Talk:Superpower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is related to the WikiProject Power in international relations, an effort to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Power in international relations and Geopolitics. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superpower article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


Contents

[edit] Russia becoming a superpower... again. NPOV

The article has one/two references on why it cannot be a superpower, but why not eliminate the bias and add an article on why it can become a superpower also? Or the general explanations on why some people see it as a possibility? Let readers decided "...the argument is better for this position than the argument for that position".

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

By all means try and add a few sources which argue for this position, but such sources must above all be reputable. Basically this means serious academic opinion is preferred over polemical journalism.
Xdamrtalk 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Russia section full of misspellings and grammar mistakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not Russia is a potential superpower, it should not in the "current" section of superpowers, which, if you look at the summary, seems to suggest Russia as the only superpower today (when it should be the United States). I moved Russia to the potential section, assuming it deserves to be there at all. The current content seems to have no actual value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashmizen (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Russia is a Superpower; there many articles from the last 2 years stating that Russia regained its Superpower status back again. These articles are from worldwide creditable sources and they have been verified by the news press media and news television media [1] [2] [3] - [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], the words “Russia is a Superpower” or “Russia the Superpower” is being used more often on television through CNN[9], NBC, Fox News people such as Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and etc more often today than ever. I mean really, how can these news agencies be wrong? The fact is, they have the sources of information more than all of us and when Russia is said as a Superpower on CNN, NBC, Fox News, ABC News that is a valid fact it is. [10]--Versace11 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "How can these news agencies be wrong"? Are you serious? IMHO MainStreamMedia is NOT a reputable source. In addition, media states opinions, not facts, and sensationalistic headlines. I repeat, MSM is not a reputable source. Cite academic articles instead. --Ondra2 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

IF Brazil has been removed why is there still an 'other candidates' subsection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.70.88 (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

==Russia cannot become a superpower==, == Wrong, Russia is a Superpower ==[11]

Can whoever continues to add Russia as a potential superpower please cease doing so? Russia is not and will never again become a superpower. It's not even a world power, and is at best perhaps a regional power. Has anyone bothered to actually compare Russia's capabilities to statistics relating to economic output, population and demographic projections, military power projection and government efficiency? Had they done so, they would see that Russia's future is bleak. The country is losing 700,000 people per year,

[edit] I disagree

, Russia is not a dying country as Russia is economically booming and doubling its population their a new birth rate[12]

[13] a process likely to continue well into the 2050s. According to most sources, even an optimistic projection would leave Russia by 2050 with little more than 111 million people.[14] Compare that with the United States potential 450 million, the European Union's 500 million or India and China's 1 billion+. How many superpowers can have drastically falling populations? Let's be serious please. It's not Russia!

What is more, even a cursory glance at any set of economic statistics will show that Russia's economic power is simply not sufficient to project it to superpower status.

[edit] Not true

, Russia has plenty of economic power and is already a Superpower: [15][16][17][18][19][20] [21]

Its nominal GDP is about the same size as the combined economic output of Paris and London, or to a country like South Korea or Mexico. Compare this to the European Union's $14 trillion or the United States' $13 trillion. With a falling population, Russia has not a hope in hell of catching up, even if it went through an economic miracle. -- Excuse me, this is hate speech. There is no fact on your sources to discriminate Russia for no reason but hate speech.

Militarily too, Russia's armed forces are no where near sufficient to regain superpower status.

--

[edit] Wow your way off the point here

, making all sorts of comments and not a source to back it up. this is pure hate speech on Russia.[22][23][24]

Just look at the statistics! Russia's defence budget is many, many times smaller than the United States or the European Union's. It is less than half the size of the United Kingdom's! Russia lacks power projection forces too: It has not got enough aircraft carriers to sustain a constant capability, and its forces become increasingly outdated as each year passes

[edit] SOUNDS LIKE YOUR JUST HATE RUSSIA THAN TELLING THE TRUE, you have no sources

. The US, France and Britain are all building state-of-the-art, ...think againdestroyers and aircraft carriers, Russia simply does not have the technological ability to compete.

[edit] WOW your way off here

So please, can we remove all future references to Russia as a superpower. Russia is not, and will never again be, a superpower. The only true superpower in today's world is the United States.----

[edit] Excuse me but your wrong

, the US is considered a former superpower now as the deficit raises, economy in recession [25], US dollar is about to collapse[26], unemployment rate at its lowest in 20 years, heathcare going broke, NASA is over budget, foreign policy is closing US homeland domastic, military bases shutting down in many states and etc [27] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhnHo3RDfg [28]

Europe, China and India have aggregated potential, but have a long way to go to reach superpower status yet. Imperium Europeum 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR, I'm afraid. Find an authoritative source that explicitly states that Russia cannot be a superpower and you may add this information. I agree that Russia isn't close to being a superpower....

== WRONG ==[29] , but we do need a reputable source. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research? Are you joking? The research I've pointed to are simple statistics, which have been available for years. What is more, no matter what institution or set of statistics one uses—whether the UN, SIPRI, World Bank, IMF, IISS—the results are always the same. Imperium Europeum 00:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article was stabilized by a consensus to rely on meticulous sourcing as the bar that all major changes had to pass and by an outright rejection of all possible original research additions. the best you can do to make your points is find an authoritative source for them and possibly find a way to unambiguously demonstrate the inadequacy of the sources which indicate that Russia is a potential superpower. Good luck with that.Zebulin 20:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources used to claim Russia is a superpower are not authoritative. Someone has found a quote from some random academic at some university in the United States to claim that Russia is potentially a superpower, and even then, the quote given could be taken out of context. According to almost every piece of academic research I've read, Russia is never given superpower status == YOUR WRONG ==[30][31] . Most point to it being at best a re-emerging great power (but only when dealing with energy) or a regional power. If you read again the statistics, you will see that there is no way on Earth that Russia can match the Europeans or the Americans, either now or in the future. Imperium Europeum 00:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As a sometime student of Russian/FSU affairs I consider Imperium Europeum's points to be well made. But, of course, personal opinion is personal opinion. What I find remarkable is that none of the material I read on Russia, whether economic, political, and military analyses; news and opinion; statistics, seem to point me towards the 'Russia as a superpower' thesis. A strong Great power, certainly, but a superpower? This strikes me as a rather fevered or polemical hypothesis rather than one arrived at by objective scholars in the field. Are we sure that the sources we have are reputable and balanced?
I'm afraid I lack the time to do anything about this at present, but this disconnect between the Wikipedia article and the facts (ie life expectancy, infant mortality, corruption, economics, etc, etc) leads me to wonder if our sources are neutral and objective. They may illustrate an extreme POV of Russia's future, but I doubt they represent any sort of academic consensus.
Xdamrtalk 21:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources used to 'show' that Russia is an emerging superpower are emphatically not reflective of any sort of academic consensus. I'm an academic at one of Britain's leading universities in the field of international relations, and I do not see much stating that Russia is to become a superpower—what I do see points in quite the opposite direction! Imperium Europeum 00:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, from population projections which predict a drop to 100mil by 2050 to Wednesday's Transparency International corruption index, which saw Russia fall from 126th to 143rd - can anyone really disagree that Prof Steven Rosefielde's comment seems, on the face of it, to be a tad blithe? These 'sources' seem to be extremely selective and unbalanced, violating the policy of neutrality.
Xdamrtalk 01:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to follow up, not only do the sources seem un-reflective of academic consensus and common-sense, they are in fact utterly valueless. Footnote 60, Professor Rosefielde, seems to be little more than an Amazon puff page - is it certain that Prof Rosefielde actually stated '[c]ontrary to conventional wisdom, this goal would appear to be easily within the Kremlin's grasp', or is this merely a precis from Amazon? Either way there seems to be no attempt to analyse and refer to the arguments presented within that book, whether one agrees with the headline conclusion or not. By all means quote the book (although given that it is described as a 'polemic' I'm not sure that it is of much objective use) but you surely can't cite an Amazon page as authority for anything.
The second source, Footnote 61, quoting one RG Williams 'of the Naval Postgraduate School', is even more astonishing. Once again it is simply a precis page, but has anyone taken the time to look at it? This source (a Masters thesis) dates from 1993. 1993! Does anyone seriously contend that a paper written in 1993 can be authority for any proposition concerning contemporary Russia?
In short I entirely concur with Imperium Europeum. Common-sense leads me to disagree with the 'Russia as a superpower' argument, but I would tolerate a mention of it as part of a wider balanced discussion. However these sources are worthless and as such the section is little more than Original Research.
Xdamrtalk 01:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I strongly concur User:Xdamr. The whole idea is so utterly absurd that anyone arguing it must be a polemicist. To argue that Russia is or might become a superpower is not only false but devalues the concept of 'superpower' itself
I concur Xdamr and Imperium Europeum. It seems to me that the discussion here is between educated people arguing Russia is not a superpower and uneducated/15yo/nationalists who want Ru listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondra2 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

