Russia as superpower status

A recent poll allegedly revealed that only 31% of Russians aspire to be a "superpower" and most want a comfortable and affluent life not caring about "superpower" status. This is actually disturbing as their real choice is not between "superpower" and "comfort" - their real choice is between remaining an integral sovereign state and the false promise of "safety" and "affluence". In other words, in losing their "will to power", are younger Russians losing their will to independence. It is a small step from this mode of thinking to caving in to promises of EU lifestyles and guaranteed NATO collective security. The real issue for the younger urban population is actually that their lives have already become too easy and posh and they expect too much for too little. An excess of man bun wearing males and tatted females in Russian cities these days.

calripson wrote:A recent poll allegedly revealed that only 31% of Russians aspire to be a "superpower" and most want a comfortable and affluent life not caring about "superpower" status. This is actually disturbing as their real choice is not between "superpower" and "comfort" - their real choice is between remaining an integral sovereign state and the false promise of "safety" and "affluence". In other words, in losing their "will to power", are younger Russians losing their will to independence. It is a small step from this mode of thinking to caving in to promises of EU lifestyles and guaranteed NATO collective security. The real issue for the younger urban population is actually that their lives have already become too easy and posh and they expect too much for too little. An excess of man bun wearing males and tatted females in Russian cities these days.

Unfortunately humans all suffer from this disease. The notion of some thousands of years old urban civilization pimped in scifi is absurd.
Soft urban environments lead to rapid mental degeneration of the people and this directly results in collapse. China has not been
an urban civilization for three thousand years. It has been an agrarian one for basically 2980 out of those 3000 years. There
are no examples of any long lasting urban civilizations. It is clear from the current trends and state of the world that serious
instabilities are going to wipe out this metastable social regime.

calripson wrote:A recent poll allegedly revealed that only 31% of Russians aspire to be a "superpower" and most want a comfortable and affluent life not caring about "superpower" status. This is actually disturbing as their real choice is not between "superpower" and "comfort" - their real choice is between remaining an integral sovereign state and the false promise of "safety" and "affluence". In other words, in losing their "will to power", are younger Russians losing their will to independence. It is a small step from this mode of thinking to caving in to promises of EU lifestyles and guaranteed NATO collective security. The real issue for the younger urban population is actually that their lives have already become too easy and posh and they expect too much for too little. An excess of man bun wearing males and tatted females in Russian cities these days.

Actually I think you may be thinking things a bit too hard.

The two things that are standard viewpoint in Russia and a lot among the youth (males more so) is nationalism.  You can't have nationalism if you are under someone else's control.

Second is they don't want to be a super power, but a power with comfort.

Essentially, Russians don't give a shit about others and want to handle themselves and be themselves and build themselves up.

Only liberals, which are a small part of the population, want to be under control by someone else.

Now can you post the link of the poll?  Cause I think there is more to it

One issue is, what is considered a comfortable life? How do you measure that? I mean, you already have a comfortable life if you:
1) have a job
2) able to save money
3) have a roof over your head
4) have basics like water, food, healthcare
5) basic entertainment
6) either public or private transportation.

Russians ready have this. So what is "comfortable"?

All polls tend to be nonsense anyway.

A lot of polls in Russia have a clearly political motive. Those by the "independent" liberast Levada Center in particular.
The questions are loaded and the responses are interpreted in a very biased way. So we had the BS about most Russians
being in love with Stalin and North Korean style oppression when in actuality people properly evaluated the role of
Stalin in Russia's history. Cheesy western denigration of Stalin is in a long line of similar BS which we saw with Ivan
Grozniy and other Russian leaders in history. The Russia-hating west is always flinging mud at Russia and Russians
and then bitches at them for not lapping up the hate like nectar.

I suspect rather than them not wanting to be a super power, what they really meant is that they don't want to boss other countries around like the west does or dictate to other countries what they can or cannot do and they certainly don't want to be the worlds police like the west does....

