Not taking sides, at least not trying to..
My preference would be to hold to the tradition of calling it one of the Great Powers.
In the 1800s, Russia didn't have much of a navy. They built one, but it was sunk before they got the hang of it.
In the opinion of guys back then, a navy was crucial. There was an American navy guy that came up with a theory that you had to have a navy and expand; or get crushed by the wheels of history. That thought became all the rage, and at that time, he had a point. Not defending it, just pointing out the obvious.
Anyway, a hundred years ago historians liked to call Russia 'The Sick Man of Europe'. They weren't developing the way much of Europe was.
So while Russia had a lot of manpower, and it's natural resources were a source of wealth, I would guess there were limits to it's ability to project power. A superpower is defined by it's ability to project power.
"From the westward advance of its arms in the next two years of heavy fighting, Russia emerged as Europe’s greatest land power and the first among the continental victors over Napoleon. The immense prestige achieved in these campaigns was maintained until mid-century.
But the Crimean War (1853–56) showed that this giant had feet of clay. The vast empire was unable to mobilize, equip, and transport enough troops to defeat the medium-size French and English forces under very mediocre command."
https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Russia-from-1801-to-1917