Talk:Potential superpower

Article is well written

I like this article.I consider realistic in describing.Greetings to the authors of Wikipedia.Mediolanum (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article could be better and is a work in progress... otherwise I agree that it is a realistic representation of entities that have the potential to achieve superpower status. Those on this talk page that argue Brazil and Russia are potential superpowers obviously have little understanding of what a "superpower" is and have an unusually inept level of capacity to understand that a citation that describes Brazil as an "emerging power" or an "agriculture superpower" does not mean that Brazil is going to be or has the potential to be a superpower!!! Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well written, not!!!!! This article is an embarrassment, soon as the suspension is over it's going back to the original. Not very many happy campers with Brazil and Russia missing. Many people hate the article as it stands. --103.246.114.86 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No - you don't like it, based on your own personal opinion. Stop pretending to be more than one person. The trolling and sock puppetry is going to get you nowhere. Have you thought about being constructive instead? You'll find life much more fulfilling. David (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Antiochus the Great about Brazil and Russia.Their population is too small and their economies too (as GDP and as global national net wealth they are and will be insignificant).They lack also in other main sectors.I even doubt about India.Anyway this article is better than the last one...much better.Clear,realistic and easy to realize.Article must be realistic and not make happy all because of their nationalisms or likes in propaganda.I think that discussion can be closed holding this good realistic article.Please stop trolling 103.246.114.86Mediolanum (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What you think is just comments, you have no information to back your comments, is hearsay. The article stinks[1], doesn't have good souces and lacks a host of facts[2]. Who wrote the article the last two weeks, Antiochus the Great did[3]. Poorly discussed, poorly edited and poorly cited, can I say more. It's not Wikipedia material and looks embarassing. I wouldn't want a 5th class reading it[4], they would fail their history exam[5] if they read this article. --103.246.114.86 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are supporting a totally non sense position.We already read you long lasting talking.Pen and words many times want to arrive where facts can't.It's no more reality,but only propaganda.Article is well written and has very good citations and sources.If you are here to make propaganda for something or even offending people without having a reason you mistook place.I rather not answer to your offending that show your level of culture.Please ,stop him in useless trolling.Even David asks for it.Mediolanum (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 103.246.114.86 is being too unreasonable and might only be here because of nationalism and propaganda means.Languid Scientist (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't say! This has been going on for weeks, also with the Superpower article, which perversely was protected with the version this troll wanted! David (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

David ,i TOTALLY agree with you.Even Superpower article is full of citations and contrasts.Time to change it and to give it a clear structure based on this well written article.Too many political beings claim there as potential superpowers with just simple citations.Too many claim to be what they can't be in the present and in a foresable future,too many at the table of the winners.In that article should be named just the existing and the potential ones cited in this article.Article "Superpower" seems a circus.Mediolanum (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mediolanum, why does it take you 18 saved edits to write 4 sentences? Can you write and spell? Sure looks like you need help. Should I ask Kermit the frog if you know each other since you really don't make any sense here. You agree but you can't read, spell and write but you have an opinion to say the article looks good. Wow.. Are you related to Antiohus the the Great, a cousin, son, sister, brother or ?? Sounds like a conflict of interest. LOL on the article, I guess since it's readable and attracted to 3rd graders as it looks like it was written by 3rd graders.--103.246.114.86 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Time to stop this guy 103.246.116.86.He is just offending.Mediolanum (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very offending. There is no pleasure in hurting people especially when Mediolanum has not insulted 103.246.116.86. I can see that the IP needs a very stern punishment if he continues to stay like this. Languid Scientist (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It says right at the top of this talk page to "Avoid personal attacks". There is no excuse, the IPs abuse to editors is going too far. I have filed a complaint to the Admin who protected this article (@ User talk:The Bushranger#Potential superpowers) I hope some action is taken. Additionally, if you wish to reinforce the complaint with your own comments then do so. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes personal attacks are bad. After all those who disagree with Antiochus have an "unusually inept level of capacity, Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013" Or David "this troll wanted! David (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2013" Or Mediolanum "Stop with trolling.Mediolanum (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2013" Shall I go report you fellows? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He is a troll though. He's spent the last couple of weeks trolling Antiochus. Anyway, please go ahead - anything to highlight this ridiculous saga to the admins (who so far have done very little to address the issue). The IP hasn't got a leg to stand on. David (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Darkness, I have yet to see an editor PA the IP. Claiming that his actions are "trolling" is factual not a PA. Also, taking my comment out of context is improper and poor show to prove a nonexistent point. The general thrust of my comment was that if editors cannot grasp the understanding of what a "Supepower" is as opposed to an "Agricultural superpower" then obviously this isn't the place for them to be leaving comments as they show an obvious lack of knowledge on the subject (thus I said inept level of capacity). However, i do apologise if you felt the comment was rather strong. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)No, it is a PA, comment on content not contributor. As for Brazil and no academic sources, did you actually look? Brazil – an emerging democratic, global superpower "Nevertheless, all of the above mentioned variables, which lead us to the assumption that Brazil has the potential as well as the intentions to become a global superpower" Grin Indigenous Struggle at the Heart of Brazil: State Policy, Frontier Expansion and the Xavante Indians, 1937-1988 "Brazil's superpower potential" Duke Lament for America: decline of the superpower, plan for renewal UoT calls it a potential rival to the US as a superpower. It is also described as an emerging oil superpower and economic superpower. With cash comes power. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazil lacks like others of population,high national net wealth (in the foresable future) and many other aspcets in military and policy.Real data are more important than sentences.It'd be well to stop in asking for propaganda.Mediolanum (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

