Was Russia Destined to Become a Superpower?

A Great Power, almost certainly. By the late 1800's Russia had the combination of population, geographical size, industrial capacity, and an educated elite to be counted among the top tier.

A Superpower? not necessarily if by that you mean a nation that is so powerful that it's ability to exercise power in its sphere of interest is not limited by any conceivable alliance of lesser regional powers. Imperial Russia was certainly so limited. Even in the height of the Cold War, it is arguable that the USSR never was a true superpower in the same way the USA was and is. But it came close.
If U.S.S.R. was not a superpower during the cold war years (1945-1985) what do you mean by the term "superpower"? The U.S.A. and her WWII allies had to build an alliance like NATO and put their resources into beefing up their defense capabilities just to check U.S.S.R. who was almost alone without any major strong allies. 'Their ability to exercise power in their sphere of interest was considerably limited' by the power of U.S.S.R. globally. The brutal aggression and occupation of Iraq by U.S.A. after the dissolution of U.S.S.R. has proved it. U.S.A. wouldn't have dared it when U.S.S.R. was around. The United States rose to her hyperpower status only due to the fall of the Soviet Union.
 
A Great Power, almost certainly. By the late 1800's Russia had the combination of population, geographical size, industrial capacity, and an educated elite to be counted among the top tier.

A Superpower? not necessarily if by that you mean a nation that is so powerful that it's ability to exercise power in its sphere of interest is not limited by any conceivable alliance of lesser regional powers. Imperial Russia was certainly so limited. Even in the height of the Cold War, it is arguable that the USSR never was a true superpower in the same way the USA was and is. But it came close.

Only if we mean in the sense of the USA's huge navy and army together. The Soviets didn't need to be a superpower in the same way the USA was, it always had the world's largest army and was the only superpower to attempt to develop and maintain a full-scale army reliant on modern technology.
 
Brazil and India both have large populations and cover a wide area. They are not Super Powers. I would say a certain level of technolgy and industrialization is also required. The USSR was destined to be a Great Power. Unless you feel WWII was inevitable and bound to play out more or less as it did I would say no to being a Super Power. Without the destruction of World War II they would never have had the opportunity to expand as they did.

Without WW2 the U.S.S.R would have an extra 30 million people plus better long-term demograpics and a thrid of it's 1941 GDP wouldnt be burnt-out by war.

As for the ''expansion'' the land & most of the vassal states the U.S.S.R ''gained'' were a net-drain in the long term. Also Pro-Communist expansion is almost a given at some point. If the IJA tries getting into a larger than OTL pissing-contest with the Red Army, you could see a Red China at least.
 
Just to be argumentative: US, the melting pot of nations, might not qualify insofar as a unified ethnic group is concerned. With the aspirations of having Spanish as another official language, it will be the demise of the US as a super power then?

I think the closest we can get to a definition could be Zoomar's:

A country so powerful it alone can dictate and influece any decision of any other country in its sphere of interest. The sphere could and should be global but should not really conflict with another super power.. that's where it becomes a bit hazy.

This definition does not specify population, ethnic groups, military, industrial level or any other thing. That would somehow be implicit here.

So, is China a super power? well, close to I should think.
USSR in the 1970's 80's? I should say yes
Nigeria: No - I was teasing there

India? Good question, because it is surely moving towards a great/super power status

Brazil? Great but not super

British empire in 1900? oh yes

British empire in 2012: <,what empire?> oh yes, that island off europe. NO

It is actually a good definition Zoomar came up with

Ivan
 
I think the closest we can get to a definition could be Zoomar's:

A country so powerful it alone can dictate and influece any decision of any other country in its sphere of interest. The sphere could and should be global but should not really conflict with another super power.. that's where it becomes a bit hazy.

This definition does not specify population, ethnic groups, military, industrial level or any other thing. That would somehow be implicit here.

So, is China a super power? well, close to I should think.
USSR in the 1970's 80's? I should say yes
Nigeria: No - I was teasing there

India? Good question, because it is surely moving towards a great/super power status

Brazil? Great but not super

British empire in 1900? oh yes

British empire in 2012: <,what empire?> oh yes, that island off europe. NO

It is actually a good definition Zoomar came up with

Ivan


Thanks, and my opinions are the same as yours.

As I interpret my definition, there have only been three superpowers in human history, the British Empire in the Victorian Era and through the early 1900's, the United States after 1945, and the USSR from the late 1970's through most of the 1980's. And the USSR was only a superpower by virtue of its rough nuclear parity with the USA after the mid-1970's. Regardless of the USSR's population, industry, and conventional theatre strength, it was only able to extert authority outside of its immediate sphere because it had sufficient strategic nuclear power to restrain US power.

While China is getting there and Europe (if it got its federal act together) would be there, nobody else comes remotely close.
 
