# One Cold War Was Enough: Russia Needs Our Help, Not Our Condemnation



## oligarch (2 May 2008)

BY Charles Ganske

Trying to understand Russia through the prism of the British and American news media these days can be a real headache. On one hand, if you read the business pages of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times lately, you will learn that Russia is now one of the world's leading emerging markets, and the Russian economy has grown at an average annual rate of 7 percent since 2000. On the other hand, if you turn to the international headlines or the editorial pages, you will read that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been busy crushing democracy and reviving the Soviet Union.

While Americans are constantly having their eyes opened to the possibilities for growth and economic freedom in the People's Republic of China, a far more free and open society in Russia is judged more harshly in the Western news media. Why is this? Is it because the shelves at Wal-Marts across America are not stocked with goods from Russia? Or is it simply because, as some cynical Russians imply, there is one American and European expectation for people who "look like us," and another for others (Asians, Africans, and Arabs) who don't? Or could it be that American perceptions of Russia are still formed by a combination of stereotypes left over from the Cold War and more recent images of Russia in the nineties as the Wild East -- an exotic backwater whose main exports were supposedly mail order brides and ruthless mafias?

Russia, we are told by the advocates of a new Cold War, is helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. In reality, Russian technicians have helped Iran to build a nuclear power plant that would use civilian-grade uranium, but the Russians have repeatedly halted their work at the Bushehr site on the Persian Gulf due to Teheran's unpaid debts. The Iranian regime has responded to these setbacks by accusing Moscow of giving in to American pressure for taking these actions.

Earlier this year, President Putin offered President Bush the use of bases in Azerbaijan and southern Russia that could host a joint missile defense system to counter the threat of Iranian missiles targeted at Europe. Yet the Bush Administration continues to insist that placing ground-based interceptors 2,000 miles away from Iran in Poland and the Czech Republic makes sense, even when alternative sites are available much closer to Iran's borders. And while many members of the Bush Administration probably don't trust the crafty ex-KGB agent Putin to follow through on his pledge, perhaps they should remember that it was their hero Ronald Reagan who first proposed sharing missile defense technology with the Russians in the 1980s.

Many of the same conservative commentators and think tanks in Washington that cheered the collapse of the Soviet Union have essentially remained on autopilot when it comes to Russia since 1989, always looking for signs of a return to the good old Evil Empire days rather than honestly accepting change. For their part, many liberal Democrats seem to view the 1990s, when President Clinton and Boris Yeltsin developed a real friendship, as a golden age of democracy in Russia, rather than the low, dishonest decade of hyperinflation and chaos that most Russians remember.

It hasn't helped that millions of dollars from the jailed Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky have been paid out to PR agencies in Washington and London, creating a small but vocal anti-Russia lobby on both sides of the Atlantic. For his part, Khodorkovsky has been transformed from the Russian version of Ken Lay into a political dissident. The same exiled-oligarch-funded PR machine has also insisted that Alexander Litvinenko, a former Federal Security Service officer who died from radiation poisoning last year in London, must have been murdered by the Kremlin, rather than by the numerous personal enemies he had in Russia and abroad. The same people who warned us about "loose Russian nukes" during the 1990s apparently believe that terrorists or criminals could not possibly obtain a few hundred grams of polonium without state sponsorship.

In addition to arguing that every sensational killing in Russia and abroad is connected to the Kremlin, the New Cold Warriors also like to argue that Russia uses its enormous oil and gas reserves as a political weapon to bully former Soviet republics like Georgia, Belarus, and Lithuania. In reality, all of these countries have been forced to pay higher premiums for energy simply because the Russian natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, can no longer afford to subsidize Russia's neighbors with cheap gas. Countries that have traditionally enjoyed excellent relations with Moscow, like Armenia and Azerbaijan, have actually paid more for Russian gas this year than Ukraine, which has had a more strained relationship with Moscow in the last few years.

None of this is to say that Russia does not have real, severe problems that threaten its immature democracy and recent economic gains. In 2008, the Russian Federation is projected to lose 700,000 people, equivalent to the population of Austin, Texas. This means that while Russia enjoys a very high literacy rate, Russian companies often struggle to find enough talented managers to sustain their growth. And while Russia's major cities are growing, the countryside is losing people, due to high mortality rates and bleak prospects in rural areas. Russia imports some 40 percent of its meat and dairy products, and this has left ordinary Russians vulnerable to the recent run of inflation for basic consumer staples. Russia continues to suffer more abortions than live births every year, and the Russian army draft deprives many small towns and villages of their best young men.

What should America do to help address these real problems? The first step is to stop accepting the folly that a weakened Russia would somehow be in America's best interests. This is particularly important due to the rise of China next to Russia's unpopulated regions and the painful history of Islamic extremism and ethnic separatism in the Caucuses.

The second step is to stop obsessing about the Kremlin and start concentrating on promoting more trade, entrepreneurship, and genuine philanthropy between our two countries at the grassroots and corporate levels. If we can do this with China, a country that does not respect religious freedom and which actively censors the Internet, why can't we do it with Russia, whose government does not do either of these things? 

As with so many other ventures, when it comes to Russia, the private sector in America remains miles ahead of the media and the political class when it comes to introducing real change. If some American politicians and pundits can find reasons for optimism even about war-torn Iraq, surely they can spare some for Russia.  :warstory:

- Charles Ganske is a former writer for Discovery Institute's Real Russia project in Seattle, Wash., where he served as the editor of Russia Blog. He currently lives in Fort Worth, Texas.


----------



## Yrys (2 May 2008)

Any link for that ?

add :


One Cold War Was Enough: Russia Needs Our Help, Not Our Condemnation , 19 Nov 2007, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/ ,


Charles Ganske bio


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> BY Charles Ganske
> ...
> While Americans are constantly having their eyes opened to the possibilities for growth and economic freedom in the People's Republic of China, a far more free and open society in Russia is judged more harshly in the Western news media. Why is this? Is it because the shelves at Wal-Marts across America are not stocked with goods from Russia? Or is it simply because, as some cynical Russians imply, there is one American and European expectation for people who "look like us," and another for others (Asians, Africans, and Arabs) who don't? Or could it be that American perceptions of Russia are still formed by a combination of stereotypes left over from the Cold War and more recent images of Russia in the nineties as the Wild East -- an exotic backwater whose main exports were supposedly mail order brides and ruthless mafias?
> ...
> - Charles Ganske is a former writer for Discovery Institute's Real Russia project in Seattle, Wash., where he served as the editor of Russia Blog. He currently lives in Fort Worth, Texas.



One part of the _rationale_ for favouring China and condemning Russia is that Russia is backsliding. It is becoming steadily less democratic, less law abiding and less inviting (for investment).

It is likely that our hopes for Russia, in the '90s, were overly optimistic and it is also likely that we are wilfully blind to some (many?) of China's failures but the fact remains that Russia is getting worse, by almost any sensible measure, and China is not.


----------



## jeffb (2 May 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> BY Charles Ganske
> 
> Trying to understand Russia through the prism of the British and American news media these days can be a real headache. On one hand, if you read the business pages of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times lately, you will learn that Russia is now one of the world's leading emerging markets, and the Russian economy has grown at an average annual rate of 7 percent since 2000. On the other hand, if you turn to the international headlines or the editorial pages, you will read that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been busy crushing democracy and reviving the Soviet Union.