They were not present at the time we discussed the changes. Also, I have reviewed some of those citations (and others before) in my own time (via enhanced Google search to find them). They throw around the term "global superpower" very loosely and arrive at a rather inconclusive end. They more rightly assert Brazil as being more of an aspiring/rising global player or world power (great power) than an actual "potential superpower".Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I really am not interested in what you think the source "throw around" You asked for academic sources which describe Brazil as a potential superpower, you got them. As with Russia Brazil will go back into the article. Mediolanum, what propaganda? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Prpaganda is to make appear true a thing to people that in reality isn't.Mediolanum (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

An additional point, if I were to print off all of the academic citations which strongly reinforce the idea of China, the EU and India as being potential superpowers id have several tons worth of printed material. On the other hand, if I were to print off all the material I could find which referred to Brazil or Russia as potential superpowers (albeit in a rather vague, inconclusive and contradictory* fashion) then id have a few kilograms of printed material. So what were trying to do he is get a balance within the article - it is clearly improper and wrong to list Russia or Brazil in the same light at the EU, China or India.

• I say vague, inconclusive and contradictory as 99% of the time the citations more rightly assert Brazil and Russia as emerging powers or (in the case of Brazil) as an aspiring great power with growing global influence.

Anyway, your latest comment does rather sound like a recent comment posted by the IP! Also its worth mentioning that the overwhelming majority of editors here support the current consensus and the current revision of the article. Whats left is how to proceed with Brazil and Russia, do we create a subsection for them in the article? Or do we place greater emphasis on them at the Emerging powers article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to make an accusation then make it, do not allude. There is no current consensus, as well you know consensus can change, and self declarations of consensus matter not. We have sources which describe Brazil as a potential superpower, so that will go into this article. That is policy, and that is what we follow. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To stay close reality they must stay out of the article.It's well written.Do we want to add also other smaller or poorer countries?They can have emphasis in "Emerging power".In the long i'd give more emphasis to Brazil than to Russia.Russia is under Eurosphere.People can already try to guess its future.Mediolanum (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To Darkness Shines a consensus and agreement on the talk pages is a policy too and the original editors of the consensus and the majority on here support their arguments. It would be a uphill battle to ignore a supported consensus.

• Too many editors are in agreement and support with David, Antiochus the Great, Comics e.t.c and their arguments and decisions appear well thought out and executed. They did nothing wrong. But yes I would have liked more time to give my opinions.
• I feel the similar agreement that the references and sources for Brazil and Russia are at a too poor grade for this article. But I think a subsection like Greyhood said is the best solution so a peaceful result may occur.
• Antiochus the Great made a very good point that there is a large mismatch in the references from academics that support India, China and the EU than those of countries like Russia and Brazil.