== WRONG ==[32][33] . Moreover, if Russia is included, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Mexico should all be included too: All either rank more highly than Russia today or show greater potential in the medium or longer terms. Let is end this 'Russia will be a superpower' nonsense once and for all, please. Imperium Europeum 01:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How can we end it in such a way that doesn't leave room for editors to remove other sourced material from the article? what sort of objective defined standard can be applied to prevent that? The existing rough consensus was that multiple sourced material is not to be removed from the article as inaccurate without directly invalidating the sources through other sources. Common sense dictates that Russia is such an extreme long shot at superpower status that nothing in it's current situation suggests that it is a potential superpower in any meaningful sense. However common sense will also lead to efforts to remove the china and EU sections for diverse reasons and this will lead to revert wars and article instability. We need a workable standard that will allow for removing the offending Russian section without requiring a double standard to protect other article content.Zebulin 08:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No: China and the European Union certainly are candidates for superpower status in the near future. The EU is already the world's number one economy, and has a more than sufficient level of material capabilities (world's leading exporter; world's second largest military power; world's third largest population, and so on) and enough political cohesion (established and stable democratic systems) to project it to comprehensive superpowwer status. What is more, there is a wide academic consensus that Europe will achieve 'great power', 'global power' or 'superpower' status by the middle of the twenty-first century. The CIA suggests this might come as early as 2015! China also has the material potential to become a superpower, as does India. There is also a lot of literature supporting both of these candidates. Imperium Europeum 14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with that being that the EU is not a STATE ... it's no more speculation than about Russia. --Ondra2 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I never looked into the quality of the sources. What I suggest: 3 academics in 3 separate academic articles/books? This would show a certain support in academic circles. Newspaper articles are often more sensational and less argumented/accurate. Sijo Ripa 12:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is the point: You won't find any credible academics stating that Russia will ever again become a superpower. You might find a few academics discussing Russia's recent aggressiveness under Putin; you might find a few articles claiming that Russia is regaining 'great power' status again; indeed, you might even find several articles talking about Russia as an 'energy superpower', but none of this adds up to claiming that Russia is or is to become a comprehensive superpower again. Imperium Europeum 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now updated the former Russia section with reputable academic sources from the current era. Imperium Europeum 14:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Imperium's edits, FWIW. —Nightstallion 15:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
the changes are sourced and we have at least temporary consensus on this edit page that Russia is no potential superpower. I hope the edits will stay. We might want to keep an eye out for a source that specifically mentions Brazil as well to make that currently unsourced portion less likely to be challenged.Zebulin 16:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
A Brazil reference has now been added. Imperium Europeum 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some remarks: There is a tendency in anglo-saxon ideology to disregard and misjudge the influence of Russia. Because of Cold War historic opposition an almost allergic mismeasurement is still reflected in this discussion and its proposals. I´m not a devils advocate but some facts remain: Russia holds an active seat in UN Security Council, leading to influence Iran and Kosovo politics. Russia is key player in energy politics and future resources because demand is rising. Any demographic projection over 2020 is not more than fantasy speculation. Within the next 20 years India will remain a passive underdeveloped giant without even regional power projection, it belongs in 'Other Candidates'. The concept of superpower is a phenomenon of the 20th century and 'Future superpowers' should be cited in a neutral and very cautious manner. This is not the case now. all the best Lear 21 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All very well, but a permanent UNSC seat and influence in the Balkans or Iran does not constitute superpower status. Russia may be a great power, or a large regional power, which is reflected in the quotes in the updated section, so the new section is not misjudged or overtly 'anglocentric'. Russia's population projections are accurate, short of some miracle or mass immigration into the country. India may also belong in the 'other candidates' section, but it does now have one of the largest and most powerful navies in the world—equipped with aircraft carriers—and a rapidly growing economy, with over 1 billion people. It should remain with a separate category. Imperium Europeum 20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I´m not advocating to lift Russia in potential Superpower status, but the current citation is not more than a harrassing rant of a ColdWar academic. The role of Russia must be presented in its actual powers. This is not the case, it is rather highly biased. India´s economy doesnt even meet nominal total GDP of Spain, it is a third world country. The growing economic data won´t change any relevant power projection in the near future. The India section includes several overenthusiastic POV statements. India must be integrated in other countries. Lear 21 21:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What? Barry Buzan, 'a ColdWar academic'? Hardly! He's one of the most renowned scholars in the field of international relations. I could be persuaded on India, however. It certainly has potential, but many impediments also remain. Could someone create a table or template called 'Superpowers: Existing and Potential', listing their GDP (nominal), Defence spending, population, area, percentage of world trade, and so on, for the dates 2000, 2005, 2007, and maybe a projection, say 2020? I don't know how to do it. Imperium Europeum 22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should the projected population of Russia be significant when determining it's international power? It seems contradictory to claim Russia's decline rules out the possibility of it becoming a superpower while still calling the US the sole superpower (It's population is less than a quarter of China's, yet it is widely considered more 'powerful').And why is economics important? Nominal GDP is not budget, and the value of currency is not constant across nations (Eg The average income in Serbia may be much lower than in Australia, but goods would cost significantly less in the former). This is not to say that the figures are useless, but the state of the military is far more important when measuring power, and Russia is rapidly expanding it's army. It may not be a superpower currently, but to claim with certainty that it will never ascend to that status seems incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.43.208 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Under which rule in the Wikipedia guidelines do you, Imperium Europeum, base your conclusions that professor Steven Rosefielde is not a credible scholar? I'm not going to assume bad faith as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Nevertheless, I've reinstated the bit, because for the sake of neutrality we need to mention the fact that there is not a unanimous consensus that Russia has no potential as a superpower. Steven Rosefielde is a real professor at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and he has published several books on Russian studies. If you want to tell him he's a loony because you work at one of "Britain's leading universities" and you said so, feel free to email him. I'm going to insert page numbers from his book so there should be no problems as far as proper citations are concerned. As for your addition on Russia as an energy superpower, I've moved that from this article to the energy superpower article. Superpower and energy superpower are not one and the same, and if we're going to discuss Russia's status as energy superpower we need to do it in the appropriate article.--71.112.159.122 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We could not judge Russia regarding on its population and we could never under estimate their country... Russia is one of the Sleeping giant when in terms of power and knowledge... They have their high power source and some high technology and some power of mass destruction weaponry like nuclear power. Remember they lunched a spacecraft to the outer space and other satellites except from US. it means that they can have much power than the other huge country. Even they are compared with US but we don't know and we can not say that Russia can not reach the power what have in US.--Marymorefields 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding interpretation: what's the context of the comment that Russia could become a superpower? Currently the surrounding text in the article says it would come at great cost tothe Russian people or something similar. Without having read any of your sources, I feel it fair to point out that a completely insane Russian leader could still project enough power (either through economic or literal violence) to render Russia the greatest power remaining in a completely shattered global economy, which is what I understood that quotation to be saying. Whether this has anything to do with being a superpower or not is another matter. Leushenko (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon sources

There seem to be many references linking to Amazon, citing books. Is this really a suitable method of citation? Surely the author, book, date, place of publication, and page numbers should be mentioned instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperium Europeum (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll wager that we see so many of these simply because they have turned up in google searches. I doubt that editors have taken the time and trouble to read the majority of these texts, to try and understand their arguments, and to summarise them in this article. I would suggest that we remove all 'sources' which consist solely of a reference to an Amazon (or other) precis. This sort of sloppiness would certainly not pass muster in any institute of learning - I see no reason why it should be tolerated here. I fear that this superficial treatment of sources and citations is down to an excess of enthusiasm over actual knowledge and expertise. International relations is one of these areas in which everyone fancies himself an expert, but I think that we ought to start to apply some standards of academic rigour with respect to that which we are, or are not, prepared to accept.
Xdamrtalk 23:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. All references to random websites and Amazon listings should be removed, along with any spurious claims they are supposed to support. This article needs to be comprehensively overhauled. Further, we need a table listing each superpower and potential superpower, with lists of capabilities (e.g. economic output (nominal GDP), defence spending, world trade share, population, urbanisation, percentage of top universities, and so on) so that readers can compare the capabilities of the relevant powers. This would represent an excellent supplement to the views of academic sources, which can sometimes themselves be biased to a particular worldview. Imperium Europeum 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
let's define "random websites" before we start removing references without replacing them with more suitable ones. Surely blogs and personal web pages should qualify as "random websites" but what else are we excluding?Zebulin 00:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Anything that is not reputable for information. Thus, Amazon, polemical websites, websites containing conspiracy theories, and so on, do not constitute authoritative knowledge on the issues contained in this article. It might be possible to link to some blogs and personal websites, however, if they are written by authoritative sources such as journalists, politicians or academics. What must be changed is quotes that link to Amazon product listings: If a source cannot be properly verified (e.g. page number) then it is not a credible reference and has no place in Wikipedia. Imperium Europeum 05:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Russia as a potential superpower

Fixed RFCxxx template, made section heading and template section param the same. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Pursuant with WP:NPOV (which states that significant views published by a reliable source can be included), in this edit I included quotes from the book Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower, which discusses Russia's potential as a superpower. However, in this edit, Xdamr (talk · contribs) selectively removes the quotes and even the book itself from the bibliography. There is an ongoing debate as to the books status as an "authoritative" work above.

The current article also provides a quote arguing that Russia is not an energy superpower. The same quote appears in the energy superpower article, although the users who added it here did not include any of the prevailing views that Russia is an energy superpower, thus failing to write in a balanced tone. I sought to remedy this with my edit provided above, in which I provided sources from CNN[34] and the IHT[35], although again this was selectively removed.

I’m seeking comment from other Wikipedians regarding these matters:

  • Should Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower be used as a source in the article now that it can be properly cited?
  • Should Russia’s status as an energy superpower be included in this article, or should that be left in the energy superpower article? If left here, should any of the numerous counter views be provided?
  • Should Russia be included in the list of potential superpowers at all?--71.112.159.122 11:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Or it could perhaps be that Xdamr (talk · contribs) mistakenly removed Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower, when re-instating valid observations on the 'energy superpower' issue? (Which was, in fact, the case - don't be so quick to suppose bad faith.) The 'energy superpower' area is Russia's one reasonably compelling claim to anything approaching superpowerness, as such it ought to be addressed here.
Incidentally, this is surely a rather melodramatic step? I don't see what grounds you have for seeing any sort of long-running dispute here, deserving of RfC.
Xdamrtalk 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Many of my edits, as well as edits by others users, have been reverted numerous times. I did not want to engage in an edit war. I think this revision is probably the most balanced one, so I wasn't sure of your intent when you reverted the page but did not include what I think are reasonable additions. Even if I reinstate the book, someone else will come along and just revert the page to its old form (see this edit). I still think it would be best if we seek imput from a third party, this way we can arrive at as consensus as to how Russia should be addressed and what sources are appropriate, if it is to be included at all. --71.112.159.122 20:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just like what i said above about Russia regarding Russia cannot become superpower.. we could not judge and under estimate them because they are one of the sleeping giant. We cannot predict what kind of power they have and become a superpower when in terms of population and their economy because we could not predict what power source they are hiding.--Marymorefields 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cannot become a superpower? Countries that can become superpowers: all - this includes Cote d'Ivore by the way, they have a shot. (could you come up with a source that says that it will?)--Dwarf Kirlston 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coldwar alliances

India is shown as other allies of USSR during coldwar. But it was part of the founder members of NAM (continues to this day.). So the information in image is inaccurate. 192.18.43.225 15:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)blufox

[edit] Term

What exactly does it mean? Economic Superpower? Military Superpower? Energy Superpower? Agricultural Superpower? Technological Superpower? Nuclear Superpower?

Currently China is described only in terms of it's economic strength. It's humongous population, it's nuclear capabilities, it's natural resources, it's magnificently high education level, it's obscenely large military, these are missing.

It seems like Superpower is a term from the cold war. As a term of the cold war, perhaps it no longer has any meaning. Perhaps there are no empires anymore... could that be?--Keerllston 21:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like us to weed out qualified instances of "superpower" that aren't elaborated on (basically all of them except energy superpower) I think you may have a good point. Those phrases may be construed as OR in the sense of neologisms coined by editors. Naturally you will find ample documentation for the post cold war usage of the unqualified word "superpower" already in the article and some for energy superpower in it's article.Zebulin (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Could anyone answer this question about potential superpowers:

What are the chances of Japan ever aspiring to superpowerdom? --Woodelf 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

try google scholar but i doubt this is being seriously examined.Zebulin (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links

some of the links in the references section are dead or contain false information, please fix that.

dead links have no place in the article but which links contain false information and how do you know that they are false?Zebulin (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

easy, just click the references and you can see if it is a dead link or not, example the link number 12 on the references is a dead link.--Cap. Mitchel (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union and United States comparison

Influential in music, sport, TV, films, art, and fashion. Freedom of speech and other guaranteed rights for residents. Wielded influence by supporting right-wing dictatorships in undeveloped countries but democracy in developed countries. The thing about United States being influentual in sports, is this actually true? I would have thought that Europe and the United Kingdom have been the most influentual in sport for the past few hundred years, with cricket, rugby and football being pretty much the number one world sports. The sports played in America have never really had a global appeal or involvement and in no way was the United States globaly influentual with sports. JayKeaton 12:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In no way? They seem to like baseball a whole lot in Asia, especially in Japan. Golf is a very popular sport which the U.S. leads in, and so is Tennis. Not to mention swimming, horse riding, figure skating, and a number of other sports like Basketball which has a growing international following. The scentence says the US is influential, it never said it was the most influential. Please don't start pointless topics, they are a waste of time because the word sports is not going to be removed. All you did was start and argument and everybody is just going to put their two cents in and nothing is going to change. Daniel Chiswick 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I question a line in an encyclopedia with the intent to improve the articles accuracy and you go all "pointless topics", "waste of time" and "argument"? No need to be a jerk about it. I'm going to put a fact tag on that "scentence" in any case, because I don't really trust a jerks opinion on this at all. JayKeaton 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
To fair I think apart from the possible exception of baseball and basketball the USSR was about as influential in the sports world as the US. If we can't find a source to backup the influence of the US on the sporting world during the cold war perhaps that part really should be removed. Certainly I'm hard pressed to understand how any such influence on sports would contribute to either the USSR's or the USA's superpower status.Zebulin 10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my thinking. I meant no malice with my original post about this and I meant no attack on America either. America has been greatly influential with a lot of things that are listed on the article, like movies and music would not be the same without the United States. But sports is not something that the United States has been influential in. Oh, and I meant football as what is known in America as soccer, America's definition of football is played almost exclusively in the United States and isn't seen or significantly followed anywhere else. I would even go as far as to say that the United States not only is not notable in their influence with sports, but that it's global influence with sports is minimal to nil when compared to it's influence in music, finance and films. JayKeaton 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Union is not a super power

The term use to define, as much as I understand, states-not a union of states-unless they are all under the full mastery of the same central power-this was the case for the former USSR. However, these days super powers are: India (it can be that there is no agreement about it), China, Russia and USA-no less or more. UK and French could be considered, but only by part, as super powers as they both have significant intercontinental military abilities(air craft carriers, huge navy, large bases outside Europe and etc), large stock of nuclear weapons and means to deliver it and to any point on Earth, they are both within the world 10 biggest economies and etc-However, they still missing many characters of super power. The European Union includes many largely independent states-that's mean-they don't have the same spoken language, they don't have the same civilian rules nor do they have the same international policies many times-they have largely separated economies and etc-so, if one considers the EU as a super power than he/she should consider many other unions -like the Arab league, the forming South American one and etc as super powers as well.--Gilisa (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The strength of wikipedia is also it's weakness. We must bow to sourced material wherever it is provided over unsourced material. So long as cite worthy sources can be found making speculations those speculations can find their way into the article and there is no amount of reasoning or, frankly, original research that can justify removing it by wikipedia guidelines. Your excellent points do not help to remove the european union from the potential superpowers subsection because your points are unsourced (and OR) while the european union case is sourced. Even if you find sources dismissing the possibility of the european union as a superpower it would not preclude the continued presence of of the attributed statements of other sources to the contrary. If we are unfortunate enough to see the day that editors dig up some citable source that backs up superpower claims for the arab league or even the Union of South American Nations then we will indeed be stuck with them in the article as well.Zebulin (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Global Study Ranks World Powers [36]. Click the gallery to find out how the world sees the world powers now and in 2020. Note that this is a global public survey and not an opinion made by experts. Quite interesting ... Lear 21 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Superpowers section

...is, at present, a waste of time. Aside from being the victim of constant change as Russia goes in, goes out, goes in again, which is really not a state any article should have to experience, the level of speculation is far too high. Having articles on specific countries or entities is not a reasonable solution, as any country can become a superpower and, realistically, we are not going to predict it at this time. All of the current suggestions are capable of attaining superpower status. None of them can be verified beyond idle speculation. Example:

1907: The Russian Empire should reasonably be expected to dissolve under outside attack within the next fifty years. Its navy has already been obliterated by the Japanese, it has no significant production capacity, it is agriculturally nonexistent and its cities are not linked by reliable rail or telegraph routes. Were Germany or Japan to invade Russia the result could only be complete annihilation of the largely untrained and under-equipped Russian army. Continued terrorism on the part of Lenin and his associates is likely to require the government's attention which will prevent resources being direted towards vital modernisation policies.

Result: Russian Empire becomes USSR.

1807: Although the British retain control of the shipping routes around Europe, French consolidation and social collapse in Britain make a successful British invasion of Europe a remote possibility at best. The British economy is straining to support vast unemployment while France reaps the benefits of holding the German empires hostage, and has the support of the independent colonies in America. Britain's best hope for survival is to make peace immediately and adopt sweeping reforms based on the French system in order to prevent complete economic breakdown.

Result: France is defeated, Britain becomes global economic powerhouse.

1707: The wealth of raw materials in the New World mean that, with a century of carefully managed construction, the European states will be able to expand slowly and comfortably into new territory as demands of population increase. Since the existing population is small and technologically undeveloped, there is no obvious obstacle preventing a gradual shift of resources and development across the Atlantic. There has been a small increase in the number of voluntary settlements, which can be expected to provide a reliable stream of funding for this project through light taxation.

Result: United States.

My point is that while predictions about Russia, India etc. may be likely, they are not set in stone, as the future is always unpredictable. I could go on at length, as just about every major shift in global power relations was unanticipated, regardless of what 20/20 hindsight tells us.

Therefore, for the Potential Superpowers section, the most important thing to include is a paragraph explaining why none of the predictions are necessarily accurate. With that in mind, it would make sense to remove detailed analyses of how each nation with disgruntled editors plans to make its way to hegemony. Every country has a potential route: some are more likely than others, but there is no point in a section entirely dedicated to speculation. The section would do well to avoid subdivisions, and simply examine the few, general factors that can be assessed such as economic strength, and their impact on a global level, without specific predictions which are at best unverifiable and at worst, propaganda.

Sorry for the rant. Leushenko (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% with you about this (and about the rant). Let's take the EU, which is the most marketing example to me, it is wrote that all together the EU military power is by far the second in its might-and of course, there are also citations to support this-but let's carefully examine it: 1. when it come to speculations about the future there are always articles and experts to cite about anything-many times only few of them are valid, if at all, when the time is come. 2. in the EU there is the Spanish army, the Italian, the German, the British, the French, Austrian, Polish, Greek and etc-very impressive power in did, but first-these are totally different armies not only by their language, quality and doctrines -but also by their loyalty as well-let's say that tomorrow Russia will attack Hungary, or treat it with its Nuclear arsenal (which is the largest and by far) would the Italians, only for example, put their life's at risk to protect the "EU"-I don't think so, since the all idea behind the EU is to enlarge the world influence of European cultures against USA and others and mainly to elevate the life quality within it. Samuel Huntington would say that the basic conditions for the existence for EU or any other union is them to have a similar common culture, history, languages, racial origins and etc-of course, each of these criterions is differently weighed but the principle is that North Europeans, at least by part of the scholars would not, for example, sacrifice their life's to save East Europeans which are profoundly different from them-culturally mainly, the race is less important and the differences are not big. Not only that, but the size of Europe is significantly smaller than this of Russia, so is the nuclear arsenals and the means to deliver them that the European states possess, the Russian population is equal in its size to those of Germany and UK together, and we yet didn't discussed Putin, the Russian controversial president who now making serious moves to reunite between Russia and Belorussia-this is only the beginning (he also trying to get control on Ukraine as well) and he is very well aware to the heavy dependence of the EU on Russia's oil and gas provisions. The present status is like that: USA have, by far, the strongest military force, specialized with power projection around the world (the largest, and by far, air carriers-not to mention that they have nuclear engines-which means that theoretically their range is unlimited), it also, still, have the largest economy, the second nuclear arsenal size (but it make no difference as both those of Russia and USA can wipe up the entire world population many times) and the most sophisticated delivery means (satellite bombers for example), it's size is almost equal to this of Europe and two fold larger if we consider Canada as their backyard (after all they not only share the same borders and language, but also many other things), and population size which is bigger than these of French, Italy, Germany and UK in sum: so it truly a Super power. Russia, aside for its size, population and what I already mention have about 300 nuclear submarines (however, most are inactive by now) Nuclear air carriers (the only state, as far as I know, that possess such air carriers) -by now only one is active but it carries about 60 air crafts (assault helicopters and jet bombers/fighters) (while those of French and UK can carry only 25 each) the second largest air-force and the second largest , and well experienced, infantry. China posses the third largest air force, huge navy (including self-made advanced nuclear submarines), the biggest infantry and more than 700 nuclear war heads (it is enough to destroy any country or continent) which it can launch to any where it would like to. China size is very similar to this of entire Europe and it's population size exceeding it by far (1.25 billion citizens), not to mention that this is the second largest economy after USA. As for India-which is the 4 or 3 largest economy today and it's population size is second only to China, however -much details about it's military force are unknown to me and any way it dont possess a laerge enouge nuclear arsenal for a super power and its size is about one third, more or less, of China. Regarding the European Union, it is not really a union-people in Germany have a completly different culture, belives, economy, welfare, legal system and ideologies than those of Portugal for example-so, the EU cant be a super power. There are two criterions for a state to be a super power: 1. that no other state can conquer it (all of the nuclear powers practiaclly fulfill this criteria )2. that it can conquer all the other countries aside from those which cant be conquerd--Gilisa (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
All original research. You need to find a source who says it all for you.Zebulin (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The question whether to treat the EU as one entity that therefore can be accounted as "Super Power" is not about WP:OR but rather a very concrete one: why should the European union would considered as super power while, for instance, NATO is not considered as such even if it clear to all that it have all the capacities to be considered as such but the term should be referred to states, not to alliances-and the EU is an alliance not a real union-that's way a EU citizen can work any country within the alliance he would like to, but he can only vote in the place where he have citizenship. As for sources-I'll do it a.s.a.p.--Gilisa (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't have NATO in the article purely because we don't have a source that calls NATO a superpower...yet. Sadly when someone finally finds and adds a source declaring NATO to be a superpower we will be stuck with it.Zebulin (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


