[0] https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8
Russia, China, and Iran are regional powers: they have significant influence in the area near their borders. Russia controls Belarus, part of Georgia, part of Ukraine, has great influence part of Moldova, etc. Iran influences the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Syria, etc. Russia can fight a major war in Ukraine, right on Russia's borders. But you couldn't imagine (or shouldn't be able to) Russia or Iran fighting a major war across an ocean - they don't have the resources to do that. Similarly, if Russia or Iran threaten economic sanctions on immediate neighbors, those neighbors have a problem. If they threaten them on say, Mexico, Mexico will mostly not care.
The U.S., by contrast, is a superpower: If the US threatens sanctions, most countries have to pay serious attention - notice that the US sanctioned Russia, which is crippling Russia's economy. Russia also sanctioned the US - has anyone noticed? The US military can fight wars anywhere in the world, and operates around the world with bases on every inhabited continent. And not all power is coercive and negative, especially for free democracies. The US has a network of friendship and alliances that span the world, as you can see in the response to Russia, stretching from Europe to the US to East Asia (Japan, etc.). The world admires the US (a little less now), follows their culture, listens to their music, uses their iPhones, Androids, Windows computers, Macs, etc. The Beatles sang with American accents. Programming languages worldwide are in English.
China is not a superpower yet. However, the main requirements of a superpower are income, which China may soon lead the world in, population, and enough political stability to focus outside their borders (e.g., not fighting a civil war). China seems to be on their way. But it takes much more: I pointed out the US's network of alliances and friendships. Dictatorships have few friends, beyond those they buy or conquer; the USSR conquered many (the non-Russian countries in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact) and bought more. The US alliances are why the leading power in East Asia is ... the US, not China. Japan and South Korea, among others, would rather align with the US, who promotes and defends their freedom, than China, who existentially threatens it. If you add up the US alliances, China is far behind.
The hope is that in China, like former dictatorships that threatened the US like Japan and Germany, the people will some day be free to run their country as they wish (i.e., democratically), and then there is no reason for the competition. Their relationship with the US can be like Europe, Japan, etc.: Great trade partners, allies, who would never imagine war with each other. It's hard to imagine why the Chinese people would want otherwise - run their own country, live in peace (with no threat of war), be free, get wealthy - but the Communist Party obviously has other plans right now.
Soft power, culture and language, in particular, is an often overlooked aspect when it comes to dominance.
Soon, Mandarin might become the world's most spoken language by number of speakers (it already is if you only count native speakers).
Still, in a global context it's mostly irrelevant because it's the official language in only five countries (if I counted correctly). Contrast that with English, which not only is either the official or the dominant language in 50+ countries, but also - and more importantly - is a truly global language in that it is spoken at least to some extent in pretty much every country in the world.
That kind of influence can hardly be overestimated. More broadly speaking, in terms of culture in general rather than language specifically, Japan at least used to be more of a superpower than China because from Japanese martial arts (which, of course, for the most part have been derived from Chinese origins; they're mostly perceived as being quintessentially Japanese, though) to manga, Japanese cultural exports are ubiquitous.
China seems to be catching up - or at least trying to do so - in that regard (e.g., through movies).
The question ask here is if CCP more interested in control or growth - so far they have achieved growth while keeping tight controls but if they need to be perceived as a modern democracy, then they’ll lose that control and perhaps growth as well. It’s meaningless to call China a superpower until it can transition a few leaders in the next decade or so. Great countries have a great transition plans for their leadership. Can China pull that off? Certainly Xi cannot rule forever.
China was not referred to as a superpower at that time, during the Cold War. I've never read that. China was a very poor, economically and politically unstable country that was little threat to its immediate neighbors, much less a global power. It was not like China now.
> Is the USA, today, more powerful than China? It’s not clear.
It is clear today. The United States has far more political, economic, military, and 'soft' social power than China. For example, China could not orchestrate the response to Russia's invasion anything like what the US did. The US also has a network of alliances across the world, and most of the worlds most powerful countries and almost all advanced economies are part of those alliances. The US military, as a very visual symbol, still dominates China's own region as well as the rest of the world. Not only is the US currently more powerful, but the alliances in aggregate dwarf China. That is the problem with dictatorships - no friends, other than the ones they buy or compel.
What people are concerned with is that, in the next 10-20 years, China might have the potential to challenge the US. Right now China's government is focused on becoming the dominent regional power - a major challenge, competing with the US alliances of Japan, S Korea, Australia, India, and others - and being able to conquer Taiwan over US opposition. In contrast, the US not only is the leading power in its own region, North America, but in South America, East Asia, Europe, the Middle East, etc. etc.
China was frequently referred to as a superpower in the late Cold War era (sometimes a regional superpower whereas the USSR and USA were global superpowers, based simply on military force projection—China was a global power by other measures—and at that a probably somewhat optimistic view of late-Cokd War Soviet capabilities.)
A strong suggestion: If you want to know about hedge funds, listen to hedge fund managers. If you want to know about international relations, listen to international relations experts - their writing is widely available. For example, look at Foreign Policy for more day-to-day coverage, Foreign Affairs for essays, Defense One is a good defense-oriented news publication, etc. Think tanks (the non-partisan ones) are also good: CSIS, New America, IIS, Brookings, Chatham House ... there are many more. University of Pennsylvania has a list of the top think tanks, which might be a good starting place.
It amazes me how much people rely on others, who (IMHO) usually don't know what they are talking about, rather than just read the experts who are very available. You wouldn't read Foreign Policy for hedge fund investment advice.
China already is a Superpower, as the term is not exclusive.
During the cold war, there were two superpower: US and USSR.
After the fall of the USSR, there was just one. This is often referred to in geopolitics as unipolarity. [1]
Since then, China has already become a superpower, but the US generally still has global dominance.
In the future, unchallenged US dominance around the world will wane, but it will remain a super power, along with China, and perhaps others.
Chinas economic growth will peak and the country will either stabilize or slowly decline due to a smaller aging population, but will likely remain a peer challenger to the US.
The global South is a wildcard for the next century, as it will see explosive population growth and modernization, but nobody can predict what form this will take.
I can’t see how you beat that combination unless our most forward industries take it up a notch (tech, medical, defense). Hollywood, gaming, social media (TikTok) have already shown that China can be a leader in that front.
They haven’t taken over just yet, but the rate of growth makes this whole question boil down to a matter of time.
Defense might be the one thing we will always be ahead of them on for awhile. There will be a day in the future where the US will have to accept its new role as an advanced country that is the not the driving global force (the Britains, Japans, Germanys).
Of course, we could always lax our immigration policies and double our population, in which case we have chance.
The US has overstretched itself through wars in the middle east, and trying to maintain it's bases throughout the world. Then Trump happened and it lost even more of it's global clout. A wave of inflation is coming up next.
Whereas China hasn't shot a bullet across it's border, the last time was vietnam 30/40 years ago. And they've been focused on feeding their own billions of people, and they've achieved that successfully.
You still do have a chance though, and it shows in the values of humanity, innovation and enforcing the rules of international law that spring from them, not through lies and dirty global politicking. Show China that in leading that there's more than just power and enemies, adjust your understanding to cater to whatever they push back on, and you'll have nothing to fear from China even if they do take the lead.
