a country to be a regional power unless it's stronger than most or all neighboring or nearby countries, regardless of what regional boundary lines the UN draws on the globe... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, if we divide the world into dynamic regions, then the United States would be a regional power in every region of Earth. China is likely to be considered a regional power in every region of Asia. In that case, I think we have lost the purpose of creating this article. Vic Park (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

No, "neighboring or nearby" does not mean that (that's the definition of "global power"), but it does mean that it's rather pointless and useless to ignore the fact that Kazakhstan has a 4,750-mile border with Russia... AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Same as I told you in previous edit, your idea of geographic regions is over-segmented. It is nonsense to pick one country in a small fixed region like the Caribbean to be qualified as regional power, you are just making yourself difficult to prove. Why not you do more segmentations to other equally small regions such as Polynesia or Melanesia in Oceania so we can identify Papua New Genea or Samoa all being "regional power" from your perspective? lol Have you realised how absurd your idea is? LVTW2 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

His idea is not absurd. A good number of you are confusing "minor" and "major" powers with regional powers. Even the article gets the basic premise wrong by dividing regions by continent. Regions can have many shapes and sizes. If reliable sources define a region and classify Samoa as a regional power, that is in effect what we should present. Prejudices about what you think of Samoa or Polynesia as a region should not cloud our understanding of regions and regional powers.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 18:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are you laughing at those small countries? I take offense to your comments. Some small countries, such as Taiwan or Switzerland, are still powerful countries. Oceania is a small continent compared to North America, so no subdivisions are needed. However, if Oceania is subvidided into smaller regions, then Papua New Genea can be viewed as a regional power of Melanesia. Samoa won't be powerful enough to be classified as a regional power, New Zealand can be the regional power of Polynesia instead. 120.17.142.88 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The term of "regional power" was never a "fair" definition granting to everyone, the status of such countries are normally recognized by surrounding countries as one, by your percerption, any individual country holding a certain strength within a fixed region can all certainly claim themselves as "regional powers", is that really how the international relations work? A principle country in a region does not just possess one trait to become a regional power, otherwise we can also include Singapore in Southeast Asia, or Taiwan in East Asia to be regarded as somehow "regional powers" in accordence with their economic strength in global scale, or even include North Korea as regional power because of its military strength or nuclear weapons. Multiple conditions are taken into consideration for inclusin of a country as regional powers, the article of Power (international_relations)#Concepts_of_political_power have a general listing conditions to define a country as principle political power in international relations, you should read through all these contents before lecturing others how to define the term.

For Example, G20, as an intergovernmental forum which only include certain economic powers in respective regions, does not reflect all countries within top 20 economies in global economy, but their career or significance perform in global trade and within their regions. Quoting from the article: "it is particularly important for the number of countries involved to be restricted and fixed to ensure the effectiveness and continuity of its activity. There are no formal criteria for G20 membership and the composition of the group has remained unchanged since it was established. In view of the objectives of the G20, it was considered important that countries and regions of systemic significance for the international financial system be included. Aspects such as geographical balance and population representation also played a major part." Did they just consider economic condition of a nation to be included in an economic forum? So why would you consider only countries in fixed regions to be included as regional powers? LVTW2 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If reliable sources define a region and identify regional powers, that is what should be cited in this article. We should not be judges of what is a region or who is a power in that region. This article is biased (and, therefore, inaccurate) because of users that, apparently including yourself, believe they are the ultimate authority on what country is or is not a regional power. Reality check moment. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Then please give any reliable and compelling source (not just one) for inclusion of any new listing entry, like Papua New Genea or Samoa as you said. I would be much appreciated. LVTW2 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Algeria and Egypt

@LVTW2: See the RfC at Talk:Regional_power/Archive_5#RfC:_On_quality_of_sources.

It says that we must not include those countries for which we have got only passing mentions in sources.

Algeria and Egypt fail the requirement for inclusion.

Egypt has been discussed before too, see Talk:Regional_power/Archive_5#Egypt_as_regional_power. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 23:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Algeria is worth debating. Egypt is definitely a regional power in Africa/North Africa/Middle East. 120.17.142.88 (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I've read the referring links. It was the problem of lack of quality for the past references, it did not rule that both entries would not be identified or less qualified as regional powers as you claimed. The so-called "consensus" you gave in second link which involved only three editors, hardly for saying this was made by general decision. LVTW2 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC concluded that only those entries will be accepted that are backed with multiple reliable sources which describe how a particular country is a regional power per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Misrepresenting the RfC only proves that you can't fulfill the requirement.

Do you mean we need 300 editors to say something then only it will be called consensus? See WP:NOTAVOTE. The consensus to remove Egypt was absolutely clear. Where is the consensus for adding Algeria and/or Egypt?

I am giving you another opportunity to find the recent sources that how Algeria and Egypt are regional powers and the sources must fulfill the requirement decided on RfC whether you accept it or not. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Who are you exactly to have the authority for granting an "opportunity" to me by listening to your command for your nonsense request? lol Are you even administrator? What a joke~ LVTW2 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Joke is on you when you claim that only administrators are allowed to demand valid sources for the information you are adding. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Please, Wikipedia is not a place for heated arguments and personal attacks. Intereconomics has published an article about the subject with sources written by some well known scholars. They have established some detailed and well specified criteria for regional power. The author has studied the potential regional powers on a case-by-case basis, weighing each of them against these criteria. In the article summary, the followed countries have been identified as regional powers: China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Russia is excluded from their analysis, but it is clearly a regional power too. Egypt is a very powerful country in the Middle East, it also has the strongest military force in Africa. Both Mexico and Egypt have scored highly in almost every aspect and according to the study, both countries have met the criteria for regional power status. They should not be removed from our list.