The EU is not one country so it can not be a superpower. This article is also so biased it is unbelieveable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidblue8388 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Leushenko. However we often hear (generally with regards to China) about "the next superpower" so it's still interesting to cover the potential superpower aspect in this article - perhaps by defining the attributes that make a superpower and then looking at which nations are heading in that direction.

As for the EU being potentially excluded "because it's not a country", neither was Rome. The fact that the EU could potentially become a superpower because it is made up of countries that individually, are not, is what makes it particularly interesting Jarby (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rome was not a country? well, you should rethink about it-there was one Roman senate, one Roman Caesar whose authorities were absolute-who is the Caesar of the EU (Sarkozy? Markel?) not to mention that Rome ruled over many other countries over most of the known world because it was a superpower and not the opposite..More on that, Rome was, along with Cartage, the only regime who had the ability to project substantial powers toward significant distance. To claim that EU is superpower is ridiculous, but if it make people feel good to think so than I can't fight it..--Gilisa (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times on Geopolitics in the 21st century

The NYT article Waving Goodbye to Hegemony by PARAG KHANNA is probably the most influential statement concerning global geopolitics currently available. It should be a reference for several sections and can be used as a blueprint for a major overhaul. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Britain

Why hasn't Britain been held in as high regard as to be called a superpower surely no other modern day empire could achieve what the British have and that includes the U.S. No British forces make has many mistakes as a number of U.S forces have over recent years or have been humbled by a nation as under progressed as Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmichaelelwell (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

....funny joke!..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.98.205 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup but then we should call Rome/Italy a superpower as well. After all the managed to rule most of Europe for several hundreds of years ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
1) The British Empire is included as being one of the original three superpowers in the article, but had collapsed by the time the Cold War really got going (and was long past the point of recovery even before that). "Superpower" is almost exclusively considered a Cold War term, during which period Britain was not economically or politically independent.
2) Britain did not obtain nuclear weapons until after the dissolution of the Empire. Nuclear weapons appear, by the article's logic, to be a prerequisite for superpower status, which drops the British Empire into the same category as Rome, Persia and all the other pre-Cold War states with some form of hegemony.
So yes, Britain is mentioned, but it certainly doesn't require a section in the table or a detailed analysis because it ceased to operate on equal terms with the United States and Soviet Union very quickly after the war was over. British achievements took place in a different context from those of America and are not really comparable in any way. Leushenko (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference offered for Brazil as a potential superpower.

Here's the reference that was added as supporting consideration of Brazil as one of the articles "potential superpowers". http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/3294/

After reading the reference it seems clear to me that this is a resolution on the part of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for Brazil to join the ranks of the great powers rather than a plan to become a superpower.Zebulin (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

References explicitly supporting the idea of Brazil as a potential superpower:
Limongi (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Focus on the references for brazil as an unqualified superpower for the purposes of this article. Qualified superpowers like Energy superpower are not the same thing at all. If it weren't for the fact that it's an op-ed piece in a college newspaper, The forgotten BRIC: Why Brazil might be the next world superpower would be exactly what would be applicable to this article.Zebulin (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like edit warring is occuring over the validity of the offered references for Brazil as a superpower. It would probably be a better if these things were hashed out here instead. I even see some edit comments to "see talk" but no evidence anybody is actually doing that.Zebulin (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the fact that Brazil has no nuclear weapon capabilities whatsoever and will unlikely be allowed by current powers to obtain such capabilities invalidates it as a potential candidate for superpower in the foreseeable future. You can't project significant military power around the globe without nuclear weapons, nor does MAD apply, leaving you completely vulnerable and helpless against a possible nuclear attack, thus limiting your potential for global influence and dominance greatly.Krawndawg (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The stories of India and pakistan would seem to demonstrate that preventing large countries from developing nuclear weapons is impossible or nearly so. Nonetheless most of our current sourced definitions of "superpower" do indeed seem to indicate that a deterrent to nuclear attack is one of the requirements.Zebulin (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point about India and Pakistan. However, as it stands right now, there's no reason to believe that Brazil is even interested in obtaining such weapons, so it's all just moot speculation. We can start speculating about their potential as a superpower when/if they do end up with nuclear weapons, but for now it just doesn't seem like a possibility to me. Even in the case of India, Pakistan and China, the fact that their nuclear capabilities are so far behind that of America and Russia leads me to doubt the possibility of them ever actually being able to challenge America as a global superpower, that is, for now. Krawndawg (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We can't speculate even when/if Brazil does have nuclear weapons. In that or any other such cases we would need sources to back up the "speculation" by actually spelling out the entire line of reasoning themselves or the speculation is speedily removed as original research, especially in this article.Zebulin (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I didn't mean we could place our speculation in the article. Krawndawg (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
To add to the discussion: having large amounts of resources is NOT an indication of superpower potentiality, large amounts of resources more often lead to the so-called "resource-curse" and dependability of an economy on exports (for example Congo). Brazil's only potential is as a resource-superpower, not as taking over US or EU economy or becoming a major Nuclear power or having ideological influence etc., it therefore does not qualify as an all-round superpower which is what this article is about. So please stop adding Brazil. Wiki1609 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African Union as a superpower - reference

Here is a reference for the African Union as a potential superpower.

http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=506 —Preceding unsigned comment added by THE DJA (talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you search over the internet you will see that Brazil has full control over the Uranium enrichment cycle and is currently becaming autosuficient as far as nuclear fuel. It's planing in selling nuclear fuel in the international market in the comming years. Also, there is a plan of building a fleet of nuclear submarines since it's considered the most effective and cheapest way of patroling and defending its territorial seas. And now, even more, since there is the very strong possibility of huge oil reserve down there.

But, granted, Brazil don't have nuclear weapons and it would be politically, both externally and internally, very difficult for the Brazilian government to develop one. However, I have to stress that there is no shortage of technical capacity or money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.133.180 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] potential superpowers

This section needs to be deleted per WP:FUTURE. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Ostap 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research if it's sourced. WP:Future says: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."
So what's the problem? Krawndawg (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not encyclopedic. This is not an event, such as an election or a sporting event, this is total speculation. Not encyclopedic at all. Ostap 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What's not encyclopedic? All of the information is based on factual information, and sufficiently sourced. If anything, we should just rename the section to "rising powers" or something. Krawndawg (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Simply true and verifiable is not enough to make it encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ostap 01:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing indiscriminate about a widely known subject displayed in an organized manner, nor is this a 'collection' of information. What on Earth does this have to do with WP:IINFO, which refers to long lists, FAQs and overly abundant statistics..?
The 'potential superpower' section is fine, and does not break any wikipolicies. Why, may I ask, are you so suddenly keen on removing a huge chunk of an article that you've never even edited before? See something you don't like? Krawndawg (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The very fact that "potential superpowers" has become "a huge chunk" (literally about half the article) should be a huge red flag that it is a problem. Do we really want a section that is a grab bag for every instance in which some speculative editorial gets published that tries to be the first to recognise the new up and coming future superpower? This section will grow without limit. I have seen publications speculating that Brazil, Indonesia, the African Union, Canada, Russia, the CIS, China, India, the EU, Iran (yes, Iran some writers like to use superpower metaphorically it seems), South Africa, a reinvented UN or other hypothesised reinvented associations like a post peak oil OPEC will all become "superpowers". If a source says it and god forbid some jingoistic fool finds the source it will find it's way into the article however absurd and inappropriate it's inclusion is. What's worse, the more unusual such a prediction is the less likely we will even be able to find a source that refutes it. This will lead to large amounts of criticism for the US, EU and China as superpowers but Brazil, Iran, indonesia and the UN included without comment. It's absurd.Zebulin (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPA. Comment on the content not the contributor. The entire section is an embarrassment to this so-called encyclopedia. Ostap 03:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit that it's not a section I would ever expect to see in an encyclopedia. We also have to admit the battle to keep absurdly speculative "superpowers" out of the article is being lost as there are sources that bandy the superlative 'superpower' around for almost any power at all and these are steadily being added to the article. Brazil is a potential superpower? sources say yes. Perhaps we should rename it "current superpowers" and include only those "superpowers" whose sources already describe them as unqualified superpowers and with cited criticisms of that status. That would probably just include the US, and the EU as I seem to remember the other "potential superpowers" sources suggested their superpower status was imminent but not yet attained.Zebulin (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What battle? There's no reliable sources that would allow any other countries to be entered into the section, so it's just a matter of telling people to get a source or get out. No different than any other article. I'm all for renaming the section, but I don't think removing it would be appropriate. It's a legit topic of discussion with lots of sourced material to back everything up. It's not "predicting" anything by saying those countries will become superpowers, it's just analyzing the situation based on current day factual information and expressing what's possible.
But that said, I'd like to hear some other opinions on the matter. I have no interest in fighting against the consensus if that's what everyone wants. Krawndawg (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
There are reliable sources for all of the countries (and some non state actors) I listed due to careless use of the word "superpower" as a metaphor and due as well to some extreme optimism on the part of some reliable sources. I'm using 'reliable sources' in the wikipedia sense here not in the sense of saying I regard them personally as reliable obviously.Zebulin (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Third World

China is already the largest agricultural producer of the world while the EU rivals the USA in industrial output.