If U.S.S.R. was not a superpower during the cold war years (1945-1985) what do you mean by the term "superpower"? The U.S.A. and her WWII allies had to build an alliance like NATO and put their resources into beefing up their defense capabilities just to check U.S.S.R. who was almost alone without any major strong allies. 'Their ability to exercise power in their sphere of interest was considerably limited' by the power of U.S.S.R. globally. The brutal aggression and occupation of Iraq by U.S.A. after the dissolution of U.S.S.R. has proved it. U.S.A. wouldn't have dared it when U.S.S.R. was around. The United States rose to her hyperpower status only due to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Not exactly. With only a few exceptions, the USA (and its western allies) were able to use military force or the threat of force to extert influence on a global basis, even in the face of Soviet condemnation. Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Lebanon, Syria, Suez, the Domincan Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, former French West Africa, the Falklands, etc. The fact that the US or its allies may have not always succeeded speaks more to local resistance and domestic opposition than anything the USSR did.

The USA and its allies were able to place nuclear arms and other powerful forces in client states and allies bordering eastern Europe that were a direct threat to the interests of the USSR, and the Soviets almost found themselves in a nuclear war (one they would have resoundingly lost, by the way) when they tried the same thing in Cuba. The only place the USA or its allies would not exert their power was in eastern Europe, which they defacto recognized as off limits.

I'm not arguing that things didn't became substantially easier for the USA after the collapse of the USSR, but the situation was always far more assymetric than you would imagine.
 
rldragon: awww ---> 40 lashes with a wet noodle

Not only USSR's nuclear arsenal, in which instance even Pakistan should be able to put some pressure on other countries.

It is also the willingnes to exert the power. USSR had a hand in all major conflicts in Africa and in Asia (direct or via proxy).

that, however, is not conflicting with your definition at all.

If we use your definition on Russia prior to 1917: Yes, it was on the verge of becoming a super power alongside the British empire, I think.

It dominated the Pacific on that side, Middle East was also a sphere, together with Europe. Russia surely flexed its muscles during the Crimea war

US had decided not to be a part of the great game, especially after the civil war, so that left them out

Is that still within the definition?

Ivan
 
Not exactly. With only a few exceptions, the USA (and its western allies) were able to use military force or the threat of force to extert influence on a global basis, even in the face of Soviet condemnation. Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Lebanon, Syria, Suez, the Domincan Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, former French West Africa, the Falklands, etc. The fact that the US or its allies may have not always succeeded speaks more to local resistance and domestic opposition than anything the USSR did.

The USA and its allies were able to place nuclear arms and other powerful forces in client states and allies bordering eastern Europe that were a direct threat to the interests of the USSR, and the Soviets almost found themselves in a nuclear war (one they would have resoundingly lost, by the way) when they tried the same thing in Cuba. The only place the USA or its allies would not exert their power was in eastern Europe, which they defacto recognized as off limits.

I'm not arguing that things didn't became substantially easier for the USA after the collapse of the USSR, but the situation was always far more assymetric than you would imagine.

And the Soviets were able to do global power-projection, too. Their Cuban proxy in particular was really good at this, as real Soviet influence was everywhere in the civilized world except Australia in terms of stirring up trouble and arming revolutionary movements.
 
This part has made me happy.


This has not. Canada is very much a great power. It's the second most powerful state on either American continent. The problem is that its southern neighbor is the United fucking States. It never has to really deal with a problem because of that, and in conflicts of interest between the two respective states, Canada has always held firm her stance and alot of times wins.

Canada, like Australia, is what I could call a 'Middle Power' (I'm speaking currently, as of 2012, etc).

Currently, the US is the world's only Super Power.

Post-1991, Russia is a Great Power. Between 1945-1991, it was along with the US, a Super Power.

Other current Great Powers, include, but are not limited to, China, the United Kingdom and France.

These are just my own personal classifications. I do however, think it is reasonably self-evident that a Great Power such as say the UK has a much greater ability to act independently on the world stage*, than a Middle Power such as Canada and Australia does.





*A Middle Power has an ability to defend its CORE national security interests on its own, ie defend against invasion of its territory and immedidate region. A Great Power (in my definition) not only can do this, but is able to at least to a moderate degree, project its influence worldwide (though not to the degree a Super Power like the US can.)
 
I like zoomar's definition insofar as it is not focused on military capabilities.

Japan's self defence force is not impressive, but Japan is surely a great power due to other elements.

Back to the original post: Was Russia destined to becoem a super power? Yes, IF potential came together with reality.

Using Zoomar's definition. YES indeed.

Here is another take on it: British empire inclusive of India, etc etc. = Imperialistic motion = super power

Russia (Tsar's): incorporating Siberia (which was not a part of the first Russian lands), Kazakstan, Uzbiekistan, Mongolia, and a lot more = Imperialistic motion = super power.

