Will Russia Emerge As The Next Dominant Superpower

[DrBeer]

A new package of sanctions, and Russia is getting closer to the status of a "superpower" The forecast, even of the state Central Bank, is a drop in GDP to 12% (with a forecast of growth of 2% before the start of a terrorist attack on Ukraine), exports will fall to a historical minimum, "stable recession" with a forecast for 2022-2023 to become stronger than it was in 1998, when "great Russia" was begging for chicken legs, bread and sausage all over the world
Oh yes ! I almost forgot - sanctions and embargoes! Now we started with oil, then there will be land deliveries of oil (now this applies to tanker deliveries). Then gas. Just perfect conditions to become a superpower! As I understand it, is it an honor for Russia to be the first among the world's economic losers?

[1714667805]

1714667805

[CaVO32]

To avoid this, I think the united states would do well to keep its economy strong. As a hedge against russian encroachment. There isn't much alternative deterrent.

Sure, that would be an excellent strategy if the US hadn't already cocked things up with all the quantitative easing, stimulus checks, and who knows what else that's resulting in serious inflation right now.  I look at the price of gas every day, and it only seems to be going up and up, much worse than over a decade ago when it was above $4/gallon.

Meanwhile, I'm not even sure what's happening in Russia and their conflict with Ukraine.  It's almost as if that news story has lived out its life cycle--which is bizarre to me, because I would have thought they'd have owned Ukraine within the first two days of an invasion.  These days I'm never quite sure what to believe when I see it on the news.

This was what I thought also when the war broke out. If Russia is the superpower that they think of, they should have conquered Ukraine in the first week of invasion, but they couldn't. And now, it is taking months and with the help of other countries, Ukraine seemed to stand their ground. So if Russia is the superpower here, they can easily take this small country with very limited resources. I am also not following anymore what are the details and updates on this war. I just want it to stop so people won't suffer anymore. But thinking of Russia as the next dominant superpower, I don't think so. This war event clearly shows they are not.

[coolcoinz]

Russia a superpower? This is a superpower that is putting chips from dishwashers into their tanks because they're out of military grade stuff.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-says-russia-using-chips-from-dishwashers-in-tanks-sanctions-2022-5?IR=T

Russia used to be a superpower because it had nuclear weapons and that's what the world was afraid of. They were also flexing a lot and showing off their warships and jets, but we can see now what these are worth if a fleet flagship equipped with 3 types of anti missile weapons cannot even detect an incoming missile and gets sunk, soldiers abandon tanks because they have no fuel and they're found eating military rations that expired 5 years ago.

[Captain Corporate]

What people do not understand is that in order to be a superpower, people do not need to like you, but they need to be like you. For example, you may dislike the usa, but you would want to live there or at least be like them, we all know this, not the whole world of course there are people who hate them, I am pretty sure most Iraqis do not like them for example but at least majority of the world do. Russia is not like that, neither is China, these two could be looking powerful either economically or even militarily (which they are not even that) but everyone aside from themselves hates these two nations, hence they could never be superpowers because they lack conviction.

[Sithara007]

~~~~
Russia is not like that, neither is China, these two could be looking powerful either economically or even militarily (which they are not even that) but everyone aside from themselves hates these two nations, hence they could never be superpowers because they lack conviction.

Depends on where you are living in. Here in India, people in general have a favorable opinion about Russia and the trade between the two nations are increasing at an astounding pace. Crude oil imports from India have gone up by 15x during the last three months. Although it is true that Russia is not being viewed as a superpower similar to the case with the US, a lot of people in India view that country as a powerful friend. Regarding China, the opinion is largely negative due to the ongoing border dispute (we had a border skirmish last year, in which dozens of soldiers died on both sides).

[bittraffic]

This is if Russia can continue to use the gas, I think they will dominate just by this advantage. They are however not the super dominant in Asia, there is always China that has higher advantage over them. China also have the gas supply of their own, not as big as Russia but China has the technology. If the two will start a quarrel I think the unity of both can change. As for now, Its Russia who will win against the West due to the gas dependency of EU.

It is typical US foreign policy to try to quarrel with neighboring countries in order to stir up tensions in the region. Why should Russia quarrel with China if it is possible to live as neighbors and strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation? This is our common continent, along with India, Europe and the Middle East. The US has spread its toxic influence around the world and it will soon come to an end. We can live in peace and act together when the US and Western Europe give up their unfounded claims to exclusivity and superiority over other peoples. Russia can become the new guarantor of global security, it has enough power for this and enough self-control not to use this power in its own selfish interests. Because Russia is the largest and potentially the richest country in the world, with a huge abundance of natural resources. She does not need to plunder other nations in order to prosper.

Its what they do. China vs India were tried too which they flamed it too much in the borders which there was a time they were actually shooting incident. But then India and Russia are favorable to Chinese projects in their region so they are more inclined to make friends, every country from east going to Africa I think will benefit when they make friends with China.

However Russia may not be a guarantor of global security. China has a diplomatic way of doing things which could led to serious path. These two are in tandem but many would truly see its China that is more advance.

[pooya87]

because I would have thought they'd have owned Ukraine within the first two days of an invasion.  These days I'm never quite sure what to believe when I see it on the news.

War is not a computer game to have an easy outcome.
US invaded Afghanistan more than 20 years ago and spent $7 trillion and couldn't achieve anything at all there. They were fighting cavemen (literally) who had no airforce, no radar, no missiles, no tanks, so support from any other country, not even half decent weapons.
In comparison Ukraine has a military, has airforce, radars, tanks, missiles, and receives billions of dollars of support.

The goal was never to occupy entire Ukraine. The goal was to annex east and south of Ukraine that are strategically important to Russia and leave the rest. Half of Ukraine doesn't want Russia while the other half does. They can never rule over that first half, so they would remove Zelensky with someone who that other half can accept but is at the very least anti-NATO if not pro-Russia. The first part of the plan is already over.
Funny enough, this is similar to what US tried to do in Afghanistan and failed because unlike Ukraine, nobody wanted US in Afghanistan so they were kicked out in defeat.

[Sithara007]

War is not a computer game to have an easy outcome.
US invaded Afghanistan more than 20 years ago and spent $7 trillion and couldn't achieve anything at all there. They were fighting cavemen (literally) who had no airforce, no radar, no missiles, no tanks, so support from any other country, not even half decent weapons.
In comparison Ukraine has a military, has airforce, radars, tanks, missiles, and receives billions of dollars of support.

The goal was never to occupy entire Ukraine. The goal was to annex east and south of Ukraine that are strategically important to Russia and leave the rest. Half of Ukraine doesn't want Russia while the other half does. They can never rule over that first half, so they would remove Zelensky with someone who that other half can accept but is at the very least anti-NATO if not pro-Russia. The first part of the plan is already over.
Funny enough, this is similar to what US tried to do in Afghanistan and failed because unlike Ukraine, nobody wanted US in Afghanistan so they were kicked out in defeat.

Well explained. No matter how much the Western media want to twist the fact, the reality is that a majority of the people in Eastern Ukraine are not happy with the Zelensky regime. The only way a polarized nation such as Ukraine can exist is by electing someone who is acceptable to both the sides. And this is not something they have done ever since Yanukovych was ousted from power. With each passing year, the Western Ukrainian politicians were imposing more and more of their views and policies on the Easterners.

[tygeade]