Russia is not the same as USSR. India and Russia do not come anywhere near even Japan in output, investment and trade. So, they should not be included as superpowers. A population of a country is its asset only if they are skilled, fed, housed, clothed, educated, trained and provided with tools, capital and enterprise-level experiences. Otherwise, by default, population is a liability to the nation.

Let India and Russia first scramble and feed all their people and avoid starvation deaths before going on wild goose chases on empire and colonies. Otherwise, we can easily include South Africa as a superpower as its economy is 35% of Africa or Saudi Arabia as a superpower as its oil ministry policy announcements are closely watched by central banks in other countries including the EU and the USA.

Sooner or later, reason must prevail over this article. This is a encyclopaedia not a cuckooland for nurturing fantasies. So please remove the sections and sentences about Russia, Brazil, India and all other poor Third World nations.PlusDrawn (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your POV'd view of the world is extremely ignorant and not based on facts at all. It's not up to your own ignorant opinion to decide who to include and not include, that's why we use reliable sources with every edit we make. And your assertions that Russia is a "third world" country is false. Please see: this article, this one and this one. Further, China IS a third world country. But current status doesn't even matter because we're not talking about the countries being superpowers right now. Krawndawg (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current status of section

One sentence at the end of the post-1991 section IS ALL THIS TOPIC NEEDS. Please refrain from adding ANY information on why these countries can and cannot become superpowers, and FTLOG don't add any more to the list right now. Leushenko (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower

This is from last May, how did we miss this?

"U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, said: “Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently.”"[37]

adding: "Washington acknowledges the consequences of that process, negative for it: “Russia’s strengthening has been accompanied by a cooldown in its relations with the U.S.”."

Using the word "restored", that can only be referring to pre-1991 influence. Interesting. This might warrant a revamp of Russias section in the potential superpower section, or at the very least, removal of Barry Buzan's opinion, since it seems rather dated and contradictory to todays reality. Krawndawg (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The article by Kommersant[38] stating Russia is a superpower, is also backed with a complete source information from U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried on his discussion about why Russia is a superpower, you fail to seek his full discussion on why is made that statement but he has made it clear with the Europe Union that Russia stands as a superpower once again. Read his comments here[39][40]--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
too much interpretation. "restored" admits to degrees. Certainly few, if any, of our definitions of "superpower" set the bar so low as "a large political and economic force".Zebulin (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say we should write them in as a second superpower, they've still got a long ways to go for that. But when Washington starts saying things like that, on top of already admitting they're the "indisputable" number two military power, that pretty much completely debunks the Barry Buzan paragraph. Krawndawg (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with you people?

This is 21st century. USSR is dead. It means only the USA is the remaining superpower. There are no ifs and buts. Learn to live with it.

Incase you are unaware, the non-oil GDP of Russia in 2007 was smaller than the non-oil GDP of London or even Turkey, which I still regard as the sick man of Europe.

If Turkey is sick, then China and India are worse than that. They are dying, if not already dead, civilisations.Anwar (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

do you support removing the potential superpowers section as speculative?Zebulin (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. That speculative section on "potential" superpower is not adding any value to the article. Infact it diverts the readers' attention from the gist of the article.Anwar (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article improvement

I hope nobody misses the huge potential superpowers section too badly. I have to say the article is looking far more encyclopedic without it.Zebulin (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am cool with it, but I think that we should be more suspicious regarding sources which named EU as super-power. The implications of considering EU as super-power are that many other unions will sooner or later, unjust fly find their way into the article. More, as I am familiar with the military abilities of European countries, My personal (original research, I know) opinion is that even if the EU was one country, it still can't be the second world power-may be the fourth after USA, Russia and China.--Gilisa (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Is [[41]] this person any of you? He is vandalizing the article by removing important information and cites this discussion to justify his actions. JTBX (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
An admin could easily determine if it's someone with an account but I rather suspect it's another anon editor. In any event could you explain how the information removed was at all important or how the edits listed could be construed as vandalism?Zebulin (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] France & Arabia

France was the largest society and economy in Europe in circa 1800. France had the second largest colonial empire in Europe in circa 1900. France threatened to veto several times US/UN resolutions in the 20th century. It was the French Revolution, not the American Revolution, that triggered the rise of nationalism worldwide over the past two centuries.

I bet more people loved to name, talk, eat, drink, dress and dance like French or Arab; than like Russian, Chinese or Japanese in circa 2000. This is extraordinary cultural hegemony without the use of force.

So I am surprised, the words France and Arabia are conspicuous by absence in this article on super-powers.Anwar (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources that call them superpowers, go right ahead and add it. Krawndawg (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DELETED?

How come someone deleted the potential superpowers section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.26.209 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

poof!Zebulin (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Because it's a waste of space, non-encyclopaedic, 99.8% OR, and a troll magnet. Leushenko (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what OR is? The entire section is sourced. Krawndawg (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what OR by synthesis is?
Policy shortcut:
WP:SYN
It's a kind of OR as far as wikipedia is concerned. There was a lot of original synthesis in the section. For instance there would be sources introduced calling Russia "a large political and economic force" and someone would want to introduce that to counter a Barry Buzan paragraph that was not even mentioned in the source calling Russia "a large political and economic force". In theory the sources in the potential superpower section were supposed to simply be reporting sourced commentary of others but we had people wanting to directly address details of the commentary by introducing other commentary that otherwise had no place in the article to counter particular points. That is synthesis...original research. Others would continually try to drop sources in for some superlative trait that didn't even mention the word "superpower" and that was synthesis as well. We also had people constantly introducing sources that did not actually make a case for a country as a "potential superpower" but instead either just dropped the term without justification or were talking about some other kind of "superpower". That wasn't original research but it simply wasn't providing sources that could be used to add anything meaningful to a superpower article.Zebulin (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No, seriously

...switching from the defensive to the aggressive. To those who keep adding it - why on Earth does this article need a potential superpowers section? You're breaking standard policies and introducing cruft to an otherwise decent article. Please, justify or desist. And please, under no circumstances use your own country as an example to back up any logic as to why it should be on the list. Leushenko (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential superpowers

I can see your argument. This article describes superpowers that exist or existed in the past. "Potential superpowers" do not yet exist as superpowers. This is only a fantasy, prediction, science fiction, or whatever. On the other hand, this material is sourced. I suggest to create a separate article Potential superpowers, place all material there, and remove them from this article. What do you think?Biophys (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to a separate article, linked from the relevant part of this one. But just because something is sourced is not a reason to include it. It still has to be notable, and verifiable as fact. I have no dispute with the idea that Russia or China could be a superpower on grounds of notability, but all future predictions are by nature POV, OR or synthesis. This is a problem that requires more than just secondary sources to resolve. Leushenko (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Another compromise would be to condense the huge potential superpower section into one sentence per future superpower that simply names and lists the sources involved in the speculation for each case rather the current system of trying to paraphrase several sources speculation for each "potential" superpower. My biggest beef with the section is that it's much too large and grows much too fast for something that's only supposed to report on the published speculation of others.Zebulin (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried doing that (Driftwoods suggestion) when the section was taken out, but it got lost in a series of reverts. I agree that the section is too big in comparison to the rest of the article, but I don't think it should be deleted completely. And whoever keeps adding Brazil needs to stop. Some of those links even refute the idea that Brazil is a potential superpower and the one quote is from a discussion forum. I'm not opposed to either cutting it down to a paragraph or two, or giving it its own article altogether so we can expand on it even further, or both. Krawndawg (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that, it would be best to create a separate article and leave just a summary (one or two most important paragaphs about potential superpowers) here.Biophys (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
One thing indeed is that many countries could be added, for example Pakistan, or Indonesia, by just finding one or two journalists who've said so would be enough. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Europe is home to 40 per cent of the global economic growth during 2005-10
Europe is home to 40 per cent of the global economic growth during 2005-10

A separate article on Potential superpowers was created and deleted for some reason. Meanwhile, the latest IMF growth estimates (April 2008) reveal that the US share of global economic output is likely to fall from 30 per cent in 2005 to 20 per cent in 2050 while Europe is likely to pick up almost all the spoils and see her share of global economic output jump from 30 per cent in 2005 to 40 per cent in 2050. The rest of the world, it means, would continue to remain in squalor and dreams.Anwar (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to your source? Below are the IMF estimates from 2007 to 2013 (as far into the future as they appear to predict). Note that in each year the share of world GDP represented by the EU, the Euro area or central and eastern europe are predicted by the IMF to be less than the previous year. These estimates date from april of 2008. It is difficult to see why the IMF would believe that by 2050 the trend would have reversed so severely as to have increased the relative share of the EU by 50%.Zebulin (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
IMF estimates of share of world GDP out to 2013: [42] Zebulin (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
IMF's GDP figures based on current exchange rates follow the 40-per-cent-share-in-annual-growth pattern from 2000-13. (Growth is the arithmetic difference between any two years.) But it is for the whole of Europe including the EU, Russia and everyone between. It also means China's gains would be at the expense of Japan, Korea and other east Asian traders.[43] Extrapolating the annual dollar figures gives similar market shares by 2050.
By 2010, USA' share is estimated to fall to 22 per cent while the share of whole of Europe is estimated to rise to 35 per cent of the world GDP (of $67 trillion).Anwar (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding share of world GDP, Both America and the EU are going to fall sharply, while three of the four BRIC countries make rapid gains.2007 - 2013:

  • EU: 22.75% - 20.22%
  • America: 21.36% - 19.22%
  • China: 10.82% - 14.69%
  • India: 4.58% - 5.61%
  • Russia: 3.17% - 3.43%
  • Brazil: 2.81% - 2.69% (how that makes Brazil the next "economic superpower" is beyond me.)