7% isn't unheard of in Russian history. During the 1950's and 60's average GDP growth was 5.9% and 5.1% respectively. During the 1920's with the new economic policy the Russian (then Soviet) economy was growing at 20%! That being said, this growth is being fueled by something quite different then the massive state expenditures aimed at modernizing what was then an essential medieval society and economy. 

Russia has always been a very proud nation and to be relegated to middle power status while be governed by a drunken fool did not sit well with them. There is an increasing tendency to blame America and the west for all of the countries problems.

I suspect that Putin is hoping that the war in Iraq, the credit crisis, rising energy prices and the other host of problems that the US has currently, will cause the US to become more insular. I don't agree but it's not hard to see how Putin (Mr. ex-KGB Col. himself) would. 

We live in interesting times and I for one hope that we don't see Cold War, round 2.


----------



## oligarch (2 May 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One part of the _rationale_ for favouring China and condemning Russia is that Russia is backsliding. It is becoming steadily less democratic, less law abiding and less inviting (for investment).
> 
> It is likely that our hopes for Russia, in the '90s, were overly optimistic and it is also likely that we are wilfully blind to some (many?) of China's failures but the fact remains that Russia is getting worse, by almost any sensible measure, and China is not.



China is becoming less democratic. Sensoring the internet is a fairly new measure which was brought in. Limiting the number of children is also quite an extreme measure I would say. I'd also like to disagree with the point that Russia is being less inviting for investment. Putin has been trying to increase foreign investment into the economy (aside from colonial treaties which were signed under Yeltsin), and he has been quite successful. Foreign investment has increased and net capital flight has reversed (in part due to the falling dollar; however, that argument cannot be sustained because the ECB refuses to lower rates and Russians can still safely stash $ in Euro). The draft in Russia has been lowered from 2, to 1.5, to 1 year, and there are rumours that it may be lowered again in a few years. Russia has negotiated visa-free arrangements with countries like Israel. Only three channels of HUNDEREDS are state owned (I have access to Russian television), and even those channels that are state controlled allow for critisizm and for political debate. There are some moderately critical channels available to all Russians such as RenTV, and some extremely critical (mostly available in Moscow and St. Petersburg) such as "RTVi Russia". Further, those channels that are state owned were owned by tycoons like Berezovsky, who I would argue are responsible for more Russian deaths that your average citizen of Russia. I'm not implying by any means that correlation implies causation, but the death of Paul Khlebnikov shortly after the release of his book "Berezeovsky: the Godfather of the Kremlin" is highly suspicious to me. I was a kid growing up in a rather poor city, in a poor neighboorhood of Russia in the 90s, and I came to Canada in 98. I remember how "wonderful" life was under Yeltsin. We didn't even have wide access to fruit and when my parents brought home things like oranges it made our day. Waiting for hours in line for bread wasn't fun either. Of course, I was young and it all seemed normal to me, as I have not seen anything else. It is only upon reflection now after years of living in Canada I realise how bad things were. If you visit Russia now, you will see that there are no such things as lineups for food. You can pretty much buy anything and cities like Moscow simply never sleep. It is a whole diffirent picture and this new picture is welcomed by many Russians. This is why Russians (ordinary Russians, not the power or the elite) are critical of the west. Their logic goes like this: "when our government hurt us, destroyed our savings, denied us nutrients, and destroyed our society the west was in love with our president. How, when we are growing rapidly and Russians are begining live in much better conditions, the west continually criticises our president. We are happier now, should that not be enough?

When it comes to economic growth, it is fairly difficult to assess such things under Stalin who pretty much whipped prisoners into building the economy. I doubt this is the economy you want to compare modern Russia to. Further, even though it is a widely ignored point, only 1/3rd of the growth is fueled by natural resourses and the current growth (unlike the case of a change in the economy during industrialization), is sustainable. Many like to argue that if oil prices fell, the Russians would no longer experience this growth; however, as mentioned above, only a third of the economy is resource based and Russia has established a stalization fund in order to protect itself from an oil price shock. Further, lets get real, oil prices are NOT going to fall. Not all Russian industry has even benefited from high oil prices. Defence contractors are a large player in the Russian economy. An increase in the price of oil is quite a cost for tank builders and MiG manufacturers (which is why the US is so devistated by the shock???). If demand for Russian arms proves to be at least somewhat price elastic then we could see the profits of these companies sink quite rapidly.

When we talk about backsliding on democracy, we can't simply criticise Russia as though it exists in a vacuum. Lets have a look at things like the Patriot Acts and simmilar Canadian legislation. While not making a moral judgement on the acts or stating that they are excessive or unnessary, there are few Russian measures that have been more extreme than these. While we may or may not argue in Canada and the US that these acts are nessesary, the Russians may just as easily argue that the measures they are implimenting are nessesary. I argue why these measure that Russia is criticised for are nessary, but it there really a reason to so?


----------



## Flanker (3 May 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is likely that our hopes for Russia, in the '90s, were overly optimistic and it is also likely that we are wilfully blind to some (many?) of China's failures but the fact remains that Russia is getting worse...



What do you mean by "Russia is getting worse"?
More difficult to deal with? Requires more respect?
No doubt, the West liked Russia's economic and political weakness of 90s.


----------



## garb811 (5 May 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> China is becoming less democratic.


Since when did China even pretend to be a democracy?  The last election held with anyone on the ballot other than a member of the Communist Party was held...when again?

Russia, on the other hand, certainly enjoys the benefits of "Managed Democracy":

Medvedev Won...

Some here may find this to be an interesting essay on the current state of affairs in Putin's Russia:  Putin - The Bottom Line.


----------



## sober_ruski (5 May 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One part of the _rationale_ for favouring China and condemning Russia is that Russia is backsliding. It is becoming steadily less democratic, less law abiding and less inviting (for investment).
> 
> It is likely that our hopes for Russia, in the '90s, were overly optimistic and it is also likely that we are wilfully blind to some (many?) of China's failures but the fact remains that Russia is getting worse, by almost any sensible measure, and China is not.



Tibet and Taiwan anyone?


----------



## oligarch (6 May 2008)

Yes, nice, way to quote an essay by Boris Nemtsov, probably the most unsuccessful and lying politician who was in parliament during the good old cherished by the west Boris Yeltsin times, associated with chaos, inflation, crime, and unemployment. You may find it curous that it was Boris Nemtsov who stated back during his failed career in the SPS that the country needs "a strong leader", one that would resemble a "Czar", who now opposes the exact thing he said just a few years ago. Of course, back then he was promoting the "czardom" of the man who put him in power. I guess so long as BP consortiums are let in with colonial treaties, the west will proclaim the country to be 'democratic'; otherwise, it is undemocratic, and elections must be fixed, becuase any reasonable country will elect the guy favoured by the great British Empire, who has never colonised other lands and is the example of democracy the rest of the world should follow? I guess the Russians should elect the runner-up, the leader of the communist pary, Zuganov, he will do much better things for Russia than Medvedev, or maybe they should have voted for Zhirinosvky? I'm sure you will not propose either of these things, and probably introduce the great leader and democracy promoter Kasparov, who yells in English when arrested and fined a laughable sum words like "this is a dictatorship, they're detaining me and fining me $40", provokes police in illegal marches by going off the registered path, and speaks English better than he speaks Russian? Russia should elect the man who gets aid from foreign embassies and who studied in another country, like Kasparov. Yes, maybe they should just join the United States while they are at it. A man who has ties to people who openly propose the taking apart of Russia into several countries and annexing Siberia and the Caucauses. I'm sure all these people present a better alternative. You may also find it interesting the Nemtsov is all over political debate shows in Russia, while at the same time claiming that there is no freedom of speech. He is saying that there is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON NATIONAL TELEVISION freely and openly, and nobody sensors him. This is exactly why Russians don't trust him.