What Russia did with an invasion to Ukranina certainly had conducted a deep study, the USA was experiencing a crisis of economic inflation and a lot of losses from the war that had been carried out, China continued to grow and stronger the economy and the military so that if there was a world war then China would help Russia Many analysts believe that if the invasion of Ukraine is successful, the country around the country such as Slovenia, Georgia, Latvia and so on will be the next target.

Even if the targets are attacked and they are destroyed, even if Russia starts to just kill everyone who is against them, I can guarantee you that eventually they will fail. How I know this? Because, no nation in the history of the world kept on attacking all the time and never lost and had to stop.

All nations that attacked somewhere else, eventually found resistance one day and they had to stop. Russia will be stopped, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe 10 years from now, but eventually they will be stopped. That is why I believe that we should be going the route of making the defence as dense as possible and make sure that they can't keep this going forever.

[DrBeer]

because I would have thought they'd have owned Ukraine within the first two days of an invasion.  These days I'm never quite sure what to believe when I see it on the news.

War is not a computer game to have an easy outcome.
US invaded Afghanistan more than 20 years ago and spent $7 trillion and couldn't achieve anything at all there. They were fighting cavemen (literally) who had no airforce, no radar, no missiles, no tanks, so support from any other country, not even half decent weapons.
In comparison Ukraine has a military, has airforce, radars, tanks, missiles, and receives billions of dollars of support.

The goal was never to occupy entire Ukraine. The goal was to annex east and south of Ukraine that are strategically important to Russia and leave the rest. Half of Ukraine doesn't want Russia while the other half does. They can never rule over that first half, so they would remove Zelensky with someone who that other half can accept but is at the very least anti-NATO if not pro-Russia. The first part of the plan is already over.
Funny enough, this is similar to what US tried to do in Afghanistan and failed because unlike Ukraine, nobody wanted US in Afghanistan so they were kicked out in defeat.

Question from a citizen of Ukraine, who has worked in the eastern regions for almost 10 years.
Well, for starters, let's discard the forcibly implanted narrative that in the east they don't want to be part of Ukraine, but they want to be in Russia, or against the Ukrainian language, or someone banned the Russian language. It's all 100% false! If you want, I'll tell you separately what reality looks like on these issues.
So. the eastern and southern regions do not want to go to Russia. They want to live peacefully and develop in Ukraine. And in order for you to understand the real situation, you need to remember one historical fact! From the 30s to the 70s of the last century, the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine were essentially subjected to genocide, and a significant part of the Ukrainian population was either destroyed or evicted to the far east of the Republic of the RSFSR (now it is Russia), and they were settled in their place ... Guess who? That's right - immigrants from the territory of Russia! That is why there are a noticeable number of pro-Russian (specifically pro-Russian) separatists in these areas. But they are by no means the majority! It was a small digression into history.

Regarding NATO - I will say this, NATO, as an international organization, showed itself in a critical situation ... NO WAY! More precisely, not at all as a defense alliance, against any aggressor or global terrorist! And I'm not sure that now Ukraine will strive to join this union, because. NATO, with its formality, will tie us hand and foot, and we will not be able, in the future, to immediately respond to risks from Russia (if it remains after losing the war to Ukraine). And this means that the factor dividing Ukrainians, in your opinion, is likely to disappear. Also, after the victory over the Russian terrorists, most of the separatists will disappear from the territory of Ukraine. This means that there will be no separating factors in Ukraine, or their influence will be minimal.

Well, about the goals of Russia. Well, let's assume you're right. They need the eastern and southern regions. The question is - why are they now just totally destroying EVERYTHING? If they needed industrial infrastructure, Russian terrorists destroyed it themselves. If they needed a loyal population, they destroyed it, and crippled the lives of those who remained alive. It turns out they need bare land with ruins and mass graves? Well, it's stupid really. And I'll tell you, the answer to the question of what Russia needs, in Putin's feverish delirium, is his "my path", which he recently announced - the restoration of the USSR-2, the restoration of "greatness", right up to the borders of the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact is an adversary of NATO, the majority of whose participants are now praying that only the "Russian world" will not return to them. It included the USSR, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Albania (I don't seem to have forgotten anyone). This nonsense of Putin is their goal! More precisely, Putin! And he realizes all this with the lives of Russians worthless for him. And any totalitarian-terrorist-kleptomaniac regime always "devours itself".

[og kush420]