With these figures we still can't see 50 years into the future, but I think it's a fair assumption that the EU and America's share will continue to fall, (especially considering that these estimates don't seem to take into account the current economic situation in America), while China, India and Russia continue to increase their share faster than any other country. Krawndawg (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PPP is inexact science. Use current market exchange rates as it is verifiable with national and international sources.Anwar (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you seriously complaining about PPP distortions while suggesting using current market exchange rates for projections 40+ years in the future?Zebulin (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Would a real encyclopedia include things that are "Potential"? No, of course not. I am sorry, but that potential superpower section really has no place here. I don't care if they have a thousand sources, wikipedia and encyclopedias in general are not crystal balls. Encyclopedias present information about past and present facts, not "Potential" facts. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also did I mention that the "Potential Superpower" section is in complete violation of wikipedia is not a crystal ball? It specifically talks about how articles about "Future History" are inappropriate.

Actually this is exactly what it says word for word....

"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome." Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline graph thing

I have some issues with the image displaying the durations of past superpowers. The Soviet Union is fine, and I don't know enough about the Spanish Empire to comment on its duration, although it's not one of the three "canonical" superpowers. More importantly, what is the justification for Britain's superpower status way back in the 17th century, or the USA's superpower status since the early nineteenth century? 1815 or thereabouts is a good time to start thinking of Britain as a superpower, as it had become the dominant power in Europe, which it wasn't previously (which would necessitate the inclusion of France). Similarly it was after this point that Empire-building really took off. Meanhile the United States didn't really make its name as a superpower until after the First World War; what did it do of any note on a global scale before that? If anything the timeline seems to imply rather counterintuitively that being defeated in a minor war is a good time to start being considered a superpower. Leushenko (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We need sources for the graph to work, but I think sources for either wwI or the Spanish American war might be found as some sort of start date for a status of superpower for the US. It will likely be a bit more difficult to source the start of that status for the British empire if only because it sees so much less discussion published in connection with the concept of "superpower". In the meantime I think we need to remove the graph until the sources are identified.Zebulin (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It's original research and seems very inaccurate to me. Both America and the USSR became superpowers at the same time following WWII for starters, and I don't recall learning in history class about "superpower Spain of the 19th century". Krawndawg (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] European union

The european union is a collection of states, no different then NATO. It cannot be considered a single state. considering no one government or man controls it. Infact, for instance, germany itself is an emerging superpower, with the 3rd largest economy and plans to revamp its bundeswehr. or what about france? one of the largest nuclear stockpiles and largest military spending in europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.119.215 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, after all, NATO has a common currency, a common economy, and a constitution. Sure the EU is not fully a state but it is far from NATO(nothing more than a mutual defense pact) and a better comparison would be a mix of OPEC and the African Union but with a constitution. 128.227.139.150 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Constitutions are wonderful things domestically but how do they have any bearing whatsoever on the functioning of a political unit in it's role as a "superpower"? The only parts of a constitution that would be relevant would be those that grant power to the supranational institutions that can actually act on behalf of the entire "superpower" marshalling all of it's resources. When people talk about things like common currency, common constitution, common national anthems, etc, it generally has no relevance to the superpower status of anything because it doesn't provide the "superpower" with any additional power or ability to use the power of it's constiuent political units.Zebulin (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The European Union, while not a single country in the traditional sense, does have closer ties including shared laws and a mostly-shared currency, as well as a degree of military homogenization. There isn't really a good past precedent of an entity like it - in my personal opinion it does qualify as a unified economic area and makes sense as a single 'superpower' rather than separately analysing the larger/more powerful members. ~ mazca talk 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] United States vs. Russia as Superpowers

Many people are wondering about the United States and its recession[44] economy as if its still a superpower with the Iraq war, falling US dollar[45] [46][47], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[48] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[49] [50][51] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[52], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[53][54] [55]

Now there is Russia a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as as a superpower[56] [57][58] [59] [60][61] [62] because they have the economics[63] [64], the wealth[65] [66], the diplomatic power[67] [68], ideological[69] [70] [71][72][73][74], technological power[75] [76][77][78][79]& advances[80] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[81][82][83]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [84], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.

So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [85]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[86] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.

Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[87][88] [89]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[90] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [91] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.

If you want to save the US as a superpower, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [92][93] [94][95] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your statements here, I viewed the sources and it is said Russia is a supoerpower with much facts on these articles sounding this debate. I think the interesting article on US considered a former superpower by Austin Chronicle Texas is well defined[96].--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice argument. However, it's not really mainstream enough to appear as fact; maybe as a major alternative opinion...? It doesn't really address the nature of superpower status though: influence. The United States has greater general influence than Russia, even though Russia has always had comparable military strength, massive production capacity and vastly superior space capabilities. The simple fact that other countries are more likely to align with the United States for whatever reason gives it greater influence, and the fact that pretty much everyone hates the Russians is the biggest obstacle to Russia's re-expansion of influence. Ignoring this issue is to ignore the main difference between superpowers and Great Powers. Hope that is coherent... Leushenko (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should "Potential superpowers" be an article?

I know that there was one an article like this, and this is used quite common on interlingual Wikipedias. I am considering making this an article on the case of being on both sides of this argument. Moving this to its own article will get rid of the "hypothetical" aspect from the article, and will still allow it to be a part of Wikipedia for all to see. We may also have the opportunity to add more information to each potential country and maybe add some pictures. I am also considering this because I am seeing that other countries are also quoted as potential superpowers (Australia and Mexico are the common ones on a Google search). I am going to make the article and link it to this article. This is so you can check it out at first glance and make a decision if it would work out. — NuclearVacuum 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot make such an article because it is a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also did I mention that the "Potential Superpower" section is in complete violation of wikipedia is not a crystal ball? It specifically talks about how articles about "Future History" are inappropriate.
Actually this is exactly what it says word for word....
"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome." Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Either way, I will wait until I get more feedback about it. Even thought these articles do mention a hypothetical situation, what doesn't on Wikipedia? I agree with this on the case of:
  1. This has been here since the beginning.
  2. Other Wikipedia articles (especially in other cultures and languages) tend to use it.
  3. Some articles here are speculation, that's what makes them fun.
I already created the article and expanded it to some extent. I wish to know what others think, and I hope other users like it. Lets wait and see my friend. — NuclearVacuum 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I would rather have it there than here. We can have a link to it in this article. There the concept can stand or fall on it's own merits (or lack thereof) as an independent article.Zebulin (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is fun, has been on here since the beginning, or is on other language versions of Wikipedia. It is against the rules and it should be removed, as should all other speculation in other articles because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, which after all is what Wikipedia is. I will report this violation of the rules to an admin if this situation is not remedied soon. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not be in violation of the policy you quoted here, however "speculation" in general is clearly not prohibited by that policy. In particular scholarly speculation by informed and credible sources may be reported on. For instance it was appropriate in the titan article prior to huygens to include sourced speculation that Huygens might land in a hydrocarbon sea or sourced speculation that life might be present under the ice of europa. One thing that is unambiguously prohibited however would be "future history". Predictions of the development of superpowers in the future certainly seems to fall into that category.Zebulin (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well since it falls into that category I will remove that section. I also suggest that the article Potential superpowers is nominated for speedy deletion because it is a against the rules to create such articles and that article was deleted in the the past for that very reason. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove this section. Let's keep it as a compromise. A reader will learn about the "potential superpower" article and read it if he wants.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems fair. There was also a huge number of editors to this article who were mostly interested in the potential superpower edits. It only makes sense to make it obvious where such content is being pursued by means of a wikilink.Zebulin (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Russia is not a superpower

Enough is enough. This article has become a hotbed for nationalistic views. Please, this is an encyclopedia. I'm tired of reverting stupid, non-sense edits being made to this article. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that this article has even survived on Wikipedia. And for those people who live in the imaginary world created by Russia media:

A nation which cannot even claim top 5 ranks in any of these indicators is a superpower? Give me a break. Any person who resumes adding the same bs to this article will be reported and risks getting blocked. --AI009 (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Making this analysis yourself clearly qualifies as original research so it won't matter until you find a qualified source that lays this case out themselves. Although I'm not at all sure you'll find sources that claim low GDP per capita is relevant to superpower credentials, you may well be able to find a source that backs up the rest.Zebulin (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It is more to do with common-sense rather than original research. Anyways, it is a combination of various factors including GDP per capita. --AI009 (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am reading more and more comments from user AI009, this guy obivously doesn't like Russia at all and has made a lot of

critism about the country in general, not just false comments about it not being a superpower but quoted all sorts of bias notes and changes he has made on the article as he is determined to hide all the information about Russia is not a superpower and goes on to say nothing but non sense things. I mean how would he like if we down talked his country, India?