Now on to the China issue. I guess your logic works great. Just because China does not claim to be democratic, we should align ourselves with them. We should do this while criticising Russia, a more free and open country. According to this logic, we should also become friends with North Korea. Hell, they don't claim to be a democracy either, JUST LIKE CHINA!!  Further, using your logic, I fail to see why we are not criticising baltic states like Estonia, who deny voting rights to citizens who born in these counries, purely out of racial reasons. People of Russian decent may not vote in Estonia, yet freedom-house give it a perfect democratic rating. I don't know about you, but I smell and anti-Russian propoganda campaign.


----------



## Greymatters (6 May 2008)

Oligarch,

Do you mind a few questions?

- Please clarify your title: do you believe we have started a second cold war, and why?
- Again on the title, how specifically does Russia need our help, and what measures are you proposing?
- Regarding your text, I suggest you leave China out of your arguments for now.  Few people claim to know everything there is to know about Russia, but claiming to know everything about both  China and Russia tends to strain anyone's credibility.

Finally, 
- Your method of writing make you sound very confident of your opinions and a few facts, which is never a bad thing.  But do you have a specific advantage of knowledge that would lend your viewpoint more credibility?  I.e. do you work for the government?  Are you a member of DFAIT working with a Russian delegation?  Are you from Russia?  Please provide some context. 

Looking forward to your comments...


----------



## oligarch (6 May 2008)

Hey Greymatters,

I hope to clarify my point of view, and of course I do not mind a few questions. The title is the title of the article I posted. I do believe that Russia is not responsible for the cold war rhetoric that is taking place right now, more on this later. I am from Russia, and I hold dual Canadian-Russian citizenship. Dual citizenship is allowed both according to Canadian and Russian legislation. I am also an economics and international relations student. I do not claim to know everything about China; in fact, I know very little, and it is mostly facts that are known by many Canadians anyway. However, it does not take an expert to know that China actively sensors the internet and has the death penalty, and that Russia does not do either of these things. I don’t think my arguments about China were extremely complex to the point that I would be “claiming to know everything about China” to be making them. However, I am fairly familiar with Russian politics and its economics, and I also believe that I have a fairly good understanding of Russia, what it is like to live in Russia, and of current public opinion in Russia. The situation in Russia today is by no means perfect, but a perfect situation in today’s geopolitical landscape is seen quite rarely. It is true that Russia is plagued by many internal problems, but these problems are exactly that – INTERNAL. These problems would include such things as corruption and extensive bureaucracy, population, as well as the army draft. 

Having been observing both Russian and Western news, I sincerely believe that the “new cold war” rhetoric originally came from the west (not necessarily Canada). Canada, on the large, does not buy this line except when it comes to things like the artic. By the way, let me sidetrack a little bit. The north pole does not belong to neither Russia nor Canada, given today's international agreements it represents international "waters"(or ice... for now). Russia has the same moral and legal right to place its flag on the bottom of the arctic floor as the United States has a right to install its flag on the surface of the moon. I don’t believe anyone is starting “a new cold war”; however, I believe that the rhetoric is coming from the west, and certain special interests. After all, I'm sure whoever is chosen to build the missile base in northern Europe will make tons of money, such as Halliburton. The western ‘alliance’ is doing some things that Russia sees as aggressive, such as the new missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, which could easily be installed in Azerbaijan, while putting interceptor missile launchers either on Azeri land, Russia, or on the black sea. An Azeri radar will provide for much earlier detection, if the site is TRULY intended for Iran, and missile launchers can be placed practically anywhere. Another little discussed issue is that is talked about very little in western news, but widely discussed in Russia, is that the missile defence shield may arguably give the United States “first strike advantage” over Russia. In theory, if the US would attack Russia and take out the majority of its international ballistic missiles, the remaining ones that Russia would retaliate with would be easily shot down by such a missile shield. Further, the missile defence system, while defensive in nature today, may be transformed into an offensive system by future leaders. Further, where does the United States propose to be planning to shoot down missiles shot by Iran (which don't exist)? Over Russian land? Shooting down an intercontinental ballistic missile is not a trivial matter, and it may damage Russian cities and kill many people. It was the western NATO states which refuse to ratify CFE treaties and then claim Russia is being aggressive for imposing a moratorium. It was the United States also who withdrew from treaties limiting its prolifiration of nuclear weapons and are now allegedly developing "tactical nukes". By the way, if tactical nukes are to be used in Iran, where do you think the clouds will go? See the world map for ideas!

Anatole Kaletsky in his article tried to look at the West through Russian eyes as it is perceived in this country. “Despite all the past sentimental rhetoric of Western politicians describing Russia as a friend and “strategic partner”, US and European behavior has consistently treated Russia more as an enemy than an ally,” he points out. “Russia has been told it could never join NATO or the EU and Mr. Putin’s invitation to G8 summits is scant consolation for the denial of WTO membership and the continuation of US trade sanctions dating back to the Cold War.” Also, “why shouldn’t the Russians worry about Western armies and missiles on their borders, when these contribute to a process of territorial encroachment similar to what Napoleon and Hitler failed to achieve by cruder means?”


----------



## Greymatters (7 May 2008)

Thanks for clarifying your background and experience.  Although I cant say I agree with many of your viewpoints, at least its a different and interesting perspective...


----------



## oligarch (7 May 2008)

No problem. If you have any concerns about Russia I'd be glad to address them the best I can from my point of view, or to clarify the point of view of the Russian "official" line if it needs to be done, which is rarely really explained in western news. Of course, Russia has its problems, I am not denying that, and I can agree and explain the problems I see plauging the country as well. The funny thing, I see the problems Russia faces to be much different than "freedom of speech" and "millitary posturing". Russia has an extensive millitary and as a sovereign state has the right to defend its borders and interests, just like the United States is doing, just like Canada is doing. It is understandable that the United States would prefer not to deal with Russia and not count its opinion, but a weak Russia is not in anyone's best interest. A stronger Russia will provide a balance of power and will be a source of stability in the world, and will provide a system of checks and balances on an international scale that the American constitution so cherishes internally. A stronger Russia will encourage less unilateral action and more dialogue, and cooperation will increase. One thing I see is room for a lot of cooperation between Russia and Canada in Afghanistan, given that we both have interests there (Canadian security concerns as well as the fact that afghani drugs often end up in Russia), and I see that we have started to begin cooperation in this area, with Russia allowing some limited transit for NATO to Afghanistan. One thing NATO states could do to obtain goodwill with Russia is ratify the CFE treaty, for example, and I'm sure you will see much more cooperation on the Russian side. Russians sincerely felt that the west welcomed them in 90s and now they feel betrayed, due to things such as NATO expansion and lack of CFE ratification. Lets make the Russians feel safe, and trust me, you will see reciprocity. :threat:


----------



## Greymatters (7 May 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> ... a weak Russia is not in anyone's best interest. A stronger Russia will provide a balance of power and will be a source of stability in the world, and will provide a system of checks and balances on an international scale that the American constitution so cherishes internally. A stronger Russia will encourage less unilateral action and more dialogue, and cooperation will increase....