We must all remember to talk about the changes before they happen to the article, but in a peaceful manner. Do not argue just for the dislike of loosing an argument.Languid Scientist (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I am fine with a subsection, all I am saying is we have sources so they belong here. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems a political suggest agreeded by 3 people (not the majority) and not a scientifical decision.Subsection ( in which we can add Brazil ,Russia,Indonesia,Pakistan and so on) would be a bad and low compromise on not scientifical datas.Just to make happy all.Or you are a potential superpower or you aren't ,otherwise article would talk of all and nothing at the same time.That's not serious.Serious is holding article as written.The rest would become rubbish.Mediolanum (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with Brazil in the subsection but I am not ok with Russia in the subsection because is more of a potential superpower than Brazil so I suggest Russia be placed as before in the first paragraph. The difference between the two, is one has the leading role in the BRIC countries, has a lot more sources directing it's world stage view next to China and the United States that would be Russia. India is sorted of in between the two but I cannot accept Russia in the subsection, You asked for academic sources which describe Russia as a potential superpower, you got them, You asked for academic sources which describe Brazil as a potential superpower, you got them. That's my view. --78.157.215.47 (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazil and Russia aren't and won't be for several aspects well cited by the majority of people potential superpowers in the present and in the foresable.Subsection is useless.I agree in holding article unchanged.Changing would be missing a scientific method and following a politician one.Greetings to Antiouchus the Great.He wrote a complete and clear article.GLawrence1972 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum Darkness Shines (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is really complete and well done.Brazil and Russia aren't potential superpowers because they miss a lot to be so now and in the future.They neither need a subsection.The article must be unchanged to be trusted.89.97.225.73 (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC))Blocked sockpuppet of Mediolanum --64.134.234.86 (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet is Mediolanum[6], Bocca[7] and Subtropical-man[8]. All one editor, same content, same push.--198.55.104.229 (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is to hold the article in this way.Time to close the discussion with a result.151.40.60.108 (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) apparent sockpuppet of Mediolanum, Bocca and Subtropical-man.

Russia

I know why you think Russia cant be a superpower and its all ready discussed but i think youre totally wrong about this decisions removing russia and i tell you why by showing some data which might disprove you. At least i think its dumb from you including the EU or India.

-1st the EU is not a country never has been and never will be, then you could include all kind of cooperation who are coming eurasian union, latin american union, asean and so on. Also the EU is very different, the core is the eurozone of which the economy is much smaller 11 trillion.

-2nd India is very behind to be a superpower. If India is included then you could include russia just as well and maybe japan.

--Russias economy is 3.1 trillion dollars indias is only 4.5 trillion. Its not such a difference. And you can clearly see that brazil is much more behind with only 2.2 and mexico with 1.9. Russia with its much smaller population has like 70% of the wealth of a nation with 1 billion people. And brazil or any other country who has more people than russia is clearly behind.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD/countries/RU-IT-FR-DE-GB?order=wbapi_data_value_2011%20wbapi_data_value%20wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc&display=default

--Industry, Russias Industry is already the 5th largest in the World doesnt matter if in nominal or ppp. Indias is clearly far behind other countries. And you can see how less the US looks like without its fake value of economy of printing money and media but to real value like manufacturing or producing resources its only 4 times bigger than russia or less than 3 times in ppp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry#List_of_countries_by_industrial_output

--manufacturing, now you say its ohhh its just all natural resources thats why russias industry is so big. Well did you know that Russias manufacturing is above Indias in 2011?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing#Countries_by_Manufacturing_output_using_the_most_recent_known_Data

--patents, its also funny how you included patents in the article. If Japan would be included it would be above the EU and the US at least at the patents granted in 2011. Russia would be 50% of the number all EU countries together, so more than uk, germany and france together see patents granted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_patents#Top_20_countries_in_2012

--its the biggest country on earth and is bordering on east asia, europe and central asia & iran which is pretty much almost all important regions in the future. India, brazil, mexico or what every doesnt border anything like this.