Besides, Russia is a superpower, those statements are on the topic and he just throws them out, so people can't read them.
So this user is really someone who hates the country than his sources as he has no sources, just BS. --Bradmorrisusa (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur, I noticed the samething on charging words on no information on the source of fact either. I think this is a couple of guys from India making there content their way, doesn't matter what you present, it is their way or take it to the highway. I agree that Russia is a superpower and to hear guys saying it on sources dating back in 1991 when this is 2008, which is right in the superpower topic currently[97]; old resources. We are supposed to believe these guys using old sources that the US is a sole superpower when articles are being published today 2008 that US is no longer a superpower and AI009 is changing the facts by eliminating everything, so is user Saruman20 doing the samething. It is what they want to do, they want to say the US is a superpower, they deny everything. I will take it and send snap shots by sending it to the administers to show what these guys are doing on a daily basis, this article Superpower is a crooked set of facts that making people believe these so so facts are to believe this is the current truth is a hawk of crap. If you hate I say it, Russia is a superpower and I will post it for ya too.
This has nothing to do with what you think Mr. unsigned user. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to display personal opinions. Your critism is unwarrented and rude. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling someone a liar because they have a different view on a subject is immature and not only violates wikipedia policy, but courtesy and common sense aswell. You are bound to meet people who don't have the same political views as you, and just because someone has a different belief/view than you, does not make them a liar. The very point of wikipedia: an informitive online encyclopedia that anyone can edit within common sense is that everyone has a voice, and if someone has a different view it doesn't mean there a "liar". You should accept all viewpoints and not insult people over the internet based on political views. This has nothing to do with natinality either, I am Russian, and I have defended Russian inclusion here, but just because I edit because of FACTS not because of NATIONALISM, does not mean I hate Russia. Scroll up and you will see how I have defended Russia before, so don't you dare accuse me of hating Russia, that is a very personal attack to me. If you wish to be immature and continue to promote edit warring and personally attack people, the block function is nice and warm for ya. User: Saruman20 (talk) 24:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there is too much one sided campaign here, we have 2 guys fighting to keep Russia off the superpower topic, throwing out content and sources, then you have one who brings up the issue Russia is not a superpower and declines to discuss his statement (AI009) after he makes no sense. Is this India running this site and deciding who is the one source to keep up float? I think this it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.252 (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not Indian, I'm Russian! Everyone here presents good points, so don't try to put yourself above other people. As I said before, have fun with a block if your going to edit war and personally attack people. User: Saruman20 (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please change this edit

"After the Cold War, the most common belief held is that only the United States and Russia fulfill the criteria's to be considered superpowers,[2] (though it is not considered to be hegemonic) but the question now is, is the United States still a superpower or is it no longer a superpower?[3][4][5] [6][7][8] Also, some alternate theories believe Russia is a superpower [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] because they have the economics [16][17], the wealth[18][19], the diplomatic power [20][21],ideological[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. The China and European Union, are thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.[34]"

First things first the usa is still a super power, russia may or may not be a super power and if this is the case, the eu is stronger the russia, just someone please fix this terrible edit. Oh and if this paragraph is stating that us is no longer a super power and that russia is than its clearly bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say one thing that does need changing is the references and the grammar. Adding 12 references after ideological is silly when it's not even clear what it's saying. Ideological what? Is it meant to say idealogically instead? If it is, the references don't support it. Adding 12 references that are saying something very vaguely in the same direction as what you want to claim isn't the same as providing references that actually support your claim. I suggest removing any references that don't directly say that Russia is a superpower or that there are theories that it's a supoerpower, i.e. remove all 12 of them, as none of them do. I'm not saying that it is or isn't a super power (I don't get "superpower envy" as I've heard it's what you do with it rather than the size that matters) I'm just saying stop with the silly references that don't say what you claim they're saying. Ha! (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didnt write this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article seems to be a bit anti US

if you read threw the article it keeps saying that the us is decling and has lost its super power status and russia has taken its place, i think this article should just reflect on the acual facts and not what anti usa and russian nationlist keep putting in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest dispute resolution

Things seem to be heating up here. Please focus on sourcing material to recognized experts in international affairs, or else try dispute resolution. DurovaCharge! 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Russia is a Superpower

I happened to listen to John McCaim today on television about his new foreign policy issues[98]. It is interesting to note that a US Senator making statements about the nuclear arms race of today and how he quoted that the 2 superpowers on tv this morning (Russia and the United States) on more disarmament but also military commitments on patrolling the middle east from nuclear conflicts. Claiming that Russia can destroy the world with a quarter of its total nuclear arsenal and that Russia has a lot of power with its international relations & global strategy with countries the US can't meet the eyes with. Russia's allies are the US's enemies or why the US can't control the countries it needs to influence and Russia can. It seems that with all of the US's NATO member countries, not one of them can influence any dangerous country or potential dangerous country than non-NATO Russia. That right there says what Russia is and their importance on a global scale, which is beyond a world power country can do; which clearing states that Russia is no world power. A superpower has the ability to influence nations and countries together on major conflicts that interact with other nations that cannot. World powers are limited powers and are not global enough to make a stance which can lead to nation threats to war who cannot defend their own sovereignty or countries they bring on to the table. John McCain made these comments and reputably repeated the word Russia over 67 times in a 22 minute speech.

Obviously to the US, Russia has the economic potential plate to build anything they want and influence the world on a global scale. I mean why would he say to the public that Russia is the new influence on foreign policy; and act of will or an act of desperation? It is clear that the US has to look at Russia as its partner to the world on a global front if it needs an act of influence since the US cannot control its global policy. Both countries have the four axes of power on superpower influences than any other country; there is no question that both can destroy the world over and over again but who is not clearly strong enough where another can. I see Russia as either the potential or the second superpower, nothing lower. I’ll post the speech on youtube to prove it[99]. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmorrisusa (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You prove the cause here, good points, why isn't Russia on the article as a superpower? Are people still trying to keep the fact Russia is superpower off the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.252 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it very interesting that here we have people who say Russia is a superpower and then we have people people who say it isn't a superpower, especially AI009 but with the right sources when it says it is, AI009 refuses to believe anything. This user is making the rules on here all to himself. We are dealing with a monopoly system here, a 18 year old kid AI009 says the content he wants and then he uses Adminstrators to protect his locked speech from everybody else and nobody gets to say there facts on the article. I think we have a real serious issue with this user AI009. When the facts are up, they may last 10 minutes and user AI009 just goes in and takes all the content out how he likes it. This guy is anti Russian, you can't say anything about Russia or bring any new link source, it is just disapproved asap. No ifs or butts, talk about crooked. --24.180.3.127 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No ifs or buts? I compromised and agreed on having "there is a debate regarding Russia's status as a superpower.." but you were adamant on removing the word debate too. Listen, I want all sides to be represented equally here since this is an encyclopedia. You can cry, bang your head to the wall, call me a "big fat liar", "Nazi", "crooked" anything.. but unless you fail to provide reliable sources saying Russia is a superpower and not just an energy superpower or potential superpower, I'll keep reverting your edits. If you continue, I'll have to take up this case to Arbitration Committee because not only you are spreading nationalistic statements on Wikipedia, you are also making highly uncivil remarks against me. My case here is for everyone to see. --AI009 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That's why this discussion community disapproves of you AI009. I think your threatening everybody here. --75.15.144.72 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we try to keep the discussion on track, please discuss the issue not the editor. I see no evidence of any threats. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over Russia's status as a superpower

A user has requested comment on politics for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpol list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


[edit] Statement by users involved in the dispute

  • Most sources that are cited supporting statements that Russia is a superpower are either unreliable, or state Russia is a energy superpower or a potential superpower. Russia is not a superpower and if it is, then so are China, EU and India by logic. --AI009 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That is easy to answer, the sources are unreliable because you delete them before anybody can read them and you don't even read them yourself. So I think your the problem here, you are the mess this whole thing is, your the issue, you created it. I see people saying things about you as it is, so you have a bad track record.


  • I am leaning towards the ascertion that Russia is not a superpower. I don't want to make this a long comment, there's already too much text on this page to be coherent. But here are my arguments
    • I believe even here there is a consensus that before 1989 the USSR was a superpower
    • After the end of the ColdWar, there was what is referred to in International Relations literature a 'Unipolar Moment'. The main question is, whether we are still living in a Unipolar world (with the US as the 'lonely superpower'), or of there is an emerging Multipolar order.
    • Even if there is today a Multipolar system, it is dominated by the US. Either you can say that the US is a hyperpower and there are some smaller superpowers, or you can say that the US is a superpower and other states are 'great powers'. As you can see, it's all semantics
    • The conclusion being, whatever you want to call Russia/China/India etc., they are on a different Level from the US. This I believe, is the main point.

--Ondra2 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Ondra2 here. The term superpower arose during the cold war, during which it was clear who were superpowers. After that, most sources agree that Russia lost the USSR's status as superpower, and they don't agree whether Russia has regained it. User:Krator (t c) 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That was 19 years ago, that isn't now. Russia is back on the superpower status, read the facts[100][101]. Only 2 countries can destroy the world, that is Russia[102] and United States, world powers cannot do that. The question is now, is the US is a superpower still or not[103], I don't support Ondra2, he's way off on the matter.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This is all irrelevant, as the current page supports both sides by stating that there is a debate regarding Russia and the United States status as superpowers. This whole argument is strangely pointless. Saruman20 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute on user AI009 and articles on Potential Superpower & Superpowers

I am starting this topic on user AI009, in the last several weeks I have seen and witnessed a lot of stirred conflicts but also a lot of misleading information by user AI009. User AI009 is making statements after statements (a 18 year old) about how Russia is not this and not that, a lot of hogwash and more trash is being stirred out by this anti Russian baloney. You can't say anything with this user hogging these articles without him, it is a constant cat dog game here. I am reading a lot of discussions and I have Googled "AI009" [104], this guy thinks he is God here. The content is according to him, he is making his statements that I certaintly cannot understand why but I am seeing an anti Russian member here who is taking the positon to use this Superpower articles about who he thinks everything should be. Ok, I don't agree with this person and I think he should be banned where should be in college studying instead of discriminating Russia or whatever message your trying to imput here because this is ridiculious people don't have a right to discuss anything here when user thinks he a cop above the law[105]. I see other users also fustrated with user AI009 and I think this is turning into too much falsehood that no one can trust the content on Wikipedia on these issues. Oh know, whats the point here when we have an 18 year old kid who is making this his website. Get off, do something else, write a book or something if you want to speak or say something anti Russian because you are doing what is not the best interest of anything here, your making this a cartoon not an information source and I don't like it.

