Russia as superpower status

What a decade it has been for Russia! For ten years we have watch a shattered nation rebuild itself as a great global power. Russia’s economy saw great growth the last ten years, 6th place in PPP. Russia is an energy supper power fueling much of Europe and China. Russia has regain control of the Chechen Republic after the embarrassing 90s conflict and defeated the NATO puppet Georgia. Under both Putin and Medvedev Russia’s military modernize greatly, to this day Russian weapons remain among the best and at the forefront in technology along with America. China still has catching up to do in terms of technology to both Russia and America. Russia has made great progress in ten years, and if most of Russia plans it has set out for the next ten years go as planed it looks even greater. Which brings me to the decision I would like to have; Do you think Russia is on the path to regaining its superpower status? How many years do you think it will be till we may see this?

Super Power we will never be again. You can't go from losing half your population and resources to the same position. We have 3X the men of France, we should have a commiserate force on their future level. It is not impossible to achieve.

3 AC
12 AW DDG
36 1st rate FFG
100 2nd rate FFG/corvettes
1 division of amphib landing
12 SSBN
18 SSN

1000 4.5-5 gen strike fighters
240 attack helos
1000 medium transport helos
1000 light helos
21 AWACs
42 tankers
180 airlifters
1000 UAV (all types)
36 LR SAM batteries

1200 non-legacy MBT
1200 legacy MBT HEAVILY upgraded
3400 future soldier IFV
12,000 LAV with remote turrets
100,000 future soldier kits
600 modern SPH
200 Smerch upgraded with SIGMA 30

There are some things I left out that France doesn't have an answer for, but we can totally get this level if we spend the damned money.

Well, I think as long as Russia has all those tactical and strategic nukes she will remain a military nuclear power.

I think calling a country a military superpower is a joke when it doesn't mean anything. The US in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan showed that superpower means nothing... in both cases a lot of people got killed for very little result... hardly super.

In more recent time the US has shown that its claim to be able to fight two small wars at once is a lie too as the Iraq war was a coalition of the yes men, and Afghanistan somehow became a NATO operation so they aren't really fighting either conflict on their own.

She is scaling back those nuclear forces but is investing in her conventional armed forces and I expect a thoroughly modern force will take shape in the next decade.

The question of economic or political superpower, she is blessed with land and resources and as long as she doesn't cave in to the west and sell those resources on the cheap or give up ownership to a rich western company for some magic beans or the beads they give the natives then I think she has a bright future.

I hope no one power will be a sole superpower ever again, but I think it all rather depends how existing powers fall.

Look at how Britain has attached itself to the US, that is an option where Russia is Britain and the US is China or India, but I really don't think the Russians would want that sort of power... they are too independent.

Personally I think as the situation in Russia improves over time people will return... as long as they can avoid conflicts that end up wasting lives and money.

Me and my history teacher were discussing who will become the superpower after the US falls. We can see a few signs already that the United States is on, if not approaching its downfall. They still spend the same amount of money on their military, which is still a very small percentage of their GDP, but their dollar, relative to how much it usually was in the past, is worth nothing.

Look at the disrespect the US has for other countries.

Look at the way it lectures Russia and China and Iran and other countries on human rights etc.

The world got on fine before WWII when the US was reclusive and it will get on fine when it falls.

To the Americans the Arabs are towelheads... I wonder what a Native American would have thought of the great cities of Persia and Babylon all those thousands of years ago... they probably would have called the Europeans monkeys I guess being stone age hunter gatherers at the time.

GarryB wrote:Look at the disrespect the US has for other countries.

Look at the way it lectures Russia and China and Iran and other countries on human rights etc.

The world got on fine before WWII when the US was reclusive and it will get on fine when it falls.

To the Americans the Arabs are towelheads... I wonder what a Native American would have thought of the great cities of Persia and Babylon all those thousands of years ago... they probably would have called the Europeans monkeys I guess being stone age hunter gatherers at the time.

I wouldn't disagree with them about the Arabs, the Arabs and the Chechens are very much alike, and their goals are mirrored of eachother. Because I don't have any liking of Israel, I will vocalize some support to the Palestinians, however we must be wary of who they are allied with; al-Qaeda gave finances and logistics to the Chechen rebels, and both organizations are comprised of many former 'freedom' fighters that fought against the Soviets in afghanistan.