The question is whether Russia has the ability to become a superpower? It will definitely be a rich and powerful country, but it will be a superpower?

Depends what you mean... in terms of economics it is not, but then most economic superpowers are all smoke and mirrors... most of their wealth is shady hedgefund managers... you know... thieves...

There is also political super powers... their handling of the situation in Syria and the fact that countries look to them to solve problems... including getting the Taleban to talk to the US over Afghanistan suggests they are already the country of choice for diplomacy... compared with the US and EU which are the countries of ultimatums and violence... cruise missile strikes and sanctions.

In terms of military they can destroy any country or group of countries on the planet if they choose to, which sort of makes them a super power in that regard too.

Most of the dick measuring is with nominal GDP figures.   It does not even take into account the actual economic capacity.
So Russia can build basically anything, but the "hyper power" USA can't.   Westinghouse is a good example.   And this
"hyper power" has shipped its manufacturing offshore.

The definition of super power is not clear so it is useless.   Having your fiat be the world's reserve currency does not make
you a super power let alone a hyper power.  

It is clear that Russia's GDP is grossly understated.   The consumer-centric PPP adjustment is misleading since the prices
in the MIC and industrial sector are not 1:2 but closer to 1:6.   At the same time, the US GDP is grossly exaggerated since
it counts all of its offshore activity as if it was domestic and has a mystical financial industry where paper shuffling
is considered actual economic activity.   This is why the GDP is a BS metric.   The only thing that Americans see from their
grand offshore footprint is a bit of trickle down and the profit flow only does not even reach the USA fully and is parked
in offshore banks to avoid taxes.   The US offshore GDP does not produce US jobs.   Then we have the ludicrous
foreign debt = GDP growth accounting.   The sale of US treasury bills is directly counted as GDP growth in the USA.   That it
does not produce any jobs and is just a fill the debt hole activity is not taken into account.

If the USSR was a superpower, then Russia has more claim to this title.   Russia's economy is much more developed now
than before 1990.   The agricultural sector is a good example.   The USSR couldn't handle growing wheat.   And if you
look at the military vehicle pool outside of tanks,  Russia has way more diversity now than it did before 1990.   And the
consumer trash sector is no longer totally deprived.   This sector is very important in all the dick measuring that NATzO
loves so much.

The latest issue of Russia in Global Affairs magazine published an article by British expert in international relations Barry Buzan under the heading “How to Maintain Status? Russia in the World Order After the End of the Cold War”. The bmpd blog lists the text of the post.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4427243.html

British and expert. Looks like an oxymoron to me.

Hahahaha... you are not wrong... here is teh first part of the article:

In the latest issue of the magazine "Russia in Global politics" there was an article by a British specialist in the field of international relations Barry Buzan (Barry Buzan) under the heading "How to maintain the status? Russia in the world order after the end of the Cold War." The bmpd blog provides the text of the publication.

Although Russia has always sought to be recognized as a great power, the country's ability to maintain this status has been in doubt since the world entered the modern era in the XIX century.

Military equipment was generally at a decent level, but in economic terms, Russia remained among the least successful states - not least because of the difficulties of establishing effective relations with capitalism. Such unbalanced development continues today, and there are no signs of changes for the better yet. Russia's decision to link itself strategically with China casts doubt on its great-power status, as it finds itself an increasingly dependent and subordinate partner of the growing Asian giant.

So Russia can be great but only if they join with the west and the core capitalist body of the world... Except Putin has spent the last 30 years trying to be friendly with the west and all they have gotten from those attempts at integration is scolding and tantrums and demands for Russia to do as it is told and make its resources available for use by the west to create wealth... for the west...

So after pushing Russia away they now realise how useful all those resources might be... they might have to buy them now instead of being able to steal them in the 1990s, but the alternative is for China to buy them and that scares them to death...

Excellent.

Putin just needs to continue doing what he is doing and everything will be fine for Russia, but clearly not for the west otherwise they would not be suggesting better relations with Russia now.

