Future Superpowers?

[CBR]

Hmm good question. Russia needs a lot of work on its economy to get back to super power status and even then it still just has a population of about 140 million which makes it comparable with Brazil and Japan.

I just dont see how it can sustain a superpower status or at least it will be considered a minor one.


CBR

[Kagemusha]

Hmm good question. Russia needs a lot of work on its economy to get back to super power status and even then it still just has a population of about 140 million which makes it comparable with Brazil and Japan.

I just dont see how it can sustain a superpower status or at least it will be considered a minor one.


CBR

Good points there.
I base my assumption about Russia mainly on its huge amounts of natural resources which are nationalized as we speak.

[Meneldil]

Well, natural resources often slow down developement. Only a few country achieve to use their resources wisely, and I don't think Putin's russia is one of them.

[Don Corleone]

Can I raise the possibility that the whole concept of 'superpowers' will be outdated in 10 years? It implies an 'us' against 'them' mentality, and I don't see that being the dominant theme, at least not politically/militarily. I see more of a time similar to prior to WWI, where it's a network of economic competition that gradually leads to political alliances. Hopefully, we don't make the same mistakes and require military action of each other, forcing support of actions with which we do not agree.

[CBR]

Yes Russia has lots of natural resources and that will be helpful of course.

On the other hand you can look at Japan that doesn't have many if any resources. That didn't stop it from becoming a major economic power but what stopped it from becoming a major military power is more a result from politics (losing WW2)

I would say Japan has more global interests than Russia as it needs free access to resources, and so far that has been assured by a free global economy protected by USA.

Russia(Soviet Union) have had a big military since WW2 to protect itself from western aggression more than ensuring access to resources. So again politics is the reason for its nuclear weapons and big military and it still is strong although I would say it really cant afford the current level. But its never easy to give up a super power status

So I would say that superpower status is more a question of political will and size of economy than who has its own resources, as long as we live in world with free trade.


CBR

[Kagemusha]

Yes Russia has lots of natural resources and that will be helpful of course.

On the other hand you can look at Japan that doesn't have many if any resources. That didn't stop it from becoming a major economic power but what stopped it from becoming a major military power is more a result from politics (losing WW2)

I would say Japan has more global interests than Russia as it needs free access to resources, and so far that has been assured by a free global economy protected by USA.

Russia(Soviet Union) have had a big military since WW2 to protect itself from western aggression more than ensuring access to resources. So again politics is the reason for its nuclear weapons and big military and it still is strong although I would say it really cant afford the current level. But its never easy to give up a super power status

So I would say that superpower status is more a question of political will and size of economy than who has its own resources, as long as we live in world with free trade.


CBR

I agree.
About the development of EU i think EUs relations with Russia is an key issue
on whole future of Euroasiatic continent.Example,my coyntry Finland current economical status is very much outcome of fruitfull foreign trade with Russia during the cold war,while we were in the different "camps".I would like to see EU and Russia developing an open and nonselfish relationship which would benefit both sides.Last thing i would like to see is an arms race between EU and Russia,which could lead at worst case scenario to war.
Believe me my country has been in war with Soviet union in WWII and while Soviets couldnt occupy Finland,it cost us dearly.

[Duke Malcolm]

I think that the USA will lose some of its powers as others gain more power...
The EU will not be a superpower, but may have more power as more countries join...
China will grow, as long as the West doesn't stop imports and the like from there...
I don't know about India or the Russian Federation

[CBR]

I doubt EU and Russia will have any serious issues with each other in the future. IMO there is a good chance that Russia joins EU.


CBR

[Kagemusha]

I doubt EU and Russia will have any serious issues with each other in the future. IMO there is a good chance that Russia joins EU.


CBR

Its an possibility but if it ever happends its going to be quite of "bite to swallow" for EU.Turkey would be a snack compered to Russia.

[Pindar]

In ten years there will be the same number of superpowers as there are at present: one.

When discussing superpower status one has to be clear on the term. Superpower does not simply mean a strong or influential state. It refers to a nation with global reach that has massive influence on an: economic, cultural and military scale. As other nations' economies continue to mature the U.S. relative position should naturally decline. Even so, that decline is unlikely to mean the U.S. does not continue to be one of, if not the, most potent of states in all of the categories mentioned. In the foreseeable future, it is unlikely any other single nation will rise to a status deserving the title Superpower.

There are only two possible contenders: the EU and China. Both the EU and China will continue to be regionally potent, however both have factors that would appear to prohibit Superpower status. The EU has area, mature economies and a highly educated population. It lacks a growing population, political cohesiveness, military projection and perhaps most importantly the will to assume a more aggressive posture. The EU seems to have abandoned its cultural roots for airs of the sophisticate and the cafe. China has roughly the same area as the U.S., it has a huge population and is involved in the critical jump to a fully modernized economy. However, it has allowed itself to become surrounded by nuclear states that do not necessarily share its interests: India, Pakistan, Russia, N. Korea with Japan a possibility. Further, it walks a tightrope between two mutually exclusive positions: authoritarianism and the market. The authoritarian nature of the nation allows for political continuity. However, this is antithetical to the economic environment necessary to maintain a technologically vibrant state. The tension between the two polls cannot be maintained indefinitely. Should China continue as an authoritarian state it will not develop the open society innovativeness and flexibility necessary to lead in the technological arena. Should China fully democratize it is very likely Tibet, Xinjiang with bordering Qinghai and Gansu will become independent states: Inner Mongolia and Manchuria are less likely, but also theoretical possibilities. This would mean Han China would be geographically limited to areas with the least natural resources while still possessing the world's largest population. While a liberalized China would have a far better chance of union with Taiwan that same liberalism may mean a general softening of political will which would naturally impact military projection.