It included the USSR, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Albania (I don't seem to have forgotten anyone). This nonsense of Putin is their goal! More precisely, Putin! And he realizes all this with the lives of Russians worthless for him. And any totalitarian-terrorist-kleptomaniac regime always "devours itself".

My country PM was on the trip to Russia - when the Russian attacked Ukraine.
And the whole country is in trouble - because of USA pressure and we are suffering so much loose in economy. What did Russia do to the world - they are not friends with anyone, they think of themselves only

[Sithara007]

My country PM was on the trip to Russia - when the Russian attacked Ukraine.
And the whole country is in trouble - because of USA pressure and we are suffering so much loose in economy. What did Russia do to the world - they are not friends with anyone, they think of themselves only

The Pakistan PM (at that time Imran Khan) was in Russia at the time when the latter invaded Ukraine. The Americans were angry because Imran put up a few tweets supporting the invasion. He later claimed that the CIA organized the rebellion within his party which saw him losing the post of Prime Minister. According to Imran, the reason was that he continued with crude oil and wheat purchases from Russia. But then, the new government also continued with the same policy. A few days back, it was decided to import 2 million tonnes of wheat from Russia.

[pooya87]

NATO, as an international organization,

NATO is a European organization that includes US, not an international one.

the Russian terrorists

Since you've been using this term regularly I wonder what your views are on the US led coalition that illegally invaded Iraq and killed more than a million innocent people. Your country, Ukraine was part of this coalition and supplied the third largest number of troops for this massacre.

[DrBeer]

War is not a computer game to have an easy outcome.
US invaded Afghanistan more than 20 years ago and spent $7 trillion and couldn't achieve anything at all there. They were fighting cavemen (literally) who had no airforce, no radar, no missiles, no tanks, so support from any other country, not even half decent weapons.
In comparison Ukraine has a military, has airforce, radars, tanks, missiles, and receives billions of dollars of support.

The goal was never to occupy entire Ukraine. The goal was to annex east and south of Ukraine that are strategically important to Russia and leave the rest. Half of Ukraine doesn't want Russia while the other half does. They can never rule over that first half, so they would remove Zelensky with someone who that other half can accept but is at the very least anti-NATO if not pro-Russia. The first part of the plan is already over.
Funny enough, this is similar to what US tried to do in Afghanistan and failed because unlike Ukraine, nobody wanted US in Afghanistan so they were kicked out in defeat.

Well explained. No matter how much the Western media want to twist the fact, the reality is that a majority of the people in Eastern Ukraine are not happy with the Zelensky regime. The only way a polarized nation such as Ukraine can exist is by electing someone who is acceptable to both the sides. And this is not something they have done ever since Yanukovych was ousted from power. With each passing year, the Western Ukrainian politicians were imposing more and more of their views and policies on the Easterners.

You don't confuse anything? Well, at least in the chronology of what is happening? Dissatisfaction with Kyiv, among some, pro-Russian (I focus on this group of attention) part of the population of the eastern regions of Ukraine, arose after we drove away the thief and the Kremlin prostitute - Yanukovych. Who tried to arrange a totalitarian regime here, and violate the constitution! And some of the pro-Russian forces, at first, raised a tantrum due to the fact that they "expelled our president." After that, even before the active phase of separatism, Russia annexed Crimea. And Zelensky was elected in Ukraine only in 2019, when the war had already been going on for 5 years... Since 2014, Ukraine has been confronting both local separatists and Russian terrorists.
Tell me - isn't India fighting its separatists? Have you created a Sikh state in your territory? Or let Kashmir go to Pakistan? Well, why should we make concessions to the separatists?

[SirLancelot]

No matter how much the Western media want to twist the fact, the reality is that a majority of the people in Eastern Ukraine are not happy with the Zelensky regime. The only way a polarized nation such as Ukraine can exist is by electing someone who is acceptable to both the sides. And this is not something they have done ever since Yanukovych was ousted from power. With each passing year, the Western Ukrainian politicians were imposing more and more of their views and policies on the Easterners.

Like him or not, he wasn't the person who attacked another nation, that is the situation. Just because half of the nation doesn't like Zelensky doesn't mean that Putin is welcomed to attack and kill and destroy half of the nation and get those lands, there is no logic there at all. We have a president that half of us hate as well, does that mean our neighbor nations should attack us and "save us from him" type of situation? Of course not, that would be the most stupidest thing ever.

I am sure that killing innocent people NEVER has a good reason and that means whatever we see on this war, all done by Putin and because of him and he is the real criminal that should be dethroned.

[Wakate]

Russia a superpower? This is a superpower that is putting chips from dishwashers into their tanks because they're out of military grade stuff.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-says-russia-using-chips-from-dishwashers-in-tanks-sanctions-2022-5?IR=T