--Russia is also the third largest military spender in the world spending 50% more than UK or japan. Japan is also now surpassing france ad could easily become 4th if it wants. India even lower than saudi arabia.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/157935/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/

--exports, India exports less than russia and brazil exports even twice less than russia. Russia is 9th largest exports in the world its not that much far away to japan with 530 billion $. And germany exports so much thanks to the euro and european free trade, you can see that the Eu is only 2.1 trillion while germany has 1.5 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html#rs

--internet, europe has no real competion to google. Europeans using american products like slaves. Only russia and china have search engines which can compete with them. There are the only countries in the world who can compete with google and facebook, i think this is very important underrated fact.

https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/ChartOfTheDay_899_unique_users_of_search_engines_in_december_2012_n.jpg

--population, russias demographics are heavily improving the natural populations is almost not shrinking anymore. But the thing what most people dont know about russia is that russia imports a lot of central asian immigrants which are not counted in the statistics. Moscow for example could have 17 million people instead of 11 million. So russias population could be 153-183 million people in reality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/society/8555676/Moscow-17-million-people.html

-anyways i dont want to bash india here i just made a clear comparison of realities. Because this opinion about population is very overrated. Many people isnt everything. Countries like Russia or Japan could clearly be counted as superpowers even today. I think they should be included or India and the eu should be removed.--Quandapanda (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.55.104.229 (talk)

It seems you ignore racist offending.He says europeans are like slaves.He uses offensive words.Russia misses a lot to be a potential superpower even after his talking.151.40.59.151 (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the message I just left on your talk page. Any further posts from you to Wikipedia will be removed as you are an IP sockpuppet of Mediolanum‎. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Russia and Brazil

As the sources asked for have been supplied I am going to restore these two nations to the article. Per policy. I shall wait 24hrs from now to see if anyone has a reason, within policy to exclude them. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources? The section on Russia above gives sources on several of the criteria for being a potential superpower, but combining these ourselves to conclude it is one is synthesis, a kind of original research which is a big nono on Wikipedia.

We really need a reliable source stating explicitly that these countries are indeed potential superpowers (the word superpower must be used in the source). Arnoutf (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower by Steven Rosefielde Already given above and had been added to the article. Brazil – an emerging democratic, global superpower "Nevertheless, all of the above mentioned variables, which lead us to the assumption that Brazil has the potential as well as the intentions to become a global superpower" Grin Indigenous Struggle at the Heart of Brazil: State Policy, Frontier Expansion and the Xavante Indians, 1937-1988 "Brazil's superpower potential" Duke Lament for America: decline of the superpower, plan for renewal UoT calls it a potential rival to the US as a superpower. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, several editors (including me and Darkness) have agreed to place the likes of Russia and Brazil in a subsection to highlight that while some have said they are "potential superpowers", they are infact in a significantly different category as opposed to China, the EU or India. Also, the citation for Russia is very weak/inconclusive as both I and Comics have pointed out. So simply restoring Brazil and Russia as they were (I.e listing them as equal to China, EU, India etc) would be improper/wrong (due and undue weight). The Superpower article should be consistent with and complement this article too!

Another thing I would like to mention is that Russia and Brazil are far more commonly referred to as Emerging powers by academics not as potential superpowers. Only a tiny minority within the field of political science have made the argument that Russia and Brazil have the potential to become superpowers.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am more than happy with a subsection, as you said due weight must be considered. A single line in the lede along with that is more than sufficient. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I support the motion that Russia and Brazil should be included in this article BUT ONLY in a separate way to the EU, India and China, which are clearly in a different league to Russia and Brazil.

Also, as has been painfully pointed out time and time again, this article and the superpower article need harmonising.