Feel free to spout off about how great your country isnt and should be, but please dont group our country together with Russia or the USA.  Our methods of defending our sovereignty are not the same as either of those two countries...


----------



## oligarch (7 May 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Feel free to spout off about how great your country isnt and should be, but please dont group our country together with Russia or the USA.  Our methods of defending our sovereignty are not the same as either of those two countries...



I am a Russian Canadian, so I'm not sure which country you are referring to when you say "your" country. I'm not sure what you mean by your statement also, I wasn't implying about greatness of ANY country, but rather was promoting the concept of a balance of power. You know, in the US constitution there is balance of power between congress, exectuve, and the courts? Americans are rather proud of this achievement, as it was one of the main ideas of the "founding fathers". In Canada we have the same balance of power between parliament and the courts, but the legislature is somewhat merged with the executive. So that not all power is rested in one place! I was merely stating that such multipolarity, such a "balance of power" is also in the best interest of humanity on the international scale. That is the multipolarity I was referring to, and making the point that a unipolar world lead by ANY power, be it the US or Russia, is not the best thing for peace and security. It is this balance of power which kept both countries from destroying each other in the Cold War. Please don't turn purely exporatory opinion sharing into a battle of nationality, I did not at all mean to imply the greatness of any country.


----------



## wildman0101 (7 May 2008)

he meant canadian
please read attachment...lol
                              regards,,,
                                  scoty b


----------



## garb811 (8 May 2008)

Oligarch:  You were the one who stated China was becoming less democratic, I simply pointed out that China has never made any pretensions to being a democracy.  I also made no statement whatsover about what the state of our relations should be with them as it has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand, how you jumped to that conclusion about what I wrote is beyond me.

You obviously have some strong feelings about the current state of Russia and the political actors on the stage and behind the throne.  While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, a true student of international diplomacy and current affairs is open to all viewpoints, no matter who the author is in order to form reasoned and informed opinions and arguments.  As has been stated on here time and again, attack the argument, not the writer if you want to have any credibility.  What you are spouting is right off the speaking notes of Nashi.  In light of this, I'd be very interested in reading *your* views on the analysis of voting patterns in the Presidential election.  Before you start I'll point out that the same trend was detected in the voting for the state Duma.  As the article is no longer openly available in English I won't post it here but if you're as knowledgeable about Russia as you profess to be, you'll be able to dig it up.  If you have a problem, send me a PM and I'll get it to you that way.

Finally, I find your choice of Oligarch as a name to be very intriguing given your viewpoints. Perhaps Siloviki would have been more fitting.


----------



## oligarch (8 May 2008)

Oligarch was a name I used to play "age of empires I" with when I just came from Russia, and then it just stuck. Are you referring to the Nemstov essay? Sure, I'll have a look. I'm sure you will be surprised that I started off with an anti-Russian point of view when I began getting interested in Russian politics. I've just listen to so much of Nemtsov on Russian television and have heard so many contradiction in what he says over time and even within the last year, that I've simply grown to distrust him. He is an influential member of SPS (Union of Right Forces), whose post privatisation policies pretty much lead to the inflation and unemployment I previously spoke of, and the party which was responsible for the hasty and poorly organized privatization in the 90s. If you asked a second year economics student about how one should privatise the economy of the former USSR, if he gave the answer of the SPS (and Chubais), that student would have gotten an F, in my opinion. Anyone knows that hasty economic action is unpredictable and often results in economic crisis, and even work by Joeseph Stiglitz, a nobel prize winning economist and once chief economist of the world bank agrees with this assertion I am making. But I will review the work of Nemtsov and try to address the concerns one by one. Maybe he is trying to find irregularities because his party did not win a seat... in Russia there is a syndrome that all parties who felt they should have gotten more votes claim fraud. However, besides the OSCE, there were many international observes present during the elections and most of them had positive things to say. There is a small group who said there were violations, but this group, even though very vociferous, is quite small and not any more unusual than for elections in most countries. There were claims of irregularities even in the US elections, and people rarely doubt their "democratic" status.


----------



## garb811 (8 May 2008)

I'm actually more interested in your take on the Moscow Times article about Sergei Shpilkin's analysis of the results released by the Central Election's Committee but if you have the time and inclination for both...

The OSCE hardly mounted a full fledged monitoring mission, sending only 22 Parliamentarians, the only "Western" observers there and they were some of the most vocal in criticising the process. One quote from their spokesman was pretty interesting, "...regional and local officials had compelled many public sector workers to vote for Medvedev or risk losing their jobs." (Russia election not free or fair, say observers) The OSCE/ODIHR boycotted not only the Presidential election but also the Duma elections as well.  Personally, I haven't seen any all that much outside of Russian news agencies quoting any observers saying very much positive, so if you have some links to that, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Yep, there have been issues in the past with US elections but, at the end of the day, the free and unfettered press (as much as I hate defending the MSM) brought them to light for public scrutiny and debate and changes were implemented to rectify the problems.  Can the same be said about Russia?


----------



## oligarch (8 May 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> I'm actually more interested in your take on the Moscow Times article about Sergei Shpilkin's analysis of the results released by the Central Election's Committee but if you have the time and inclination for both...
> 
> The OSCE hardly mounted a full fledged monitoring mission, sending only 22 Parliamentarians, the only "Western" observers there and they were some of the most vocal in criticising the process. One quote from their spokesman was pretty interesting, "...regional and local officials had compelled many public sector workers to vote for Medvedev or risk losing their jobs." (Russia election not free or fair, say observers) The OSCE/ODIHR boycotted not only the Presidential election but also the Duma elections as well.  Personally, I haven't seen any all that much outside of Russian news agencies quoting any observers saying very much positive, so if you have some links to that, I'd be interested in seeing them.
> 
> Yep, there have been issues in the past with US elections but, at the end of the day, the free and unfettered press (as much as I hate defending the MSM) brought them to light for public scrutiny and debate and changes were implemented to rectify the problems.  Can the same be said about Russia?