Russia used to be a superpower because it had nuclear weapons and that's what the world was afraid of. They were also flexing a lot and showing off their warships and jets, but we can see now what these are worth if a fleet flagship equipped with 3 types of anti missile weapons cannot even detect an incoming missile and gets sunk, soldiers abandon tanks because they have no fuel and they're found eating military rations that expired 5 years ago.

So many things are happening which we don't even have idea on. The Russian soldiers that was send to Ukraine to fight war was never equiped to enough ammunition, food and fuel. Maybe Putin thought to invade Ukraine would not take more than a week but now, it looks impossible to overtake Ukraine without speeding more and losing the live of the Russian soldiers.

The Russian economy may looks like it is still strong and unshakable buy the truth had to be told here. The sanctions on the Russian economy had weaken Putin to reduce it wings of exercising more muscles.

[DrBeer]

NATO, as an international organization,

NATO is a European organization that includes US, not an international one.

the Russian terrorists

Since you've been using this term regularly I wonder what your views are on the US led coalition that illegally invaded Iraq and killed more than a million innocent people. Your country, Ukraine was part of this coalition and supplied the third largest number of troops for this massacre.

1. Tell me - did you get an education?  No, no offense? Now I will show why such a question.
NATO is a military-political bloc that unites most of the countries of Europe, the United States of America and Canada. It was founded on April 4, 1949 in the USA with the aim of opposing the USSR / Warsaw Pact.

International - means relating to communications, relations between peoples, countries. NATO is an alliance that forms interaction between many countries and peoples - Europe, the USA, Canada. If it were a union within the EU, and the EU for your understanding is 27 different countries, it would still be international

2. The story of Iraq is the price of a mistake. A very costly mistake. The stuffing of misinformation was done deliberately or not, or it was the personal interests of someone from the tops in the White House, I find it difficult to say. But I think the main reason - in terms of the quality of information, is unacceptable. It also seems to me that the way of isolating the government of Iraq (S. Hussein and his henchmen), sanctions and embargoes would be more acceptable. By the way, after this, I will say this word again, international dubious operation, the practice of monopoly supply of intelligence information from the CIA ceased in the United States. Now this structure includes, if I am not mistaken, about 10 unrelated and independent intelligence structures from which information is collected for the US administration. In a word, I have a negative attitude towards such a decision, as well as any one built on a lie.
About the participation of Ukraine. Yes, Ukrainian servicemen participated, but
- after the end of the US military operation in Iraq
- in a peacekeeping mission. Those. did not take part in the fighting. This is all in open sources, I recommend that you read it. The tasks were set solely to maintain order, patrol, etc. actions. These tasks were carried out by the 5th separate mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the 19th separate Ukrainian battalion of radiation, chemical and bacteriological protection.

I just don’t understand what the United States and the international coalition have to do with it, if we are talking about TERRORISM in Ukraine, which was staged by Russia? The parallels are very weak, or you do not quite know what is happening in Ukraine now "thanks" to Russia ...

[Smartprofit]

During World War II the world's major powers were bombed back to the stone age. With the exception of two nations. Russia and the united states. This set the stage for america and russia to emerge as the world's dominant superpowers leading into the cold war, korean war and vietnam war which followed.

Both the USSR and USA enjoyed the luxury of surviving World War II with their territories and economies largely intact. Profiting handsomely by loaning capital to other nations to rebuild. While the rest of the world toiled under debt and reconstruction efforts.

Looking at the current era a similar trend could emerge. America, the european union and china all carry large ratios of debt to GDP close to 100%. Russia's debt to GDP ratio is by far the smallest of any major power at around 20%. If a major recession hit global markets a case could be made for russia's government and economy being best structured to weather it. Russia is one of the most self sufficient nations in terms of raw materials, food and energy production. Russia also has many other world powers reliant and dependent on them for natural gas and other resources.

Long story short russia has many advantages over the USA, EU and china if an economic crisis hits.

If global markets are devastated by a crisis, russia is (in my opinion) the number #1 prospect to emerge as the next dominant superpower.

To avoid this, I think the united states would do well to keep its economy strong. As a hedge against russian encroachment. There isn't much alternative deterrent.

While russia's invasion of ukraine has stalled. Russia isn't trying very hard. They don't have to. They simply have to wait for the next big economic crisis when free money and support thrown at ukraine can no longer be funded. Then resistance may well crumble.

