Washington Times – DALE: Russian decline
Russia is currently losing population at a spectacular rate of 700,000 people per year, which will amount to 31 percent between 2005 and 2050. It is a decline that has started earlier than elsewhere in the developed world. Unlike Western Europe, where you can truly talk about graying populations as life-expectancy has grown in tandem with collapsing birthrates, Russians are experiencing declining birthrates as well as falling life expectancy. Birth rates are now around 1.2 to 1.3, while life expectancy for Russian men is now back to what it used to be in the 1950s – 59 years of age, a full 20 years less than Japanese men and three years less than Bangladeshi men. The causes are not far to seek – a dismal health-care system and vast alcohol consumption.
Oil wealth might make Russia look strong today, but its human capital is being inexorably eroded with consequences for economic growth as well as social and family cohesion. Mr. Putin has called population decline “the most acute problem facing our country today.” Attending population decline, write the authors of the study, are political trends that we already see playing themselves out. Ethnic composition will change, for instance, as Russia’s Muslim population will grow proportionately to its Slav population. Muslims may be in the majority by 2050. Tendencies towards illiberal political solutions may well be the choice of the threatened ethnic group, as we are indeed seeing in Russia today with Mr. Putin’s authoritarian grab for perpetual power. And it may lash out against other nations in a diversion from internal problems – just ask the Georgians.
Meanwhile, the rather distinct silver lining in all of this for the United States is that while Russia collapses and Western Europe declines, the United States will experience healthy population growth due to sound fertility rates and immigration – and with it growing international influence among developed nations. In 1820, the United States held 6 percent of the population of the developed world; today it is 34 percent, and in 2050 it will be 43 percent. “In tandem,” write the authors, “the influence of the United States within the developed world will likely rise.”
The KGB was not the best and brightest of the Soviet Union. This must be understood.
The leaders of the Soviet Union were the best and the brightest.
Men like Boris Yeltin, Leonid Kuchma, Alexander Lukashenko, Eduard Shevardnadze, and Islam Karimov were the best and brightest. These men had reached ;positions of influence by surviving a complicated, multiethnic, and obscure political system. Surviving the Soviet required somehow fulfilling the desires of higher-ups while not making any serious enemies in a multiracial empire that had to accommodate populations from the great civilizations of the classic world (Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, and so on). Thus it is no surprise that when the Soviet Union broke up, these same men found themselves in leadership positions in the post-Soviet states. The same scales that helped survival domestic USSR politics enabled success in international CIS politics. Soft power was the rule of the day, as elites attempted to consolidate power, either becoming the newly rich themselves or co-opting those who did so.
In the American system, the analogues to the men like Yeltsin are the CEOs and business entrepreneurs. Risk-takers and survivals, their skilled were perfectly matched to the late Imperial position they found themselves in. (Indeed, perhaps European “softness” on Communism was largely a function of recognizing the Russians as possessing the same sort of multiethnic empire than they had so recently possessed, or at least aspired to.)
Those who could not survive this systme, but still wanted respect and power, naturally gravitted into the Soviet Union’s “B-team.” Our “B-team” is composed of the political class — senators, presidents, and the like — who typically begin with a law degree and try to make their way in the aristocracy of poll. Russia’s “B-team” was the KGB, who likewise could not hack it in the big leagues but nonetheless could contribute in a relatively narrow if high-profile and important domain. Government is safer than business in the United States because your government will not dissolve, but your company might. In the Soviet Union, if you were on the path to the central committee mistakes you make today might haunt you in twenty years time: the KGB afforded the anonymity necessary for tolerating more mistakes.
Russia’s current President, Vladimir Putin, is a KGB. It shows.
Consider this post by Tom from Febuary 2006:
Moscow will say their recent behavior on pricing energy exports is just normal â€œmarket principles,â€ and thereâ€™s some truth to that, but thereâ€™s also plenty of truth to the charge that Putin seems to think that selling energy equates to pol-mil power, when it doesnâ€™t.
There is a natural limit to this, and that limit is Russiaâ€™s continuing and large need for outside capital to upgrade its infrastructure throughout the economy–not just in the energy sphere. Right now, Gazpromâ€™s death grip on the gas market is restricting the ability of independent Russian producers to attract foreign money for this most capital-intensive industry. Itâ€™s an old issue: control the pie too much and it wonâ€™t grow.
So do I expect Putin or his successors to give up control over the energy sector out of their love for democracy? No. I expect them to loosen their grip out of greed.
This is logically correct. Merely exporting energy just gives you the blip that the Arab states enjoyed in the 1970s. Turning that into sustainable power requires connectivity to the west. But it requires the long-term thinking of the men like Yeltsin, not the operatives like Putin.
Putin is the high school student who, desiring more money, quits school to work more hours at McDonalds.
I discovered the joy of Youtube kinetic typography. My first exposure was to Dwight’s Speech
But Who’s on First is probably the most accessible way of getting into it
The typography of Hitler’s speech allows non-German-speakers to understand something of his effectiveness:
A lecture on how its made:
For my geek friends, the kinetic typography Portal’s “Still Alive” is interesting