Well if you are talking about the presidential election you can't be talking about the OSCE, since they refused to monitor it. If you refuse to be present because you want Russia to allow more observes a year ahead of the election than you really don't have a right to speak. The OSCE was invited, they refused to come. I'm still waiting for the day that the United States or Canada invites international observers on election day. Besides, I'm sure you meant PEACE (Parliamental Assembly of the Council of Europe), not OSCE, since PEACE has sent a 22 member delegation. 

http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=2013 : Notice how the majority of the criticism is not about "voting patterns" or about actual elections meddling, but about media access. "Nonetheless, the delegation felt that even if those concerns had been addressed, the outcome of the vote – amounting , in effect, to a vote of confidence in the incumbent President – would have been the same." However, a media access argument is easy to make. Personally, I observed the election on both Russian State and independent television, and I have seen Zhirinovsky and Zuganov on TV more than Medvedev. I have access to over 20 Russian channels through online Television, and only 3 of them are state owned. In cities like Moscow, people have access to hundereds of channels, including non-Russian TV, so to say that they have little access to info is, well, a lie. Even in siberian cities channels like RenTV would be available, which are opposition. Almost every day during the parliamentary election there was at least a few hours of debate, which is about the same as what happens in the case of Canada. Russia was sometimes criticised for the TIME OF DAY during which the debates were shown (saying that at 5pm most ppl are at work), but this argument to me is borderline ridiculous. Perhaps its a good argument for the TV station, but not to determine a democratic standing of the country.

Further, the SCO and the CIS has declared the Russian elections as fair. With the SCO, CIS, declaring the election fair, and PEACE criticising Russia on technicalities and minor glitches which exist in most countries, in the end declairing that even if such concerns were looked at the end result would have been the same, I can conclude that the onnly people who think that the Russian election is unfair is the OSCE(which wasn't present), and western media. Of course, for the media to sell the "new cold war" rhetoric about Putin "flexing his muscles" it pays. I even saw an article once that Putin going fishing and some paparazi taking a picture of the guy shirtless was a political message to the west, give me a break, the guy is fishing on the weekend!!

I wouldn't go as far as proclaiming American media to be perfect and unfettered (FOX? CNN? Yeah right!), as over the past few decades media holding companies decreased into the single digits.


----------



## sober_ruski (9 May 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> I'm actually more interested in your take on the Moscow Times article about Sergei Shpilkin's analysis of the results released by the Central Election's Committee but if you have the time and inclination for both...
> 
> The OSCE hardly mounted a full fledged monitoring mission, sending only 22 Parliamentarians, the only "Western" observers there and they were some of the most vocal in criticising the process. One quote from their spokesman was pretty interesting, "...regional and local officials had compelled many public sector workers to vote for Medvedev or risk losing their jobs." (Russia election not free or fair, say observers) The OSCE/ODIHR boycotted not only the Presidential election but also the Duma elections as well.  Personally, I haven't seen any all that much outside of Russian news agencies quoting any observers saying very much positive, so if you have some links to that, I'd be interested in seeing them.
> 
> Yep, there have been issues in the past with US elections but, at the end of the day, the free and unfettered press (as much as I hate defending the MSM) brought them to light for public scrutiny and debate and changes were implemented to rectify the problems.  Can the same be said about Russia?



Looking back at the recent voting history in the US, they can hardly call any other country "undemocratic"


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2008)

Russia is an unstable state that needs to be treated carefully.

They are in a steep demographic decline, have decaying industry, environment, public health and infrastructure and are surrounded by perceived enemies, ranging from the Islamic populations of the "Near Abroad", expanding and confident "New Europe" encroaching from the west and China lapping at Siberia in the east. Their historical status as a Great Power has been broken and the tools to recreate that status are non existent.

Even Russia's control of vast resources isn't helping, she sells off her resources but the monies raised are funneled off by kleptocrats and not reinvested in repairing any of the self inflicted damage of communism.

The combination of hurt pride and internal decay is what makes Russia so dangerous. When the wall fell and the USSR was dissolved, we in the west were perhaps a bit too euphoric over our victory to assess "what happens next". As well, since our victory was bloodless, there was no ability to occupy Russia and create new civil structures to replace the old. Some of the old structures soldiered on, like the various organized crime gangs and the KGB (Under new management, or at least a new name) given they were the most cohesive and self contained groups at the time of the dissolution, and they are now the centers of power in the "New" Russia.

The best way to deal with Russia is to examine her motivations (i.e. what is best for Russia? or at least their ruling elites) and act according to _our_ national interests. If this ends up as a new "cold war", so be it. The long term issue for the west may be planning for and containing the effects of Russia's implosion, rather than looking for a return of a bipolar or multipolar world.


----------



## oligarch (16 May 2008)

Russia is an unstable state
- How so? 

Your victory? Did you ever stop to think that communism was destroyed by Russians themselves? I don't remember hearing anything about Gorbachev and Yeltsin being “from the west”. How exactly did the west “win” the cold war, which culminated in the destruction of communism, which was actually done by Gorbachev’s perestroika and Yeltsin’s… well… coup? They were Russians and they were the ones to overthrow communism, and thank god they did.

Lets examine Russia’s interests and see whether they lead to a cold war. Russia is indeed surrounded by perceived enemies ranging from the Islamic Fundamentalists that Canada is so keen on fighting today, so I fail to see how the situation in Russia is different from the Canadian. In fact, there is a lot of room for cooperation between Russia and Canada in Afghanistan and other sources of Islamic fundamentalism. I challenge you to truly look at common interests for Russia and Canada and look past the conflict that the US is trying to “push”. Russia already won the war in Chechnya, which is more than can be said in the case of Iraq, and perhaps even Afghanistan. Although the situation in Afghanistan is a lot better than in Iraq, it is defiantly not better than the current situation in Chechnya, which is rebuilt both in terms of society, as well as social and industrial infrastructure. Russia has allowed transit of non-lethal items through its territory for NATO, and all it sees in return is new missile bases. Furthermore, there is a lot of room for common interests for Russia and Canada in the field of the development of natural resources, since the natural resources of the countries are vastly similar. Fishing and agriculture, as well as lumber and oil offer a lot of room for cooperation.

I’d argue internal decay with economic figures. Last year economic growth was 8.1% and from hence forth the projected figures are a “minimum” of 6.5% growth. Given this pattern, and current US economic growth the GDPs of the two countries will be equal 30-50 years from now. You can easily confirm this by looking up current US GDP and GDP growth, setting up a system of exponential equations and solving it. Russian debt is insignificant, the ruble remains stable, inflation has been moderate, and investment began to increase again.  This growth is comparable to China, India, and Brazil. In 2007 the World Bank declared that the Russian economy had achieved "unprecedented macroeconomic stability" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7096426.stm). Russia is currently running dual surpluses, which is more than can be said in the case of the US economy, which is ridden in debt and record high budget deficits, and teetering on default. Don’t take my word for it, see thoughts of Warren Buffet, the most successful investor in the history of the US. Russia has also assumed most Soviet debt, which I argue should have been divided among ALL soviet republics according each republics share of Soviet GDP. Russia also has a stabilization fund to balance a potential oil/gas price shock, so citing Russian dependence on oil prices is not a significant argument to argue for its “instability”. Russia was also one of the few industrial countries that did not feel the banking crisis. There is also an establishment of an “investment fund”, intended for investment into “risky” ventures. Have you even read the discussion above?