The study also mentioned the following countries should not be considered regional powers: Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Argentina, Venezuela and Nigeria. Out of these countries, Israel, Iran, Argentina, Nigeria are currently on our list.

There is no mention about Algeria, but Algeria is clearly a second-tier regional power in Africa, just like Nigeria. Whether these second-tier regional powers should be included in our article requires further discussion, but not for Mexico and Egypt. If Mexico and Egypt don't make the list, then we might as well delete all countries on our list, except the BRIC nations. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

2011 is too old and superseded by a better source from 2014 with regards to Egypt as per  discussion on Talk:Regional power/Archive 5#Egypt as regional power. For Mexico, see Talk:Regional power/Archive 6#Mexico. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Egypt is the most powerful regional power in the Middle East and Africa in terms of intelligence and military, in addition to that it has the upper hand in many important files for the whole world, such as freedom of navigation in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, the Palestinian cause, Libya and the eastern Mediterranean

41.47.89.78 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

They are not scholarly sources but news sources. Can you prove how they support your addition of Egypt as "regional power"? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Is the strength of the Egyptian army and Egyptian intelligence, and Egypt’s control over important files for the whole world, such as the Palestinian cause, Libya, the eastern Mediterranean, and navigation in the Red Sea, isn’t all this evidence that Egypt is a major regional power?! .. Not adding Egypt as a regional power in this article is a lack of neutrality and a denial of reality. 41.42.50.62 (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not a news source. This is the largest site in the world to assess the strength of armies. It is an American site, not an Egyptian, meaning a neutral scientific source, and this is its classification of the strongest armies in the Middle East for 2022.</ref> 41.42.50.62 (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=LQe4BgAAQBAJ&pg=PT89#v=onepage&q&f=false

So you used a 2007 discussion as your supporting evidence to remove Mexico from the list? Come on, what are you trying to do here? I mean, the sources may present different views, but what you have done is basically gathering some sources (which might not be reliable) and some old discussions as the so-called evidence to enforce your own WP:PPOV here. I just ask you one question, has your source explained why Argentina, Nigeria, Iran, and Israel shoud be listed as regional powers? By removing some stronger countries from the list, how can you justify the retention of several weaker countries? Shouldn't they be removed from the list too? If you deliberately remove some countries from the list while ignore to apply the same standard to others, I suspect that you are actually vandalizing this article.

Wikipedia is not a personal blog, it is not our job to determine which country makes the list. We simply record what the reliable sources state. Even if there is only one reliable source which states that Mexico and Egypt are regional powers, then we should include both of them. If a country has no reliable source to support its inclusion, then it should be removed. As simple as that. 120.17.142.88 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit behind the statement, but there are 2-3 reliable sources that indicate modern Mexico is no longer a regional power. A better-written article would probably include this information, but unfortunately there is still much work to be done here.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Russia and Turkey

@Calesti: You came out of nowhere and started claiming that Russia is not transcontinental.[4] How you are not supposed to gain consensus for this? The section has been like this for years. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: I added Russia and Turkey back to their respective sections, and kept the section named "transcontinental regional powers" - although that is definitely WP:POV and WP:OR. No reliable source ever claimed that something called a "transcontinental regional power" exists. The section for Europe mentions Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe in the description, yet does not include Russia. What an absurd situation. Europe is not only Western Europe. In fact, Eastern Europe is about 70% of European landmass, and Russian hegemony over the area has been persistent since centuries and centuries. But I'll still let that "transcontinental regional power" section stay. Let both sides have what they want, since Russia was included in the Europe section, and Turkey in the West Asia section; for about 2.5 years until your modification. Calesti (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard "transcontinental regional powers". All I see here is some Indian barbarians vandalizing this article. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:8D4B:7E86:7FC8:5BCD (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Colombia as a regional power

@Collebud88: Hello. Mind explaining why are you listing Colombia as a regional power without any source backing it up? You have been warned multiple times about similar events before. This is disruptive editing and it will be rightfully escalated if you don't cease it right now. Many thanks. SpaceEconomist 192 22:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

Colombia is a regional power in South America. This has been repeatedly vandalized for years. Please add.

• Colombia^{[OECD][Pacific Alliance][CIVETS][NATO]} Frankxls (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Declined. Please provide reliable sources that back-up your edit request. SpaceEconomist 192 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Turkey as a transcontinental regional power

@Adem: Hello. If you want to continue the discussion please do it here; do not forget to add reliable sources that corroborate your arguments. SpaceEconomist 192 13:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

“Spain as a Regional Power”

I think we have a misunderstanding here. The sources and references used to put Spain in the list says that Spain is a "Middle Power"(which is not the same concept of Regional Power) They don't mention Spain as a "Regional Power" in Europe. If we have to put Spain in this list, I think we should add Netherlands too, considering is a "Middle Power" and an Economic power in Europe. That's why I think Spain shouldn't be in this list. It's not hard to understand that the only european countries that are full members of the G20, the G7, The Quint, and are considered the “big countries” of Europe since 1920 are Germany, France, Italy and the UK.

If we are going to expand the list and add Spain, we should add the Netherlands too (G20 permanent invited member, similar Gross Domestic Product and other factors that make the Netherlands a middle power, etc). Brunov07 (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)