The best deterrent against invasion and war may be a strong economy with enough liquidity to make invasion too high priced too consider. Our current era with high deficits and weak economies could be interpreted as an open invitation for ambitious regimes like russia to invade us.

On the plus side if russia is the next dominant superpower they may be bitcoin friendly. At least that would be one positive thing we might look forward to in the horror show that could be the future.

In my opinion, Russia has no chance of becoming a new superpower. 

The main problem is a very bad demographic situation. 

Russia is a state with a constantly decreasing titular nation.  Russians in Russia will gradually be replaced by residents of Central Asia, but even immigration is not able to solve the demographic issue. 

Russia is not the USSR.  The USSR is Russia plus 14 more union republics (including Ukraine) plus the countries of the Union for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), including the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and others. 

Modern Russia is a regional country with very bad governance and big problems.

[pooya87]

Yes, Ukrainian servicemen participated, but
- after the end of the US military operation in Iraq
- in a peacekeeping mission.

The point is that the double standards you clearly pointed out in your comment are the reason why Ukraine is currently in this situation. Iraq and Ukraine as two sides of the same coin. Bloodthirsty aggressors are different* but the result is the same, innocent civilians are harmed in both cases.
The same world with the same double standards and same mechanisms and same useless organizations has led to this. Like useless United Nations that has had US vetoing every resolution against their actions and actions of the apartheid regimes they support is now being abused by Russia to veto the resolutions against their actions!

* Ukraine was part of it whether the propaganda you believe tells you or not. I don't have to read some propaganda piece you call "open sources" to know the crimes that were committed there, I have first hand information from people who lived through those days.

2. The story of Iraq is the price of a mistake. A very costly mistake. The stuffing of misinformation was done deliberately or not, or it was the personal interests of someone from the tops in the White House, I find it difficult to say. But I think the main reason - in terms of the quality of information, is unacceptable. It also seems to me that the way of isolating the government of Iraq (S. Hussein and his henchmen), sanctions and embargoes would be more acceptable. By the way, after this, I will say this word again, international dubious operation, the practice of monopoly supply of intelligence information from the CIA ceased in the United States. Now this structure includes, if I am not mistaken, about 10 unrelated and independent intelligence structures from which information is collected for the US administration. In a word, I have a negative attitude towards such a decision, as well as any one built on a lie.

You are wrong my friend, it was not a mistake it was a decade long plan.
For starters the project to invade Iraq didn't start in 2003, it started in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait and the same double standards I talked about showed themselves as he was condemned by the same countries (that included your NATO) that were helping him in his invasion of Iran. And when I say help I'm talking about billions of dollars worth of weapons including chemical bombs made in US and Germany. He was an ally from 1980 to 1988 but as soon as he was defeated the tables turned and he suddenly became a dictator overnight and condemned when he invaded another country 2 years later.
Besides US attacked Iraq more than a hundred times prior to 2003 always targeting Iraq's defending capabilities alongside the project called "Iraq disarmament" orchestrated by UN between 1990 to 2003. You don't need access to some classified information to know what the plan was!!!

[tbterryboy]

Russia occupies an unusual position on the world stage. Under President Vladimir Putin, Moscow has repeatedly demonstrated that it has the capacity to destabilize the international order, most recently with its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Currently, only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower.

However, the United States is no longer the only uncontested foremost superpower and the world’s sole hyperpower to dominate in every domain (i.e. military, culture, economy, technology, diplomatic). Russia, the world’s largest nation, is home to over 30% of the world’s natural resources according to some sources. So, given the statistics, they can definitely emerge. The current holders of the position need to exhibit strong solidarity, otherwise, Russia can always emerge.

My country PM was on the trip to Russia - when the Russian attacked Ukraine.
And the whole country is in trouble - because of USA pressure and we are suffering so much loose in economy. What did Russia do to the world - they are not friends with anyone, they think of themselves only

The story that was posted for being the reason why the Russian government did all those things they did to Ukraine might entirely be different from the main reason why whatever transpired did. But, whatever reason it was doesn’t justify the action the Russians took against a fellow nation  they’ve shared things in common.

Given the actions they took, it’s only right that the consequences be that they fail to dominate because they might do something that would shock the world.