Look here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soveit_Union.PNG

KGB? Its called the FSB, the Federal Security Service.... you know... like the FBI, CIA, and CSIS... I guess in your mind Russia does not have the right to have security services, because it is somehow "inferior" to the west? Or maybe it is easier to deal with a weak country... without an FSB it would be easier to "occupy" Russia, right? How is the Russian security service different from those "western" ones mentioned above? Trust me, the FSB does not hold any more power in Russia than the CIA does in the USA. "Occupy Russia and replace its structures"????? You mean like…. ehm… colonize it?? British Petroleum will unquestionably be able to destroy the Russian environment with impunity then, right? I can only cite such sentiment as an argument that Russia should be worried about its western ‘partners’.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> “Russia is an unstable state”
> - How so?
> 
> Your “victory”? Did you ever stop to think that communism was destroyed by Russians themselves? I don’t remember hearing anything about Gorbachev and Yeltsin being “from the west”. How exactly did the west “win” the cold war, which culminated in the destruction of communism, which was actually done by Gorbachev’s perestroika and Yeltsin’s… well… coup? They were Russians and they were the ones to overthrow communism, and thank god they did.



OK Kid!  You are a legend in your own mind.  What you have posted above has made you loose all credibility to me.  You obviously are not a true student on this subject as this is complete rubbish.  If you have come here to have us write your history paper for you, you are a slackard.  You are posting crap, and people are setting you straight.

Communism was defeated by Capitalism.   The Soviet Union and its Satellites went broke.  They could not compete with the West.  They could not afford to continue the Arms Race.  They couldn't continue to pay their wages.  They couldn't afford to upgrade their manufacturing sectors.  They maintained very lax control on environmental, scientific and many other issues.  

Communism in the Warsaw Pact produced a large number of "Failed States".

All your rhetoric is nothing more than some pompous arse trying to impress with long words and sentences that hold no water/air.  Your argument is not even weak, because it is non-existant.


----------



## oligarch (16 May 2008)

Communism went broke.... and the west did... what? Continue to exist while communism was destroyed by Russians from within. Everything you mention seems to me to be more of an internal feat rather than what the west did. What did the west do, besides arming the taliban, to "defeat communism"?

Have a look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCFREwQ846o&feature=related

Where is the west?

If not going broke while another person/country does is considered a "victory", then I have "defeated" many high school bullies in my time  Hell, we have "defeated" most of Africa then, too! But why would we want to "defeat" africa? This argument is absurd, I don't know why it is so widespread here and beaten into our heads in middle school. I guess if you repeat something many times, it becomes true. Besides, if you use the "continued to exist" argument, then there is nothing the Russians could have done to destroy communism without you proclaiming victory. Furthermore, if communism had been successful, then there would be no reason for Russians to overthrow their government, right? Quite a convenient "victory" argument, is it not? 

"Failed States"? Like what? Russia? Estonia? Latvia? Poland? Ukraine? Kazakhstan? The only "failed state" I can think of so far is Georgia, which desperately begging to be let into NATO in order to stay in one piece.

Besides, why don't you address the body of the message, rather than a side criticism of the word "victory". We are not talking about the USSR here, but about "The Russian Federation". I don't at all support the USSR (besides its role in WWII, Finish invasion aside), and I think Lenin should be removed from Red Square once and for all.

George, you keep saying that my argument is non-existent. Where is your argument? At least I back up my point of view with economic figures, treaty status, international law, etc., where is your argument? I guess my words are too big, so you fail to see the meaning behind them. I don't know why I'm causing such a stir, since what I am trying to promote is integration and peace. Instead, all I hear in return is that Russia should be "occupied" and that its structures should be "replaced". Who's starting the new cold war now? At least Russians aren't saying that they want to occupy other countries. In the history of the Russian Federation, Russia has not invaded a single country. How exactly is it starting a cold war? I'll try to use smaller words in the future. 

George Wallace, I see your "existent" argument consists of calling me a “pompous arse”… nice one! Let me try to be even more of a pompous arse and see how well you understand big words. What you just did is called a “argumentum ad hominem”, or a personal attack. This a logical fallacy which occurs while one is attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X but by attacking the person who asserted X. By definition, arguments with logical fallacies are invalid. Congrats buddy! Your argument is not only weak, it's non-existent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem : some bed-time reading


----------



## ROTP Applicant (16 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All your rhetoric is nothing more than some pompous arse trying to impress with long words and sentences that hold no water/air.  Your argument is not even weak, because it is non-existant.



Rather than resorting to personal attacks and calling Oligarch a "pompous arse," why not provide your own argument supported by evidence? Oligarch supplied plenty of statistics and evidence to support his argument; thus, it is only fair that you do the same rather than attacking him.


----------



## sober_ruski (16 May 2008)

Ah. He seems like a good ol' Russian nationalist. 

I suggest just ignoring him and he'll go away.


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2008)

"*Our Victory*". The USSR was essentially bankrupted by attempting to keep up with the Reagan era arms race. The internal stresses destroyed the Soviet economy, and prevented the USSR from maintaining its hold on Poland, then East Germany, then a domino effect on the various eastern European nations that had been occupied, Afghanistan and finally the constituent parts of the USSR itself. The fact that this triggered an internal revolt that caused the ultimate collapse is icing on the cake, the alternative was facing off with an aggressive and unstable USSR armed with nuclear weapons where their leadership was in a position of having nothing left to lose. Since the USSR had enslaved the land and people for 70 years prior, you might want to ask "how" the circumstances leading to the collapse came about in the 1980's as opposed to, say, the 1930's?

Russia's economic growth may be a sign of hope (and I hope it is), but it seems very similar to Alberta's growth, based on the extraction of primary resources. Given the collapsed environment, infrastructure and most importantly, collapsing demographics, and couple it with massive diversion of resources to the military (the same mistake as last time), and the prospects for exponential growth lasting for decades is a bit questionable, to say the least.

Russia, like China, believes that fundamentalist Islam is a threat, but like China, seems intent on keeping this threat alive and out front and center to bedevil the West to keep pressure on us and off them. Watching Russia selling nuclear fuel to Iran or make bellicose claims on the Arctic does not suggest that they have common interests with Canada or are interested in pursuing these said interests.

If you had read my post more carefully, you would understand that the most aggressive and anti-western parts of the old Soviet Union were able to survive the transition. Since our victory was not a military one, we had no means of directly intervening and ensuring these organs were eliminated and more stable institutions erected in their stead. This would also have made the transition period of the 1990s somewhat smoother, although rebuilding a State is a huge undertaking, fraught with difficulties. Look how long it took to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII, or South Korea after the Korean War.


----------



## stegner (17 May 2008)

George Wallace-If you look at the deficit and debt of the United States its pretty close to going broke too.    Don't believe me?   Check with the former Comptroller General of the United States:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3DVFA_enCA235CA238&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=comptroller+general+60+minutes&spell=1


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> George Wallace-If you look at the deficit and debt of the United States its pretty close to going broke too.    Don't believe me?   Check with the former Comptroller General of the United States:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3DVFA_enCA235CA238&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=comptroller+general+60+minutes&spell=1



Sure.  Apples and Oranges really.  The Government of the US does not have any affect on the collapse of Democracy as you are alluding in your comments above.  There are enough entrepreneurs and 'Big Business' to keep the US from collapsing as the "Russian Federation" (Happy Oli?) did.  All the people of the US can look forward to is exactly what they and Canadians did after all previous wars - higher Taxes.

The US Government does not control the wages of the people of the US (unless they are in direct employ of the Government.).  

Your argument doesn't hold water.


