Washington Post declares the end of Russia as a superpower

The Post buries Russia and the forum turns it around

In March 2022, three weeks after the invasion of Ukraine began, The Washington Post published an opinion analysis arguing that the war had revealed Russia's structural weakness and the end of its superpower status. The piece, titled «Opinion | Ukraine war proves Russia is no longer a superpower», relied on concrete data: the Russian air force failed to establish air superiority, its pilots log barely 100 flight hours a year —less than 20 minutes a day— and its arsenal of precision munitions is scarce, with an estimated ratio of nine dumb bombs for every smart one, according to expert Michael Clarke. The article circulated on the World War III subforum and triggered a storm of replies questioning both the source and the substance.

The figure the Post used and the one it forgot

The American paper's central argument is that Russia failed to execute the script the United States and its allies deployed in the 1991 Gulf War: precision missiles to blind the enemy, control of the skies and a protected ground advance. According to the analysis, step 1 never led to step 2. Russian tanks got bogged down, the infantry was left exposed and the Ukrainians bought time to mine and fortify positions. The Post cites analyst Justin Bronk, of the Royal United Services Institute, who as early as 28 February 2022 spoke of «the mysterious case of the missing Russian Air Force».

The most frequent response in the debate was the comparison with the United States. One participant noted that the US Air Force averaged 8 to 10 monthly flight hours for F-22, F-16 and F-15 pilots —96 to 120 a year— as far back as 2013, a figure he called «NATO fanboy article crap» which, in his view, dismantles the argument about the Russian 100 hours. Another added that «if the Washington Post says it, it must be true», an ironic reference to the outlet's ownership by Jeff Bezos.

Is Russia a superpower or just a nuclear power?

The discussion quickly turned to the very definition of superpower. One camp held that Russia stopped being one long ago: «it has Italy's GDP, lots of nuclear weapons and raw materials, but little else», one message summed up. Against that, another recalled that «it has thousands of nuclear warheads, which makes it, if not a superpower, at least a great power». The figure of 6,000 nuclear warheads came up as a deterrent argument: «if they feel like testing one of their 6,000 nuclear clunkers, they might give some superpower a bad time».

The contrast with China was inevitable. «The superpower is China, not Russia», one participant concluded, while another added that the Chinese «have spent 30 years working to turn a third-world country into the leading power» without worrying about the label. The comparison with Italian GDP came up repeatedly as a yardstick.

The Afghanistan withdrawal as a mirror

The most recurring argument against the Post's thesis was the American withdrawal from Afghanistan after twenty years of occupation. «What have the US stopped being after bugging out almost like crazy trinc 20 years of democratizing Afghanistan?», one message asked. Another put it more bluntly: «That's coming from the same people who ran away from Afghanistan». The underlying idea is that the inability to subdue a country is not exclusive to Russia and does not automatically turn a state into a non-superpower.

The human cost of the Russian strategy was also discussed. One participant argued that Russia does not bomb massively in order to «avoid a slaughter», while another replied that «if they did it like the Yanks, with massive bombing operations and totally annihilating Ukraine, the press would surely look on them more favourably». The irony about the double standard of Western media ran through much of the exchange.

Russian attrition and dependence on China

The Post noted that the lack of precision munitions forces Russia to use low-flying bombers and ground artillery, which multiplies targets for the Ukrainian resistance and its own casualties. It also mentioned that Pilingui would be asking Xi Jinping for help, and that economic sanctions make it hard to replenish the arsenal. In the debate, that dependence was read as confirmation of the decline: «if it had enough strength in its own war machine, we would have seen it by now».

The possibility of Russia resorting to chemical weapons —«the dumbest bombs of all», according to the paper— came up as an extreme scenario, though no participant explored it in depth. The focus was more on conventional artillery and the inability to achieve air superiority.

The exact point where the analysis gets stuck

The debate did not settle whether Russia is or is not a superpower, because the term was never defined. For some, superpower status is measured in GDP and conventional capability; for others, in nuclear warheads and deterrence. The Post declared the Russian status dead; half the forum replied that the United States does not come out well from the comparison either. With 90 replies and 1,668 days of age, the conversation ended where it began: in disagreement over what it actually means to be a superpower in the 21st century.