Please can we come to a conclusion to this saga and implement the changes necessary and then protect that implementation. David (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Darkness, I think it would have been wiser to have kept the article revision as Bushranger had protected it and simply added a new section with an expansion template so me, you, David, Comics and other editors could have worked on it. Having said that, there is no reason for the article to have been protected again! Repeatedly reverting editors who abuse sockpuppetry would normally result in the sock/IP being blocked and not the article being protected. I was looking forward to working on the new section today :(

Overall, I am glad an agreement has finally been made and progress can be made from hereon out!Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You can still edit it, it is only semi protected. I thought I had already reverted to the version BR had last protected it at? Feel free to revert to there and begin work. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

David wrote: "I support the motion that Russia and Brazil should be included in this article BUT ONLY in a separate way to the EU, India and China, which are clearly in a different league to Russia and Brazil", I also support this with a small except: EU, China and separate: India, Russia, Brazil. USA, EU and China are clearly in a different league to India, Russia and Brazil. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not support that motion. You cannot just allocate countries to a "section". The fact that you feel the EU (which is not even a country) and/or China are not comparable to Brazil or Russia is not relevant. This article is about potential superpowers and reliable & objective sources have been provided for the inclusion of all five nations (incl. EU). Different people will have different opinions on the likelihood of each country becoming a superpower, and we cannot base the structure of any article on personal views. I could claim that Brazil is the one true potential superpower and provide a bunch of "relevant" facts like the number of palm trees per square foot, or sugarcane output, but that would not make me right. Unless multiple, reliable, and objective sources are provided to clearly state why China or any other country is special (specifically in the context of becoming a superpower), the current structure should remain.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the separate section is influenced by less sources supporting Russia and Brazil than the EU, China or India - a separate section thereby giving all views a more appropriate weighting in the article. Comics (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but we must rely solely on the presence of reliable sources. While it is true that there may be fewer sources supporting some countries, no one can objectively judge how many are needed for each section. This is without even going into the debate on the quality vs. quantity of those sources. Given that any decision coming out of the discussion on the quantity of sources/citations will be subjective and biased, I propose that we keep things the way they are. ie. As long as there are several reliable and objective sources supporting that a nation has superpower potential, it should be mentioned in the article. The variances in the reputable opinions can be outlined within each country's paragraph to provide more visibility into the various dilemmas that come up when labeling a country as a "potential superpower."--Therexbanner (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

2 impossible potential superpowers

Brazil and Russia aren't at all 2 potential superpowers.They have 2 too small economic sizes as net national wealth and nominal GDP now and even in the foresable future. The haven't a sufficient demography compared to other potential superpowers or superpowers.Like China and India they lack in HDI too.Brazil even lacks on the military point of view. They can't stay in this article.Glc72 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Here just 4 of many articles that claim that they aren't and won't in the real sense.At the point 5 you find all main economic data about world.It's the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2013.It owns all main financial data.Russia and Brazil have net national of weight mostly = 0 in the world in fact they aren't in the G7 (and neither can image to be there in a foresable future).Net national wealth is more important than a nominal GDP,in fact in the time it grows much more slowly everywhere.Without wealth you are nobody.All have weapons but not all wealth.Even in projections on long term ( it trust only foresable future that is much shorter;i can trust at the limit IMF forecasts at 2018,and even those aren't certain because there are too many factors in policy ,economy and whatelse not foresable)net wealth of these 2 states will grow in a not sufficient way neither to be called great power on the economic point of view (one long term projection is by PWC). In these citations are just some huge limits and aspects of why they aren't and won't ever be superpowers.As i can see many other people for same or different reasons think like me.Without doubt the MAJORITY in the talk.This is A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF ORIGINAL ARTICLE. THE IGNORING OF PEOPLE IS SIGN OF IGNORANCE IN LATIN SENSE OF THE TERM=MISSING OF KNOWLEDGE.HALLO TO ALL THE SECRET SERVICES THAT WRITE IN THESE KINDS OF ARTICLES NATURALLY FOR PROPAGANDA!Glc72 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There was consesus, for adding two of them(Brazil, Russia), you can just add more at "Contrary views", if you think that they don't qualify as future superpowers. OccultZone (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is TO DELETE them from this article and not only a contrary view.Writing in the article about them is like "recognize " them here.In my opinion they aren't at all what are they mentioned.Neither with the best imagination.They must be simply deleted.Glc72 (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As there are enough sources calling them potential superpowers, and this article is indeed about potential superpowers, deletion is very unlikely to happen, your opinion notwithstanding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur that Brazil and Russia will stay, it is without a doubt Russia has incredible sources to back it for a superpower and Brazil has about 1/4 those sourcs. Deleting is not president on two important countries, especially Russia.--212.38.167.221 (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Russia lacks a lot..more than a lot in economy and demography ,and same is for Brazil.Don't joke ,please.Even on the conventional point of view of military we could doubt a lot if we compare these 2 states to USA,EU or China.151.40.54.32 (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hummm 151.40.54.32 you really aren't convincing with your nonacademic jip jab. I don't know if your representing Cookie monster or Big Bird. Please learn to read, spell and write please, your nonsense on Brazil and Russia makes no sense to anyone here.--23.105.7.251 (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Putin's comment on Russia, latest

