Seriously. It's a sentence. I think I can cope with remembering one definition (you may be surprised to learn I can actually define many things). Incidentally, to which book are you referring? 'Cause I just looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary, which defines a superpower as "NOUN: any of the few most powerful and influential nations of the world." Which isn't what I said at all.
Also, don't put words in my mouth. Where exactly did I state that power was "military might"? Oh wait, I didn't. China's superpower status in my opinion relies on the fact they could cripple the rest of the world's economy if they so wanted, which to me means it can "influence events on a global scale". I assume that they wouldn't do this because it may not be in their best interests to do so, but that doesn't mean they couldn't. I seriously doubt you are wearing fairtrade clothes, or that you don't own anything in your house that has been made in China. There are more types of power than just physical power. (Although I am sure their army is rather good too.)
I'm not sure how Russia invading Georgia proves that they are not a superpower. Their Navy may not be as good as it formerly was (indeed, it may be verging on crap), but that doesn't mean they couldn't (and wouldn't) start a war if they wanted to. I do consider Russia's superpower status to be based on their physical strength: as you define superpowers as needing military, financial and diplomatic power to bring the intended outcome: Russia has the military strength, it has no qualms about letting it's people live in poverty for the greater good of the country (so money isn't a problem), and who needs diplomatic power when you can bomb anyone who resists you?