If you are a country like Somalia, Saudia Arabia, Brazil, Germany or even Great Britain Russia is indeed a superpower simply because of the military hardware they have at their disposal. What the Russkies could do to any of those nations in a day, week or month is more than any of them are properly prepared to deal with. In this same perspective, Israel is a Middle East "Super Power", but whether they would be able to make war against us is another thing.
I suppose when we, in the west, talk about "Super Power" we mean the ability to sustain military dominance over an extended period of time. This implies that a nation's economy will not collapse because of said dominance.
If the definition of "superpower" is a nation that has the ability to strike a tremendous blow, then Russia should be considered as such, however if the defninition of "superpower" is the ability to *sustain* a large-scale military campaign then Russia falls short.
Interesting, though, how the pundits and our leadership seems to go out of their way to consistently avoid the first definition.
Also, it's interesting to contemplate how a nation fitting the first definition has tremendous potential for international extortion if nothing else. It makes a person wonder of all the "aid" we send to Russia might be perceived as extortion payments.
Bada-bing.