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-russia-putin-usa-idUSBRE9BB09M20131212

You think it fits for the Russia page? Would can be the edition, I thought of adding something like ... "Russian president Vladimir Putin, himself denied if Russia wants to become superpower." OccultZone (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes ,it seems that Russia declared itself not a superpower neither now neither in a foresable future by the official words of its president.It's time to delete Russia from this article and from article Superpower . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.9.139 (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice try but that's not going to fly. Russia is a superpower, Putin uses hard and soft power internationally, that defines a superpower. The US knows it and admits Russia is. There too many sources in the last 4 years that place Russia on the world stage again.--198.23.76.209 (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Russia is neither a potential superpower.It lacks in economy and demography....a lot!Like Brazil.Putin was true.Nobody can describe Russia better than its president.151.40.41.170 (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

198.23.76.209, You realize that some 61% parents of Russia wants there kids to establish outside Russia? OccultZone (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Putin article is not a source at all; if Obama said the US wasn't a superpower, would people believe it, not a chance. This article is nothing but a bluff.--212.38.167.221 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So your opinion 212... or other people opinions are more trustble than the official russian president statement.Really funny.Creative.151.40.54.32 (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with 151... If Putin rejects the offer to be a superpower, it should be noted, because he's after all only popular living person of Russia. Its obvious that majority of people can't name any other Russian at all. Yet they are aware about 100s of Americans. OccultZone (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a lame article it doesn't buy anything to take out Russia not even close. I think it's kinda a good argument above if Obama made such a statement people wouldn't take him seriously. In fact the democrat party would be outraged. On top of that when you have world leaders, PhD Foreign relations professors, diplomats and a host more that clearly say Russia is on top of its gain for its superpower checklist of four axes of power: military, economic, political, and cultural, then they're in. When you meet the criteria then leaders know who's in charge.--198.23.79.177 (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This just your opinion,not the official russian president opinion.Russia lacks a lot (an abyss) in economy and demography and not only.Four axes are to play poker,not for Russia.Editors here in Wikipedia are really out of reality and not on this article,but in many policy,history,military and economy articles where propaganda is easier.Lasting so this isn't anymore an Encyclopedia as many people realized at least in the most developed areas.151.40.64.77 (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This story by Rueters[9] represents nothing[10] and in fact it is like reading a comic book or something from Sesame Street[11]. According to 151.40.64.77 Kermit the Frog says that Seame Street is not for children but made for adults when quoting the Rueters story. Hummm, that's what 151.40.64.77 means. Lets dump this post topic, clearly no foundation for a source.--23.105.7.251 (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I know many russian people are reading english Wikipedia.To hold on the Talk they use at least 3 different IP.Soon will arrive other too whose nicknames will be known))).I image many academics and people close to FSB and russian propaganda. Their president words are much more than other opinions.I'm sorry.You use many words to try to destroy the evidence.More words you use more it means that Putin official words are right.The financial weight of Russia is mostly 0(in fact isn't in the G7)and it'll be so in the foresable futre.To give an idea the global net wealth in EU or USA is 60 times the russian one.This is the most important criteria to value a superpower.What do you want to compare??))))) The nominal GDP (that isn't the net wealth of the country) is too small and demography is too too small.There should be to write hours also about huge russian limits above all in conventional in military ,but it's useless to do it with who likes propaganda or is ignorant,in the latin sense of "not knowing".151.40.27.25 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)