George1 wrote:The latest issue of Russia in Global Affairs magazine published an article by British expert in international relations Barry Buzan under the heading “How to Maintain Status? Russia in the World Order After the End of the Cold War”. The bmpd blog lists the text of the post.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4427243.html

The British establishment and media are obsessed with belittling Russia and have been repeating the same mantra since 1991 about how it's a declining power and no longer relevant

So why bring any attention to Russia at all then?

Clearly Russia is still a major factor in world politics and nothing is changing that. Britain meanwhile has declined immeasurably more.

China has ten times more people to feed, which is already becoming a problem looking at the slower economic growth.

Germany has a population of 82 million and is the exporter No. 1 (in money terms).

Population is no factor in being a superpower. The times of unwashed hordes storming some field in wartime are long gone.

Hole wrote:China has ten times more people to feed, which is already becoming a problem looking at the slower economic growth.

Germany has a population of 82 million and is the exporter No. 1 (in money terms).

Population is no factor in being a superpower. The times of unwashed hordes storming some field in wartime are long gone.

Population is important, because without nurturing a large population a country cannot grow the size of its economy. And if size of the economy didn't matter then today Switzerland and not China would have been a superpower and an inherently racist country like Australia wouldn't be importing Asian migrants.

An ideal population for Russia would be anywhere between 250 million to 300 million people. Russia's birth rate will probably  increase in the years to come.

In the interim increasing Russia's population via immigrants shouldn't be a challenge. Whether Russian society will accept it, especially if these migrants do not share racial, religious similarity with the local population is another issue.

flamming_python wrote:

George1 wrote:The latest issue of Russia in Global Affairs magazine published an article by British expert in international relations Barry Buzan under the heading “How to Maintain Status? Russia in the World Order After the End of the Cold War”. The bmpd blog lists the text of the post.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4427243.html

The British establishment and media are obsessed with belittling Russia and have been repeating the same mantra since 1991 about how it's a declining power and no longer relevant

So why bring any attention to Russia at all then?

Clearly Russia is still a major factor in world politics and nothing is changing that. Britain meanwhile has declined immeasurably more.

The British still think they're the empire the sun never sets on

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

George1 wrote:The latest issue of Russia in Global Affairs magazine published an article by British expert in international relations Barry Buzan under the heading “How to Maintain Status? Russia in the World Order After the End of the Cold War”. The bmpd blog lists the text of the post.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4427243.html

The British establishment and media are obsessed with belittling Russia and have been repeating the same mantra since 1991 about how it's a declining power and no longer relevant

So why bring any attention to Russia at all then?

Clearly Russia is still a major factor in world politics and nothing is changing that. Britain meanwhile has declined immeasurably more.

The British still think they're the empire the sun never sets on

Only a fool thinks the sun ever set on the British Empire. In what language are we conversing?

Sujoy wrote:

Hole wrote:China has ten times more people to feed, which is already becoming a problem looking at the slower economic growth.

Germany has a population of 82 million and is the exporter No. 1 (in money terms).

Population is no factor in being a superpower. The times of unwashed hordes storming some field in wartime are long gone.

Population is important, because without nurturing a large population a country cannot grow the size of its economy. And if size of the economy didn't matter then today Switzerland and not China would have been a superpower and an inherently racist country like Australia wouldn't be importing Asian migrants.

An ideal population for Russia would be anywhere between 250 million to 300 million people. Russia's birth rate will probably  increase in the years to come.

In the interim increasing Russia's population via immigrants shouldn't be a challenge. Whether Russian society will accept it, especially if these migrants do not share racial, religious similarity with the local population is another issue.