Perhaps I am generalizing, but I can't help but assume whether they are Taliban, al-qaeda or nonalligned, none of them want the Americans there. But you are right; I'm tired of seeing America policing the world, criticizing where thier advice was not warranted. I just finished an essay for law on the UN and how it is just a puppet organization for the Americans to point more fingers and try to extend their influence. Look at the double standard; they criticize Russia for alleged human rights violations in Chechnya when there is no proof, just what some chechens say we are doing, because they don't want to be a part of the Russian Federation. Look at Afghanistan; the UN has not criticized any of the Americans actions of torture even though it has been made known to the general public. The UN urges nations to recognize Kosovo, yet recognizing Abkhazia is violating Georgia's territorial integrity.

Some people just can't be reasoned with, some respect power, but most want peace for their kids. They want a future and they see men in suits in capitals far away from where they live making decisions they think they should be making.

You talk about Chechens, but there are pro Russian Chechens and anti Russian Chechens and Chechens that are happy to support either or don't care.

At the end of the day you need to embrace all the different cultures within your countries boundaries and have respect for them all, just as you respect religious choices people make.

To take the Middle East as an example Israel gives all the power to the nutter. When a bomber blows something up they end peace talks because they really don't want to make political concessions anyway.
They give all the power to the bombers and maintain a situation for the Palestinians that can't continue because the Palestinians have no future in the current setup.

The problem is radicals that are prepared to use force to get what they want. This includes Chechen radicals and Russian radicals and US radicals and Jewish radicals.

The only way forward is to engage moderates... don't blame all Chechens for the acts of a few because that alienates them and makes it more a case of them and us. Find Chechens who want peace... I always thought the Americans should have engaged Muslims more to get them to vocally oppose the violent actions of the radical few... it would clarify the real situation as being a few idiots rather than a war on Muslims.

The reality is that the US media has misused its power and will paint anyone who opposes the US in the Middle East as being an Arab terrorist. As if carpet bombing civilians in German cities during WWII from 20,000ft is not a terror weapon.
Look at how Arabs are portrayed in US movies, or Russians for that matter. There are exceptions of course, but Russians are drunk and steal US technology (modern Russian satellites apparently use programming code from US satellites from the 1970s it seems... according to "Space Cowboys" and are always full of nuclear weapons... Space cowboys and Goldeneye...).

The UN urges nations to recognize Kosovo, yet recognizing Abkhazia is violating Georgia's territorial integrity.

Exactly... if the Serbs had tried what the Georgians did in 2008 the NATO forces would have bombed Serbia for months and would probably have used the regime change card to invade.

And the Serbs had more justification for doing what Georgia did than the US had for invading Iraq... UN Security Council resolution 1244 clearly states the territorial integrity of Serbia is not in question and that includes Kosovo as part of Serbia.

But Kosovo is a unique case.

Freaken morons... every case is unique unless you have a time machine.

If you look closely the UN's treatment and judgment of Russia has been nearly identical to the US foreign policy for Russia. Coincidence? I think not.

The UN is a rubber stamp shop for the US and is pretty much used to justify interventions where they clearly have no business.

When the UN fails to justify their interventions (like Iraq) they criticise the UN as being useless and go and intervene anyway.

GarryB wrote:The UN is a rubber stamp shop for the US and is pretty much used to justify interventions where they clearly have no business.

When the UN fails to justify their interventions (like Iraq) they criticise the UN as being useless and go and intervene anyway.

They are completely useless. The UN security council did not vote to intervene in Iraq, but the US went in, unopposed by any other nation, anyways. NATO and the UN are just departments within the US DoD in my opinion. They have as much control as the President of the United States will give them, regardless if they put a Belgian or a Korean as its 'leader'.

The problem is not NATO or the UN, it is the way both organisations are treated by the US.

Of course the member nations of both organisations just sit back and let the US use both entities for its own purposes.

The main problem is that the US uses NATO and the UN like they are supposed to be the world police to enforce international law, when in fact NATO is just an old boys club for the western colonial powers new and old, and the UN was supposed to be an international forum for discussion of border and other international issues.
It was never meant to be an instrument to enforce international law on countries, to corner and bully countries into submission like the US wants it to be.

