Want did so many nation not want russia to get a open port

What counts as an "open port"?

If it means a port on the open ocean rather than on an inland sea, they'd have to annex territory all the way to Denmark or (for a southern outlet) Gibraltar or the Straits of Hormuz. That could trigger some negative reactions from those inhabiting the intervening regions, or with interests there.
 
It was also an over reliance on their manufacturing sector, particularly steel production, which constituted a huge amount of their GDP (memory wants to tell me 70%) over services which only gave about 10% even though the employed the the opposite amount of people.

Didn't help that Japan's only avene for growth was and still is in manufacturing/services. When your natural resources are almost zilch, you tend not to have many options for growth. Japan's population has been above the carrying capacity of their country for some time now, judging from their food imports.
 
Didn't help that Japan's only avene for growth was and still is in manufacturing/services. When your natural resources are almost zilch, you tend not to have many options for growth. Japan's population has been above the carrying capacity of their country for some time now, judging from their food imports.

Most post industrialised countries tend to be food negative, but Japans an extreme example
 
The world stage is a crowded one. When Russia began seeking a warm water port, it was essentially trying to shove its way onto said stage. It's much more difficult for a nation to exert its influence either militarily or economically without a navy. That's why the major overseas empires (i.e. the British, French and Dutch) were naval powers, largely because they had access to the ocean. By denying Russia a warm water port, they kept the competition down.
 
Eh, their real problem was that their banking system was rigged. Depositors had no choice but to put their savings in the government bank, that lent out to smaller banks, and they lent to businesses that were connected with them. Money was doled out because of connections more than because they thought something was a good investment. Eventually enough of those loans went bad, and boom! Financial crisis.

Putting nuclear reactors on major fault lines didn't help either. At least Diablo Canyon they were able to torpedo. Though I wonder if they would have had the builders not been caught red-handed placing the main emergency water evacuation exhausts on backwards!

Your description sounds like if the old National Bank of the mid-1800s had taken over the entire US banking system!:eek:

It's fairly simple, nobody likes Russia.

Russia is the generic mobster in the corner who for centuries has been trying to get people to obey him to or else.

Which differs from other great/superpowers exactly how? :confused:
That is exactly the modus operandi of, say, late 19th century Britain, or todays USA.

The difference being:

"I'll make you an offer you can't refuse"

and

"Sign on the dotted line or I'll break both your legs"

Most post industrialised countries tend to be food negative, but Japan is an extreme example.

I still say they have a big aging problem, but yes. They will probably hunt down the world's last cetaceans to feed their food needs.

Russia as a maritime power will basically geographically become another United States.

If only the eastern and northern parts of the county weren't so terribly inhospitable and inaccessible.

Unless they annex China, North and South Korea, Vietnam, the entire Near East, Scandanavia, the Balkans, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Low Countries, Germany, and France.:eek: The USA has a HUGE number of deep warm water ports. Indeed, the only one I can think of that compares to Russia's historic weather and geographical port problems is Nome in Alaska.:p
 
The difference being:

"I'll make you an offer you can't refuse"

and

"Sign on the dotted line or I'll break both your legs"

So, more polite wording. It's probably a matter of national character and political traditions, Russians tend to be more direct, while Anglo-saxons prefer doublespeak and indirect solutions, form without substance.
 
Top