This country has so far failed to prove any force projection either economically, politically or militarily outside of its respective region. Brazil might be the most powerful country in South America, but the same can be said to South Africa and SA is not considered a superpower. I feel like people just slap superpower around because it sounds fancy without taking consideration on what constitutes a superpower. Brazil is not a superpower, at best it is a swing state between Great Power competition, unless Brazil has proven the capability in enforcing its national interests through a combination of hard and soft power on a global scale, than calling Brazil a superpower is highly disingenuous. I mean, its telling when articles providing support for Brazil is several years old with only two available sources and has not been updated since. The same can be said for Russia, the Russian Federation outside of military expenditure has never really showcase the ability to enforce its influence outside of the former Soviet space (even than, Russia is losing its influence in Central Asia to China and Eastern Europe to the EU). Sure Russia wish it could still think as a superpower like the former USSR, but unless Russia somehow reconstitute the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and immediately start propping military bases around the world, than Russia would only end up as a subversive Great Power trying to pull the US and Europe down to its level. The situation in India is still far down the road and I will wait and see where India would end up. So far, of the entities listed here, only China and the EU have shown both the political will and capability in expanding its economic and political power on a global scale. Militarily....not so much, although I will wait and see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.49.75 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
-
Brazil is not a superpower. As stated, it have limited discussion among authorities regarding its potential as a superpower. Maybe it could be transferred to some special section. All other countries are sourced enough from the media and academics. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
-
Yes indeed. Which again begs the question on why is it even there in the first place? If we all agree that Brazil lacks the credentials to even be a Great Power no less, than it is safe to remove Brazil from its entirety a long time ago. After reading the source in support of Brazil's superpower status, it came out even worse. I thought there was two independent sources, but there was only one, which puts Brazil's status in even more doubt. Additionally, the source's argument for Brazil's status is extremely weak and idealistic. It ignores Brazil's economic woes and rampant political corruption let alone the hard fact that Brazil is not the leader in almost any of the global multilateral economic partnerships it is part of. The only supranational organization in which Brazil seem to be the leader of, is UNASUR. The article also do not list any evidence of Brazilian power projection, instead it constantly grouped Brazil's contributions to its economic and trade partners.....which is not a conclusive evidence of global leadership for Brazil at all. Compare this to China who are the leaders in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Belt and Road Initiative as well as having a massive regional military dominance in the Asia-Pacific, significant influence in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia, or the EU which is the largest economic bloc, the largest political union, the largest aid donor whilst hosting a leading member-state that has replaced the US as the leader of the free world and have the military capacity in enforcing peacekeeping roles on three different continents all the while having significant influence in Europe and Africa. All of this is what you would call power projection, and that is without taking into account of the United States. All of a sudden, Brazil doesn't really look like a heavyweight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.49.75 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
-
You're right (regarding recent economic recession and other factors) IMO Brazil should be changed to something like Japan is presented in the article (or completely deleted). Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
-
I second this. The map needs to be changed to reflect the current political consensus. Brazil should be removed.175.38.153.175 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think very similar.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
The mainpage of China calls it a global superpower. There was a discussion in the China talk page about changing it back to the category of 'potential superpower' but that was immediately shot down due to a large consensus of various news media, journals and think tanks all calling China A superpower. So my question is that should we change the category on this page to signify China's superpower status as per consensus? I mean, even the section talking about China on this very page states that it has reached superpower status pretty recently.134.7.65.106 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
-
In my opinion, no country can be considered a superpower, if its people do not hold sufficient wealth. GDP PPP per capita is considered as the most important indicator of a country's standard of living, China's figures however show that they are 3-4 times smaller than those of the USA and almost twice smaller than the Russian ones. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
China is just a potential superpower, lower than EU in the scale for economy and several other points. China like US and EU is a "complete" great power, but not a superpower like US.
Russia should be shorter. It's "overvalued" in article. Its land and weapons aren't sufficient for a so wide space in the article. 33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
-
Economics and GDP PPP is not everything. It is the capability in projecting power on a global scale that denotes the difference between Great Powers (which can only project on a continental scale) to a superpower. According to Lowy Institude Asia Power Index (a relatively neutral and rather accurate think tank based on power projection), China IS considered a superpower. This is the statement from the API "China is a superpower in Asia.China netted the highest gains in overall power in 2019, with first place rankings in half of the Index measures: economic relationships, diplomatic influence, economic resources and future resources. Last year it led on only three of the eight measures. For the first time, China narrowly edged out the United States in the Index's assessment of economic resources. Despite a slowing growth rate, in absolute terms China's economy grew by more than the total size of Australia's economy in 2018." Here is the link https://power.lowyinstitute.org/countries.php?profile=CN. I shall be putting this in the China segment as this is important. 175.38.153.175 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
-
-
Your example seems to contradict your position. If a superpower is defined by "projecting power on a global scale", then why is China described only as a "superpower in Asia"? --Khajidha (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
And what about citations for all economic data per capita , HDI and so on?33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
-
The level of contradiction between this page and the China page is pretty jarring so I understand that. But IMO, the projection of power is everything if one wants to become a superpower. To the above post, trying to use GDP PPP per capita as a measurement is....shall I say a very poor argument. Case in point, Qatar has twice the per capita of the US in terms of PPP, but no one with a brain considers Qatar an economic powerhouse. As it is stated, projection of power is everything, if you fail to project power than you only risk revealing major weakness in your suppose influence. You can have all the money you have in the world, but if you can't project power than you are nothing. The UK stopped being a superpower after the Suez Canal Crisis exemplified the impotence of British influence in Egypt due to the arrival of US economic influence and Soviet political influence. To the anon's link, the Lowy Institute is a pretty fun source to read, however I find it too regional and too broad on their power rankings. Case in point, the Lowy Institute never goes into detail on the enforcement/scale of the BRI nor Chinese economic influence in Europe, Africa and Latin America. I consider China an economic and technological superpower, although it is politically insular in contrast to US democracy promotion. China will become a military superpower as early as 2025 and will be an equal to the US military at that time. By 2025, the String of Pearls in conjunction with China's two nuclear powered aircraft carriers would effectively police the entire Indian Ocean, containing India and safeguard China's maritime trade routes. By 2025, the PLAN would be able to effectively dominate the SCS and East China Sea, whatever US presence there would be nothing more than symbolic rhetoric. By 2025, China should have - if Russia allows it - security dominance in Central Asia to protect the BRI as well as a significant naval presence in the Arctic. Essentially speaking, I consider China today in the same way as the USSR was in 1949, newly emerged superpowers with room to grow. If China controls Eurasia and Africa through economic and/or military force, China effectively rules the world as dictated by the laws of Geopolitics.175.38.205.33 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Projections are forecast, nothing else. Many times studies about projections are payed by the seame political entities that publish it. japan should have become a suoperpower. China has too low HDI and so low attractive position. Its net national wealth is much less less the 50% of US or EU. China is neither a "full great" power because of this. It's difficult to find a full great power , so a real superpower today, even US population is too low. US and EU for different reasons are at the same level. May be EU is a "primus inter pares" holding a low profile.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