The reality is there was no legal justification for the US invasion of Iraq and most of those fighting the US were not terrorists, but people protecting their country from an outside invader.

Ironically there was a clear UNSC resolution (1244) that clearly stated that NATO intervention in the Kosovo conflict was illegal.

It seems the Americans don't draw the link between Kosovo declaring independence, Russia opening its borders with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the Georgian invasion of SO a few months later. ...perhaps it is because they have found Georgia on the map but can't for the life of them find this Abkhazia or South Ossetia... maybe they mean Tennessee and North Carolina? They went to the border but couldn't find no tunnel nor the Russians that were supposed to be a comin.

Obama rated Russia as the greatest threat to world peace... above Ebola, and ISIS... so I would say they are already a superpower if the last remaining superpower fears them more than the plague or religious nutters.

Russia is already a superpower

To follow up sepheronx's sentiment, Russia has no ideological worm up its collective ass to project power around the world. The
USSR had communism to dish out, the USA has its imperial ambitions covered by the fig leaf of "spreading democracy" through
"humanitarian" bombing and rent-a-crowd coups. I do not see any example where Russia is trying to stage regime change, and
it is not supporting various "NGOs" to spread brainwash foreigners and facilitate power grabs by pro-Russian politicians.

Russia gave Ukraine an honest set of economic offers, including gas discounts and proposed investment to the tune of 30 billion
dollars. The USA and EU went ballistic and we had the Maidan coup. People talk about Russia's inability to project soft power.
The problem is that in this world you cannot engage in honest business and have to play the dirty war game the USA is imposing.
So you see Russia sending some assistance to the rebels in the Donbas. If Russia was some superpower with lots of power
projection, it would have had Ukraine under its thumb and there would have been no bloodshed in the Donbas and no Odessa
massacre. So Russia needs to acting like a superpower in a limited way to at least ensure its interests. The USA has no intention
of adhering to laws and principles and will try to subvert any and all business activity that Russia tries to advance.

Every single club in Moscow plays house music. This is as american as you can possibly get (OK maybe a step less than R&B but anyway) and is as such for some 50 years now.
This is soft power on display. Check FB. Half Russian chicks claim that they where born or live in United States. When was the last time you slept with one?
You obvious can't go far away with this odds in the same sense that you can't claim to be a capable army when you are not a serious weapon producer like eg Turkey that's why I laugh my ass off when they rate them top ten or something.

You can't be a strong nation if your people adopt some Else's dreams -> You can't be a strong army if you wait for someone else to give you hardware.

Analogy. So hard ?

My comparison with Turkey

There are superpowers and there are superpowers...

Russia has always been a military superpower... no one with any chance of success would dare invade them.

I caught a glimpse of CNN before and the reason for all these sanctions against Russia are largely the fact that the Crimea democratically elected to join Russia rather than stick with the Ukraine.

They interviewed a NATO official (ie American high ranking soldier) adn he said that Russia was moving all sorts of military equipment into the Crimea... much of which had potential to carry nuclear warheads...

It seems perhaps that much of the claims of Russian forces on Ukrainian territory is bollocks about Russian military expansion into the Crimea.

If that is the case then why is the west bleating about it like a bunch of girls... Russia has had to put up with NATO moving its drinks cabinet several times to the east and has been scolded for objecting to a defensive organisation moving closer to Moscow...

With these sanctions and the rest of the world looking at the actions of the west in the Ukraine and the middle east I think Russia turning elsewhere to the other BRICSA countries and working on self sufficiency might actually be the stimulus needed to make Russia a much more viable actor on the economic international stage too.

With no agenda to push there are fewer strings attached too.

i dont think there will be superpowers in the world anymore.
i think usa will be reduced in streinght not collapse.
there will be couple of big power and many smaller power countries.
russia will be one of global players.

when russia integrates half of ukraine , plus most of kazahstan, plus belarus ,maybe some of russians imigrate back after big crisis in the west = 150+22+15+10+ - you have about -200 mill population ,resourse rich and a biggest country in the world. so it will be big power.

The problem with the west is that it is used to no-accountability. It will lie and cheat to get the upper hand in anything for years and years to come. And with the west I mean the US of A and it's compadres.