OK, lets be more precise. A country like Monaco can´t be a superpower. But if your population is 100+ Mio. you can be one. But if population were a decisive factor then Brasil and Indonesia would be superpowers for decades now, instead they´re mostly s...holes.

calripson wrote:

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

George1 wrote:The latest issue of Russia in Global Affairs magazine published an article by British expert in international relations Barry Buzan under the heading “How to Maintain Status? Russia in the World Order After the End of the Cold War”. The bmpd blog lists the text of the post.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4427243.html

The British establishment and media are obsessed with belittling Russia and have been repeating the same mantra since 1991 about how it's a declining power and no longer relevant

So why bring any attention to Russia at all then?

Clearly Russia is still a major factor in world politics and nothing is changing that. Britain meanwhile has declined immeasurably more.

The British still think they're the empire the sun never sets on

Only a fool thinks the sun ever set on the British Empire. In what language are we conversing?

It's the byproduct of a bygone era. We speak English as main trading language due to England's former empire.  But those days are over and while we still embrace the language they gave, that's it.

We still follow traditions and structures by the Romans. Hell, the Romans are the reason Britannia even had an empire in the first place. Yet Rome isn't a super power now?

Legacies exist, but what the Brits are now is just a shadow, barely that itself, of former glory

Hole wrote:OK, lets be more precise. A country like Monaco can´t be a superpower.  But if your population is 100+ Mio. you can be one. But if population were a decisive factor then Brasil and Indonesia would be superpowers for decades now, instead they´re mostly s...holes.

You didn't understand. I said a country needs to nurture its population. That's what China does but Brazil, Indonesia doesn't.

That's how China became a superpower.

Russia will not be probably a super power anymore. A very big limitation of Russia is its small population in relation to its competitors. It will not be able to jump over larger economies, the population of which is even several times larger. China will be the superpower. Ten times larger population, the first economy in the world and already a military power. Russia will be an important economy and military power, but to be called a superpower they are too small in terms of demographics, it causes many restrictions. Even the USSR was twice as large.

I think the point is that there are not going to be super powers in the future... just powers... powers that make decisions for themselves rather than being told what to do by their leader as now with the US and her European bitches and her Asian Bitches and her other bitches... ie the EU and Japan and South Korea and Australia and New Zealand and Canada and various countries in the central and south american area they hold control at the moment...

If population meant anything then how did the UK dominate China for so long... why hasn't China always been a super power? Why isn't India a super power? Why is Europe more powerful than Indonesia?

Population means little, though when the population is tiny then there can be problems... ask Israel...

The British establishment and media are obsessed with belittling Russia and have been repeating the same mantra since 1991 about how it's a declining power and no longer relevant

So why bring any attention to Russia at all then?

Clearly Russia is still a major factor in world politics and nothing is changing that. Britain meanwhile has declined immeasurably more.

The really amusing thing is how often Russia comes up in Britain via their media or their politicians, yet the same is not reciprocated... Russian politicians don't fixate on the UK the way the UK fixates on Russia... Russia seems to be happy to move on but the UK is not happy about something and just wont let it go.

Population is important, because without nurturing a large population a country cannot grow the size of its economy.

The population of the UK and France and the US have never been huge yet at various times their economies have been significant to the world...

An ideal population for Russia would be anywhere between 250 million to 300 million people. Russia's birth rate will probably increase in the years to come.

Bullshit, there is nothing wrong with their current population.

Increasing the worlds population by a factor of two or three are just going to multiply the worlds problems by 20 or 30 times.

A good solution for many of the worlds problems would be a stagnant or declining population because that would reduce the stress on land use and resources.

Most of the animals that are in danger are being made extinct because humans are destroying their habitats to build roads and carparks and rail lines and amusement parks... the best way to stop most of the current extinctions would be to stop expanding the human population and to reserve land for wildlife where no tracks can be made and no buildings erected.

Extreme radiation in Chernobyl had less effect on nature than human urbanisation... it made the humans leave which led to a nature explosion because it is humans that kill nature... to have more people is to have less nature, and because we live on land that means more land based species are going to get wiped out putting more pressure on the sea to provide food for everyone.