If, by chance, Russia managed to stick to its Slav only background (Russia proper, half of Poland, Ukraine, and a bit more), then what?

Would Russia today be very different from the Tsar's Russia, taking a turn around communist empire to Russia today?


Ivan
 
So, is China a super power? well, close to I should think.

While China is getting there and Europe (if it got its federal act together) would be there, nobody else comes remotely close.

If I posted this two statements on any website in China, people would say I don't worth the 0.5 yuan paid to me.

Definition of Superpower By Zoomar said:
A nation that is so powerful that it's ability to exercise power in its sphere of interest is not limited by any conceivable alliance of lesser regional powers.

Definition of great and middle powers By mtg999 said:
*A Middle Power has an ability to defend its CORE national security interests on its own, ie defend against invasion of its territory and immedidate region. A Great Power (in my definition) not only can do this, but is able to at least to a moderate degree, project its influence worldwide (though not to the degree a Super Power like the US can.)

China doesn't even have a sphere of influence, let alone any chance to exert power in any sense. By definition, it's a middle power pretending to be a great power.

In fact, based on the fact that the Chicom regime cannot even defend Diaoyu Isles against Japan, it's hardly a middle power. (National territory, of course, IS a part of core national security interest).

On the other hand, nobody seem to notice that Habsburg Spain WAS a superpower prior to 1659.

As for whether Russia was DESTINED to become a superpower, the answer is no. In the 1920s it even drove itself to the brink of disintegration.
 
Last edited:

Perkeo

Banned
Russia was definitely destined to become a superpower, given its incredible ressources. It isn't just the raw materials, it's also the people: Why, just to give one example, did one of the world's largest strongholds in semiconductor physics fail to build a competitive semiconductor industry?

Give Russia a really good government and they rule the world.
 
China doesn't even have a sphere of influence, let alone any chance to exert power in any sense. By definition, it's a middle power pretending to be a great power.
China does have a small sphere of influence for example Burma and North Korea. It is also expanding it to other places like Sri Lanka and Africa through economic and military aid. Give it another 10-20 years and I bet China will have quite a respectable sphere of influence.

In fact, based on the fact that the Chicom regime cannot even defend Diaoyu Isles against Japan, it's hardly a middle power. (National territory, of course, IS a part of core national security interest).
I don't know if a few uninhabited islands count as part of China's core territory. Also in this case Japan is being backed by the United States so its a conflict between a great power and a super power.

On the other hand, nobody seem to notice that Habsburg Spain WAS a superpower prior to 1659.
I would agree that at the hight of their power the Hapsburgs did control a super power. I don't really know much about the era though so I can't say definitively but I think their time as a super power ended when they lost the thirty years war.

As for whether Russia was DESTINED to become a superpower, the answer is no. In the 1920s it even drove itself to the brink of disintegration.
I think you make a very good point here: the best situation for a country is worth nothing without competent governance.
 
Yes. Any state covering the areas Russia did, with a suitable population, is destined for super-powerdom. Stalin sped the process up.

Canada covers quite a bit of ground too. Something similar to Siberia (between the Urals and Russian Far East), with a similar population and it's no super power. So I don't think it was a certainty of Russia taking the path it took.
 
Russia was definitely destined to become a superpower, given its incredible ressources. It isn't just the raw materials, it's also the people: Why, just to give one example, did one of the world's largest strongholds in semiconductor physics fail to build a competitive semiconductor industry?

Give Russia a really good government and they rule the world.
But the problem is just that, the government. Zaire had incredible natuaral resources, but was grossly mismanaged. China, until relatively recently, suffered enormous drag by misgovernance, both by the corrupt kmt and then maoist excesses.

I think its easy to prevent a corrupt white russia or an overly bureauctatic red one from ever achieving superpower status. But, yes, russia had a LOT going for her and could still be one if history had played out differently.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Any state covering the areas Russia did, with a suitable population, is destined for super-powerdom. Stalin sped the process up.
Communism and Stalin slowed the process down.
Without communism, Russia would have entered the same class as the USA (which it never did economically in OTL), be still in the same class as the USA today, and just possibly ahead of the USA.

The USSR was considered a peer of the USA, not because it had anything like the economic power of the USA. Most of the post WW II period its Gross Domestic Product was smaller than that of West Germany.
It was considered the peer of the USA because

- Nukes made the enormous advantage of industrial strength of the USA irrelevant in an all out war, and because the USSR had lots of them, though fewer than the US most of the time.
- It had an ideology that was considered the equivalent and rival of the democracy and market economy championed by the USA.
- Because of a permanent seat of the USSR in the Security Council of the UN.
- Because the Warsaw Pact was considered the equivalent of NATO, despite the much stronger part coercion played in its formation and the fact that its strongest country was not only industrially weaker than the strongest in NATO, but also weaker than the second strongest, West Germany.
 
Top