----------



## stegner (17 May 2008)

> The Government of the US does not have any affect on the collapse of Democracy as you are alluding in your comments above.



I am not alluding to what you seem to think I am alluding too.   I am merely point at that the U.S is spending itself into bankruptcy.  Sure big business is doing awesome. Like GM, Ford and any of the other big five auto manufacturers.  If you look at the Fortune 500 Top 10 you will see Wal-Mart, which trades heavily with a communist country China is ranked as No.1.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I am not alluding to what you seem to think I am alluding too.   I am merely point at that the U.S is spending itself into bankruptcy.  Sure big business is doing awesome. Like GM, Ford and any of the other big five auto manufacturers.  If you look at the Fortune 500 Top 10 you will see Wal-Mart, which trades heavily with a communist country China is ranked as No.1.



So?  I take it you agree; apples and oranges.  The appearance of the US Government to be bankrupt, no way affects the actual stability of the nation.


----------



## sober_ruski (17 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sure.  Apples and Oranges really.  The Government of the US does not have any affect on the collapse of Democracy as you are alluding in your comments above.  There are enough entrepreneurs and 'Big Business' to keep the US from collapsing as the "Russian Federation" (Happy Oli?) did.  All the people of the US can look forward to is exactly what they and Canadians did after all previous wars - higher Taxes.
> 
> The US Government does not control the wages of the people of the US (unless they are in direct employ of the Government.).
> 
> Your argument doesn't hold water.



They might not collapse 'physically', but economy is going to go down the shitter. It is not just the national debt, but also trade deficit that counts. Think if China dumps whatever they have in US currency... big ouchy.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 May 2008)

IF Russia steps up on the rule of law issues, I agree that they should receive our support.  

Problem 1:  There are series of oligarchs who literally sit back and watch foreign investor put billions in investment, and then swoop in to then confiscate the assets with the help of the government.  Hopefully Medvedez will signal the end to this behaviour with a recognition that protected foreign investment is going to be required in order to do the requisite diversification of their economy.

Problem 2:  They really don't need our support financially, and so or moralistic rantings are somewhat questionable.  Russia is generating almost $300 billion per annum in foreign currency reserves on oil alone with probably close to the same amount in natural gas.  The key now is reinvesting in other industries as both their oil and natural gas have come close to peaking, and will likely start to decline as early as 2011.  

I should add that if you look at some of the media that they have shut down, much of it was anti-government paparazzi, and although in principle I do agree with freedom of the press, when it is used for propaganda by the opposition parties (as happens in all democracies), it can be somewhat counterproductive as politics becomes little more than a series of lying pricks fighting for soundbites on the evening news.

[Side Note:  Estimate is the Middle East is generating $1 trillion USD per annum at $125 oil at current rates of production].

Bottom Line:  The Russians (as well as the Middle East and Brazil) are really sitting in the cat bird seat, and because of that, external support isn't going to accomplish much.  Candidly, as an export driven market depending upon manufactured goods, China is much more vulnerable to external pressure than Russia is....


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2008)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Bottom Line:  The Russians (as well as the Middle East and Brazil) are really sitting in the cat bird seat, and because of that, external support isn't going to accomplish much.  Candidly, as an export driven market depending upon manufactured goods, China is much more vulnerable to external pressure than Russia is....



I suspect that in the long run, the Americans are the ones in the driver's seat. North American society has stronger cultural, demographic, economic and natural resource foundations than the Middle East, Russia, China, Africa or the EU. To my knowledge, only India is in a similar position. The current economic situation is favorable for Russia, as a resource exporter, but their internal problems will require a vast outpouring of effort, which does not seem to be happening. As Russia is facing a demographic crash, they will start running out of people in a generation to fix problems, much less man the borders and maintain the current infrastructure and economy.

Russia is also heavily tied to the EU as their primary export market for oil and natural gas (the prime exports and source of foreign exchange), but the EU is also undergoing a demographic crash, and their elaborate systems of welfare and entitlements (not to mention the brittle bureaucratic mechanism they created to actually run the EU) will soon consume 25% or more of the economy. Russia might discover their primary market and source of investment has dried up. The Middle East has tied its oil fortunes towards China (Americans buy their oil from Canada and Venezuela), and might discover their preferred customers suffer from the same demographic decline, as well as huge disruptions as China's natural ecology suffers more and more damage. South America has most of the advantages of population and resources, but suffers from unstable political systems, which hinder their growth. Africa seems to be a write off unless the various dysfunctional social, political and economic structures are erased and replaced with Free Speech, Property Rights and the Rule of Law.

America still has the American Creed as a foundational basis for their society, access to cheap and readily available natural resources (i.e. us), a booming demographic profile (lots of Americans will be around to move into Canada as our nation empties out mid century) and a broad based economy which has more flexibility and depth than most of its competitors (think back to how the Japanese were supposed to overtake America back in the 1980's, just before Japan imploded...). It won't be easy, but they have the tools at hand and (at least in the red states) the will to go forward.


----------



## sober_ruski (20 May 2008)

I am really not sure that NA has stronger cultural or natural resources demographic than Russia.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I suspect that in the long run, the Americans are the ones in the driver's seat. North American society has stronger cultural, demographic, economic and natural resource foundations than the Middle East, Russia, China, Africa or the EU. To my knowledge, only India is in a similar position. The current economic situation is favorable for Russia, as a resource exporter, but their internal problems will require a vast outpouring of effort, which does not seem to be happening. As Russia is facing a demographic crash, they will start running out of people in a generation to fix problems, much less man the borders and maintain the current infrastructure and economy.
> 
> Russia is also heavily tied to the EU as their primary export market for oil and natural gas (the prime exports and source of foreign exchange), but the EU is also undergoing a demographic crash, and their elaborate systems of welfare and entitlements (not to mention the brittle bureaucratic mechanism they created to actually run the EU) will soon consume 25% or more of the economy. Russia might discover their primary market and source of investment has dried up. The Middle East has tied its oil fortunes towards China (Americans buy their oil from Canada and Venezuela), and might discover their preferred customers suffer from the same demographic decline, as well as huge disruptions as China's natural ecology suffers more and more damage. South America has most of the advantages of population and resources, but suffers from unstable political systems, which hinder their growth. Africa seems to be a write off unless the various dysfunctional social, political and economic structures are erased and replaced with Free Speech, Property Rights and the Rule of Law.
> 
> America still has the American Creed as a foundational basis for their society, access to cheap and readily available natural resources (i.e. us), a booming demographic profile (lots of Americans will be around to move into Canada as our nation empties out mid century) and a broad based economy which has more flexibility and depth than most of its competitors (think back to how the Japanese were supposed to overtake America back in the 1980's, just before Japan imploded...). It won't be easy, but they have the tools at hand and (at least in the red states) the will to go forward.



The United States is on the verge of collapse.  I wouldn't hold $USD on a bet.


Matthew.


----------



## wannabe SF member (20 May 2008)

> (lots of Americans will be around to move into Canada as our nation empties out mid century)


 ???

What do you mean by that?


