Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:13, 23 March 2008

	Power in international relations (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Power in international relations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Power in international relationsWikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relationsTemplate:WikiProject Power in international relationsPower in international relations

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Russia will become a minor power. India will be colonized again NPOV

Added a few points to make it clear why this is a flawed discussion.

GLobal Power: US is the unrivalled global power today. Its hard power is in a dimension of its own, it capacity and momentum to innovate, its pervasive culture good or bad, makes its soft power felt globally. Its economy is the largest in the world, its population growing, its currency the reserve of the world, it is feared and respected throughout the planet.

2. Major-Powers: There are only two. Russia: A rapidly declining one. largest country on earth, Straddles europe, middle-east, central and east-asia. Significant hard-power though rapidly atrophing, declining soft-power, immense resource power, declining population, pervasive corruption, political nihilism and legions of enemies without and traitors within. Largest stockpile of nuclear Weapons. Only country with capacity to annihilate the Global-Power.

China: A rapidly ascending power, phenominal investment in hard-power, rapidly increasing soft-power in central asia, africa and south-east asia. Growing population, rapidly growing economy, rapidly transforming itself into an industrial and knowledge powerhouse.

3. Middle Powers: Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK and India.

Israel is the defacto leader in middle-east today. It has unrivalled intellectual potential. its hard power is felt as far as europe, central-asia and south Asia. Entire middle-east is in its thrall, its existence and prosperity is the cornerstone of american and european foreign policy. It is one of the top 4 largest arms suppliers in the world. its economy one of the most innovative.

Saudi-Arabia: The worlds preeminent energy supplier, it sets the pace for global energy prices and supplies and hence the health of global economy and power relations. it is the custodian of the two holy mosques and a leader among the billion strong islamic world. Immense financial and inspirational source for wahhabi terror, which even ramzan kadyrov laments, has driven chechens to mass-terror. Through its arabic language and islamic literature exercises immense soft-power thorughout the islamic world and hence eurasia and North-America.

UK: Financial centre of the world, despite New-York claiming the throne. Through its imperial past and its language exercises phenomenal soft-power throughout the world. Rapidly replacing french language in global discourse, has significant hard-power. One of the few nations with autonomous nuclear-triad and air-craft carriers. Robust economy, shelters world famous criminals and masterminds and influences europe through divide and rule, without itself joining the euro. Sponsers terror and political subversion through first rate spy network and NGOs and masterfully keeps Eurasia destabilized and weak.

India: One Billion people, neo-liberal coolie of the americans. Rapidly expanding economy, brilliant but servile people ready to hand over their nuclear assests and military complex to americans, exercises considerable soft-power through yoga, philosophy, ancient heritage, film industry. Most significant strategic location with China in North-east, Middle-east in the west, Central-asia in the north and Indian Oceon in the South. Significant and rapidly expnading consumer of energy. Immense potential for hard-Power and Innovative Economy. Rapidly Increasing population.

Minor Powers:

Germany and Japan due to their innovation and economy (but colonies nonetheless), rapidly declining and decaying populations facing extinction. Germany crushed under permanent guilt.

France: due its still pervasive soft power through language and culture (though declining), its influence in Africa, its significant hard-power and force-de-frappe. Veto member in Security Council. Legacy power from imperial times.

Brazil: Largest Latin Country. Leader in South-America. Trying to be an innovative economy. Significant natural resources, expanding gdp and population. Portuguese is not a global language though, so a soft-power hadicap.Soccer.

Turkey: Third most powerful NATO country. Immense Geostrategic Importance, rapidly expanding energy hub. Guaranteer of Israel's security. Expanding population and economy, trying to be an innovation and financial hub, Significant ability and say in NATO decisions, unlike germany and other colonies. Significant legacy Soft-power from ottoman era. Leader among turkic nations.

Iran: A near minor power. Some legacy soft-power. Leader in the Shia World. One of the main energy suppliers mostly in Euros, Immense geostrategic significance. Never been colonized by European Powers, like Thailand and Ethiopia except during active wars. Significant cultural influence since ancient times in middle-east, caucasus and central-asia.

Among Minor powers only Turkey has the potential to become a middle-power in next 10-20 years.

unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), wikipedia doesn't allow for original research or interpretations to be included in an article. Everything is to be sourced or at least have originally been informed by a citable source. You literally have to get your analysis published somewhere to be able to use it here.Zebulin (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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.

Xdamr 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)

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

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, 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. 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.

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. 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.

Militarily too, Russia's armed forces are no where near sufficient to regain superpower status. 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. The US, France and Britain are all building state-of-the-art destroyers and aircraft carriers, Russia simply does not have the technological ability to compete.

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. 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, but we do need a reputable source. Regards, Signature 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Xdamr 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.

Xdamr 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 '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.

Xdamr 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. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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.

Xdamr 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 Misplaced Pages. Imperium Europeum 05:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Russia as a potential superpower

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 and the IHT, 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.

Xdamr 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Brazil Is the Next Economic (and Political) Superpower
• The forgotten BRIC: Why Brazil might be the next world superpower
• Can Brazil Play a Leadership Role in the Current Round of Global Trade Talks?
• Brazil Is World's Ethanol Superpower
• TIME: Brazil, the Ethanol Superpower
• Brazil: Agricultural Superpower
• New York Times: Brazil, the “agricultural superpower”
• BusinessWeek: Brazil, the New Oil 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)

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)

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, Misplaced Pages 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. Krawndawg (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics