I actually have long term questions about the viability of the EU as a major global player.
It doesn't have the natural resources that the US/Russia/China have. It is interesting that the time was the nations that would be the EU were most dominant, they used colonization to get the resources from all over the world (see for example British Empire).
In addition, there is still lack of political unity, with a much less powerful centralized government compared to say China or even the US.
Natural resources are overrated, human capital is vastly more valuable. The EU has a large, highly educated population with stable civic institutions. Sans another major war, Europe will be fine.
All poor countries in the EU are brain drained... more and more educating the population is benefiting rich western states, more than the ones that produced the human.
I've had many arguments with people where I can't get it across that it costs a lot to get a human being all grown up, socialized, educated and ready to work in high value industries. Then we get them swept away to the west (and for good reasons, more money, higher quality of life etc.) and end up with nothing for all our societal investment. If we're lucky, some of them come back with some know-how and create a viable business, but most don't bother.
3 / 4 of the people I went to school with (primary, secondary, high school and college) are now gone for good. Almost as many upcoming graduates (soon to be 18+) are planning to either study here and go, or just go.
This pains me as someone that decided to stay behind and try to change something. But I do understand their motivations.
>Natural resources are overrated, human capital is vastly more valuable.
They are overrated until you don't have any. It's hard to manufacture anything without natural resources. It's hard to heat your home or fuel your car. As far as the "stable civic institutions" the farmers in the Netherlands would like to have a word with you.
Well, it does have resources. Wine from France, for example. Natural gas and oil (Norway for example). But the EU, so long as it avoids political fragmentation will be ok because they can manufacture products and they have skilled workers and knowledge. It's not just about resources.
The entire Western-led global economic order is designed to pry open new markets, especially ones that provide important resources. That's why it's sometimes called neo-imperialism. China has become a major power with the aid of that economic system and is now inexorably tied to it. The fact that it has a lot of natural resources is incidental. It followed a very similar development strategy to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore - all economically thriving countries that lack natural resources. Russia on the other hand has become severely diminished by it's inability to integrate into that economic system. It's biggest exports are natural resources, much like any given developing country.
I think any sober assessment of which regions will achieve or maintain economic preeminence in the coming decades would have to include Europe and almost certainly exclude Russia.
It doesn't have the natural resources that the US/Russia/China have. It is interesting that the time was the nations that would be the EU were most dominant, they used colonization to get the resources from all over the world (see for example British Empire).
In addition, there is still lack of political unity, with a much less powerful centralized government compared to say China or even the US.