> You're refuting all the points by saying "X country also as Y attribute" but what you fail to grasp is that China is one of the only country that combines all

> You're refuting all the points by saying "X country also as Y attribute" but what you fail to grasp is that China is one of the only country that combines all at the same time. The point was that all those non-superpower level attributes don't collectively amount to superpower status. China would have to rise a notch or two on every metric in order to even be considered a superpower. Even then they'd have a lot more work building the global infrastructure that the US built over many decades. > Not really https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp Yes really. The fact that your list puts russia anywhere close to the US in anything should make you question the list. I'd love to see how the justification for how russia compares to US in "military might and financials to logistical capability and geography.". Russia is a joke militarily to the US. What do they have? 1 small carrier? Financials? Is that supposed to be funny. Logistics? Only the US has worldwide logistics capability. Geography? Russia is pretty much tied to northern eurasia and their geography is mostly a liability than an asset. We have territories stretching from the arctic to the pacific to the carribean with no real competitors in our hemisphere. > Maybe, maybe not, if we start making up our own definitions of a superpower it's going to be a long discussion. I don't think it is controversial to say that you can't rely on another nation to provide your defense and claim to be a superpower. But then again you think russia is a near equal to the US in power based on a website, so what's the point continuing the discussion. Just another case of agreeing to disagree I'm afraid.