----------



## oligarch (20 May 2008)

Overall, I would more or less agree with Mathew (Cdn Blackshirt). In regards to media, yes, the media was wrestled out of the control of the oligarchs, but the media being in the hands of the oligarchs is not something as I see being beneficial for the country. Further, I'd argue that there is nothing wrong with some channels being state-owned, as long as there are channels that are not, especially if state-owned channels allow for free discourse. This is the case in Russia, IMHO. 

I'd have to respectfully disagree with the point that nothing is being done about Russia's population problems. Social programs overall call for an increase in birth rates, but I'm sure that untill we see a growing middle class this will happen slowly. Another point of view I have from personal observation is that in order to increase birth rates dramatically that country will first undergo a building boom, as the old soviet style buildings, for the most part, don't allow room for large families. These things are happening, and the demographic trend reversal will follow. There are 'national projects', including one for demographics, and 'marginal depopulation' is decreasing. (Essentially, the country is still depopulating but at decreasing rates)

In terms of Russia's cultural and economic foundations, I'm sure they are not much worse than india. In fact, I'd challenge some to learn about the BRIC thesis put forth by Goldman Sachs (investment bank). I'll just quote wikipedia because I'm too lazy to type it out myself: 



> Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) is such that they may become among the four most dominant economies by the year 2050. The thesis was proposed by Jim O'Neill, global economist at Goldman Sachs. These countries encompass over twenty-five percent of the world's land coverage, forty percent of the world's population and hold a combined GDP (PPP) of 15.435 trillion dollars. On almost every scale, they would be the largest entity on the global stage.
> 
> However, it is important to note that it is not the intent of Goldman Sachs to argue that these four countries are a political alliance (such as the European Union) or any formal trading association, like ASEAN. Nevertheless, they have taken steps to increase their political cooperation, mainly as a way of influencing the United States position on major trade accords, or, through the implicit threat of political cooperation, as a way of extracting political concessions from the United States, such as the proposed nuclear cooperation with India.
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC


Further, it is argued that Russian GDP will outpace that of Germany, Italy, UK, and most EU countries. My point of view is that the report is a little bit over-optimistic about US prospects, but who knows! Another point I'd like to make is that Russia has already grown faster than what was predicted by the BRIC paper in 2003 untill now, in part due to rising commodity prices, which I argue have at least something to do with the falling dollar. An interesting point of view is that the falling US dollar will help to decrease their dual defecits in the long run, although that may be very painful for such an import dependent nation as the US for us regular folks. Essentially, this means that we'll have to cut down on our spending and no longer live above our means. I'm not sure about how the Canadian economy will be affected. I think we will undoubtedly feel the US pinch, but we'll have the natural resrouces to recover, so it really depends on magnitude and speed of the USD decline. I feel a run of inflation and dollar depreciation coming on in the US soon due to the Fed's moves to drop rates so quickly, and if countries begin to dump the US dollar things may even get worse. Another painful thing would be countries refusing to denominate oil in USD, and such trends and sentiments are emerging, and Iran has already done it. However, USD devaluation has to happen IMHO! If it doesn't, the US will eventually simply be forced into default by its own overspending.

Here I will also quote another writer on the wikipedia edit page. Keep in mind that I didn't write this, but please consider it:



> Calling Russia a "quasi-democracy" (while Brazil and India are "real" democracies), and China a "communist state" is strongly POV. What is the established standard by which one measures the quantity of democracy? If Russia is a "quasi-democracy", why is Brazil, with millions of people living in the slums in deplorable conditions, completely shut out of the country's political system, considered a democracy? Why is India considered a democracy despite still having a caste system, no independent judiciary, corruption, bureaucracy, and a 60% literacy rate (with which "free" elections are a joke)? China is no more "communist" than the U.S., since Communism implies an economic system with an equal distribution of wealth. China is not exactly that. You could say perhaps it's a one-party state, which is only marginally [worse] than the U.S. two-party state. By the way, I haven't seen references to the U.S. as a "quasi-democracy" anywhere in Wikipedia, despite having no direct voting system.


----------



## oligarch (20 May 2008)

One last point I'd like to make is about the fact that many western pundits typically try to write off the Russian economy as an "oil driven" economy; meanwhile, diversification is occuring rapidly and growth in many other sectors in rampant. The IT market is one of the most dynamic sectors of the Russian economy. Russian software exports have risen from just $120 million in 2000 to $1.5 billion in 2006. Since the year 2000 the IT market has demonstrated growth rates of 30-40 percent a year, growing by 54% in 2006 alone. Further, the Putin government has announced a massive $7 billion investment program in nanotechnology. Russia's telecommunications industry is growing in size and maturity, and over half of overall GDP is generated by services. So saying that Russia's economy is so dependent on oil prices and that president Putin is drunk with power and the petrodollar is trying to revive the cold war only because Russia suddenly started to make money due to rising oil prices is just plain misinformation. GDP growth started during in 1999, way before commodities appreciated as rapidly as in the last 3 years.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2008)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> What do you mean by that?



Canada is at a below replacement birthrate (1.48 children per couple is our national average), so by the mid century, Canada's population will be falling at a pretty drastic rate. Note too that Russia and many EU nations are at even _lower_ fertility rates, so their populations will fall even faster.

Various reasons have been postulated as to why this is happening, but the big part of the problem is not only the increasing stresses on governmental structures (such as social welfare programs having fewer and fewer working age taxpayers to actually fund them), but also the fact that *no one knows if reversal is even possible*! 

Assuming for the moment that it is possible to reverse the trend, there is also the time lag problem. The babies of today will need at least 16 years before they can potentially contribute to the population base, and since they are starting at a lower number than the "boomer generation", it could take two or three generations to get back to where we would like to be (assuming they are or can be induced to have an average of *more than 2.1 children * per couple).

The United States is currently at a bit above the replacement demographic (2.2 children per couple), so an empty Canada with infrastructure and resources available would be an appealing place to settle in and make your mark. Canadians will be desperate for working age people by then, so there will be inducements from both sides of the border. Society will be quite different then, while the _average_ fertility rate in the US is 2.2, the reality is "Red States", Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and Hispanics have a much higher fertility rate, while so called "Progressives" are far below the replacement fertility rate: they are breeding themselves out of existence!

Frankly, the sort of stresses on the United States today are not anywhere near as strong as the Civil War, the Great Depression, WW II or the height of the Cold War in the late 1950's or early '60's, or the internal unrest during the mid to late 1960's. America survived then, and it will evolve and continue to survive into the future. One thing is for certain, there will defiantly be Americans around in the future!


----------



## sober_ruski (22 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  I take it you agree; apples and oranges.  The appearance of the US Government to be bankrupt, no way affects the actual stability of the nation.



It might appear to be stable, but at what cost? 

Their Department of Homeland Defense just reeks of NKVD-GESTAPO-ish tactics.


----------



## oligarch (3 Jun 2008)

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> It might appear to be stable, but at what cost?
> 
> Their Department of Homeland Defense just reeks of NKVD-GESTAPO-ish tactics.



Agree! In terms of stability, the dollar is falling, the budget deficits hit record highs every year, yet the US government insists on spending on a missile base that doesn't actually work, insists on getting itself more in debt for the sake of defence contractors whose agents are simply working in the government. 
An discussion from Russia's point of view... in english... http://youtube.com/watch?v=9uls7pI44lA


----------