In the interim increasing Russia's population via immigrants shouldn't be a challenge. Whether Russian society will accept it, especially if these migrants do not share racial, religious similarity with the local population is another issue.

Immigrants want to go to Germany... let them.

The British still think they're the empire the sun never sets on

Yeah.... the sun never sets on the British empire... which tells you all you need to know... mother nature wont turn her back on the Brits...

Only a fool thinks the sun ever set on the British Empire. In what language are we conversing?

American.

But if population were a decisive factor then Brasil and Indonesia would be superpowers for decades now, instead they´re mostly s...holes.

Mostly because the colonial powers with influence have made them so.

Of course, the population is not the only factor, but only one factor among many that must be fulfilled by a superpower.

Look at the countries that had colonies all round the world... the Uk does not have a population of more than 100K... and what was the population of Spain or Portugal, or Holland?

In the past China was a big power but it had everything it needed in China itself and considered everyone around to be barbarians, any Chinese emperor would just guffaw at an idea of conquering anything outside of China

GarryB wrote:The population  of the UK and France and the US have never been huge yet at various times their economies have been significant to the world...

Only as long as UK and France were colonizers. Post WW-II U.K and France were kicked out from all their colonies across Asia and Africa. Today they are nothing power. U.K still exercises some influence on the world stage due to the Deep State in US and a few other erstwhile British colonies that were created by the Brits. U.K's economy and France's economy is roughly the size of India. Nothing to write home about.

GarryB wrote:Bullshit, there is nothing wrong with their current population.

Increasing the worlds population by a factor of two or three are just going to multiply the worlds problems by 20 or 30 times.

A good solution for many of the worlds problems would be a stagnant or declining population because that would reduce the stress on land use and resources.

Applies to impoverished states whose economy and culture were devastated due to European colonial rule. Russia's indigenous population need to increase, not decrease. Else, Russia will become the next Japan. Japan witnessed a lot of economic growth post WW-II but could not sustain it due to a dwindling population.

Russia can only dream about superpower status - it will not happen any time soon and that is reality, country is simply not SSSR nor does have power that matches it. However country will retain its great euroasian power status on long run.

But it will be challenged too, sometimes even by middle size powers and there are plenty of aspirants in that group - Turkey, Iran, S. Korea etc. list goes on; or in the great power club by countries like India, Japan etc...

Problem for Putin's Russia is that is trying to emulate old SSSR and it does not work. Western sanctions are enough to make its prestige non existing internationally and country by itself apart of steering troubles (Ukraine, Balkans etc...) is not able to bring neither lasting peace nor economical prosperity in places were it is directly involved - Syria, Libya.

But Putin's Russia is dreaming of super power status and that is why country is also very dangerous.

Russians by themselves do not give a sh*t, they are smart people, do not believe in delusions of their political elites one iota lol, that is situation on the ground.

Sujoy wrote:

GarryB wrote:The population  of the UK and France and the US have never been huge yet at various times their economies have been significant to the world...

Only as long as UK and France were colonizers. Post WW-II U.K and France were kicked out from all their colonies across Asia and Africa. Today they are nothing power. U.K still exercises some influence on the world stage due to the Deep State in US and a few other erstwhile British colonies that were created by the Brits. U.K's economy and France's economy is roughly the size of India. Nothing to write home about.

GarryB wrote:Bullshit, there is nothing wrong with their current population.

Increasing the worlds population by a factor of two or three are just going to multiply the worlds problems by 20 or 30 times.

A good solution for many of the worlds problems would be a stagnant or declining population because that would reduce the stress on land use and resources.

Applies to impoverished states whose economy and culture were devastated due to European colonial rule. Russia's indigenous population need to increase, not decrease. Else, Russia will become the next Japan. Japan witnessed a lot of economic growth post WW-II but could not sustain it due to a dwindling population.

China became a great power because western companies send their production capacity there and invested trillions. And its population will shrink rapidly in the coming decades (just like Japans) thanks tot he one child policy.