He is only states thing that you disagree with, and this is attacking someone, if i recall you arent allowed to do that on wiki so please no attacking. If i had my way there would be no super power section, it bring out national pride which isnt always a good thing and creates biasness over ones country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In bubble, as along as this AI009 guy continues to stay on, he'll keep undoing the current Russia superpower sources. I think people need to really record this guy and show everyone here. I looked at his talk page and noticed warnings flags on undoing content, so he certaintly knows he's putting people down just he refuses to listen or hear the feedback. Again, this is his war game, he'll play war on here until someone either steals his computer or if finds himself a girlfriend because this guy has a lot of time to fight with people.--75.15.144.72 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to take down Superpower and Potential Superpowers articles, fed with Corruption

I am making a request that the entire Superpower & Potential Superpowers articles to be removed and take the down by removing the entire content so this issue is gone to request Admin Daniel J. Leivick; remove it for article corruption. We need to eliminate and just kick this whole section out on the curve.

I have just read and read so much corruption on this entire section of Wikipedia which is just all false information on Wikipedia; fed with lies and lack of todays current content by individuals such as AI007 and also some other members feeding corruption into this network that we cannot trust or source or rely on any sort of information to the public's eye on topic's on Superpowers and Potential Superpowers. The sources are horrible but the fact we are getting no where and people should not be using this site for these sources, the information does not add up. The members have ruined this and just have fed false information to anybody with lies and corruption of facts. People have undo'd almost every new source on country's such as Russia the United States and more but the fact it is not true, it is a complete host of lies.

As Admin Daniel J. Leivick has noted, he mentioned we should eliminate this entire section as it stands and their will be no Superpower & Potential Superpowers articles at all. Users just have ruined it for everyone and I can tell you people like AI007 and bla bla bla too, lets close this story and move on.

I favor to eliminate everything out people, there are some good folks here and there are some really bad folks here too but it is a war of false facts and people have made this a video game with content and played with the information as if it is a complete joke because the information is a complete joke, I don't trust any of it.

So lets take this thing down and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.252 (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Voting to delete an entire well sourced and long established article that is not in violation of any wikipedia guidelines as a response to "corruption" resulting from the edit warring of a couple editors is beyond absurd.Zebulin (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
When I see what is going on and I just sit here looking at my content getting stolen by user AI009. Ya I think it is corrupted to see I am bringing up facts and this ass^%#@% goes and steals it away. We do have a problem, glad you brought this up because I feel the heat is on by trying to edit something and trying to bring up valid information where we have this AI009 going on some hate spree on people. I never seen such a crybaby, I would kick the f%^$# out of this guy if I met him in person as he just tells on people. Ya the discussion and Superpowers articles are indeed a big bunch of lying facts, really just one big sad story by a hate parade. I suggest the wikipedia people take the whole thing out, write a topic on the Superpowers and Potential superpowers homepages saying the site is down due to wikipedia hate crimes or something to tell people that the information is not useful information by being corrupt for reading. I would like to see that because we have just too much fighting. Saruman20, yes a Superpower is an important view but the internet is not a mandatory subject or place; people shouldn't just rely on Wikipedia to read about a Superpower or Potential Superpowers, there are books and books out there I think many people should read instead of relying on a community of people we have no idea on their qualifications (these could be truck drivers or a janitor or a university professor, a waitress, a banker or whatever, no one knows anybody so that does not make it creditable but a book, says something about the write and their reference information, Wikipedia is like Myspace or homepage blog), even AI009 hasn't even read a single page to say the things that are being said. We have too much people crying the blues editing and some are just using every chain of command to protect themselves by nurking on people for silly stupids things, creating a bunch of crap, which just starts wars on each other. I couldn't say one person accept for AI009 who uses every possibility to burn the fire than putting it out. Rocks and stones are allover the place, so trying to fix the mess is not the right answer, so there should be an elimination, not a meditation or a discussion to fix but to discontinue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.3.127 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That above post violated so much wikipedia policy I'm not even could read anything besides the sentance with my username in it. "People shouldn't rely on Wikipedia to read about a Superpower or Potential Superpowers, there are books and books out there I think should read instead of relying on a community of people we have no idea on their qualifications." That was, without a doubt, one of the most terrible sentances I have yet to lay eyes on. Why would someone use wikipedia? 1. Books cost money, wikipedia is free. 2. Maybe they don't where to look for books. Wikipedia gives sources, then they could find books. Then there is the comment about wikipedia community. It doesn't matter. I could be a janitor, but if I add properly sourced material, so what? Even if your an expert on the topic, you still have to have sources. It doesn't matter who the editor is, as long as he/she has properly sourced material. That was an attack on wikipedia and that's unaccebtable. Saruman20 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources on this superpower topic are from articles, not from books. What book is there published currently to state the US is a superpower? As I far as I have seen there are 3 published books from 2008 that says the US is a great power, not a superpower[106]Superpower to Besieged Global Power. Since the angry dogs keep eliminating the idea that Russia is a superpower again (as it is) more facts come, more guys denounce the material in the trash. Because this is wikipedia and this is free to the public, it also free to hate, free to discriminate and the liberty to say what you please (with come restriction) about sources. If I were a professor and this was a students project or research paper, I would rate this a D- for a lack of sources as the superpower wikipedia article is also unaccebtable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No one will write a book or article about the US as a superpower, because it's common knowledge. Why would you write about something that most of the world's population believe. Books are written for people in the Western world, because that's where most of the literate, rich people are, and since most everyone in the West thinks the US is a superpower, it wouldn't be very successful to write a book about something that every already knows or thinks they know. Also, your opinion on what you would rate this article is irrelevant. Saruman20 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

Can I point out that being a superpower does not confer any absolute status on a country, please? There are at least five undisputed non-superpowers that the United States could not defeat in warfare; global economic stability is dependent on at least twenty countries; diplomatic influence depends enormously on what exactly is being discussed. "Superpower" has no meaning as a rank beyond that of the other great powers, it's just a term of convenience. Therefore, this whole argument about Russia is STUPID because Russia clearly is referenced as a superpower when appropriate and there are no absolute criteria - unless you want the canonical definition, which is limited to USA, USSR and British Empire. Therefore please, PLEASE do not attempt to assess current superpowers yourself. The whole meaning of the definition is in perceptions of the countries, not the actual status of the countries involved. So if McCain refers to Russia as a superpower in one context, that's relevant; if Bolton insists there are no Great Powers outside the USA, that's also relevant; Russia's GDP, active forces and military budget are not even remotely relevant to OUR assessment of its status. This is the very definition of OR, and while truth is important, remember - Verifiability first! In this situation where the definition has no grounding in concrete facts, truth is irrelevant and verifiability is everything. So keep it to that - usage - and stop quoting GDPs at each other. Leushenko (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree that me citing GDP figures to support my case was more of original research, my gripe was about the sources. The sources given were either editorials, or stated Russia as an energy superpower or potential superpower. Secondly, your whole argument of "superpower" being a term of convenience is itself original research. I can give you links of several EU, Chinese and Indian leaders stating their respective nations/sub-national entity as superpowers. So that makes them also superpowers? Well, I thought since this is an encyclopedia, only credible, academic work should be cited on such issues. Am I wrong? --AI009 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
when the source isn't a sort that is expressly excluded by wikipedia guidelines it's probably better to simply leave it in and attribute the source directly in the text if you have doubts as to its credibility.Zebulin (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So you mean to say, we should include statements made by all those leaders who claim their respective countries to be superpowers? For example, "Mr. XXX says YYY is a superpower but ABC organization also claims that ZZZ is the only superpower in the world. However, CCC claims there are three superpowers, YYY, ZZZ and HHH. And, EEE, UUU and III are also claimed to be superpowers by...." Happy reading! --122.163.118.22 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what policy indicates we should do. To call anything other than the USA, USSR or British Empire a superpower is OR, that much is clear. Obviously avoiding OR here is going to be hard, since without it the term loses its relevance, but what I'm specifically objecting to is OR based on facts. If you can provide N sources saying Russia is a superpower, yay. For the sake of NPOV, any claims that it is must be met with claims that it's not, because it's not part of the definition of superpower which was built around three specific states. Claims that the USA is not a superpower need to be aired in the context of the USA's status as the last surviving member of the group. Basically, statements that go against the original definition have to be based on proper sources and explicit statements, not OR or synthesis of facts. This is important to maintain encyclopaedic quality. Maybe it's not necessary to be quite as thorough in the inlines as 122.163.118.22's example, but it is important that all claims of superpower status are sourced, not just the bases for them. Leushenko (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Leushenko for understanding the point on Russia, McCain used the exact context as the world superpowers in his statement referring to Russia and the United States. It is relevant to use McCain[107] defining 2 serious countries and warfare. The position that Russia is in, it is stupid to think Russia is anything less than a superpower when the country has everything going for itself. Clearly there is no stop in sight for Russia and I am not a nationlist if I quote Russia as a superpower, I qoute on the current resources and even the US government current statements, stating what they know and what they say. If AI009 or now Empirical Genus goes on and says more horse shit on that Russia is not a superpower on his nonsense opinions, trying selling that to the media then to John McCain and see if he will change his mind he misquoted the public on his Russia USA speech Mr. AI009 or Imperial Genus, last month. If AI009 or Imperial Genusis so smart, go to the media then, tell them they're wrong and your Mr. Right Imperial Genus? Here is his address: Washington Office John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2235
If not, stay the hell out of the topic then, facts are necessary not trash.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual error?

The page is currently locked - but one statement in the opening section is incorrect and needs altering.

It states "Following World War II, the British Empire ceased to exist as its territories became independent". This isn't quite true. The Empire has never ceased to exist - inasmuch as the UK still has territories overseas, it still has an empire which includes territories such as the Gibralta and The Falklands. It has shrunk drastically and all remaining colonies are very small on the global scale, Hong Kong probably the last really significant territory to go. But nonetheless an Empire still technically exists to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.49.109 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source for that assertion. DurovaCharge! 06:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)