by TheDude » Fri 26 Jun 2009, 14:56:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'C')ountries can destabilize quite fast, witness the Soviet Union. Read Dimitri Orlov to get an idea of what that was like, and what he sees as the relative strengths of other countries in weathering such a calamity.
The "collapse" of the USSR was pretty bogus as far as civilizational collapses go. Take a
tour around Moscow today, marvel at the normalcy, the new wealth and growth, ride the
newly electrified trans-siberian railroad. It's amazing how a collapsed society can achieve all these things. Apparently countries can restabilize quickly too.
"Bogus"? Are we scaling the veracity of these things in some fashion?
From Wiki, effective enough for a nutshell:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ince the USSR's collapse, Russia faced many problems that free market proponents in 1992 did not expect. Among other things, 25% of the population lived below the poverty line, life expectancy had fallen, birthrates were low, and the GDP was halved. These problems led to a series of crises in the 1990s, which nearly led to election of Yeltsin's Communist challenger, Gennady Zyuganov, in the 1996 presidential election. In the recent years, the economy of Russia has begun to improve greatly, due to major investments and business development and also due to high prices of natural resources.
My point was that the USSR dissolved fairly rapidly, which could be the fate of other ostensibly eternal nation states, and that their prospects are potentially grimmer than that of the FSU states, as Orlov details. How those states have recovered in the meantime isn't the issue - with the world's economy growing in an abundance of cheap energy comparisions with a world of declining supply aren't pertinent.
The TSR was a Tzarist project, not a pet project of Putin's. Electrification took 74 years, I'm giving Stalin credit for that one. Finishing the job was a snap with all the revenue the FSU has coming in from Gazprom and Lukoil.
Been listening to Medvedev's stern warnings, JD?
Kremlin: Battles over energy resources could lead to war. Thought you said that war over resources was "unlikely." This could all be one big rattling saber, of course.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')OSCOW – A Kremlin policy paper says international relations will be shaped by battles over energy resources, which may trigger military conflicts on Russia's borders.
The National Security Strategy also said that Russia will seek an equal "partnership" with the United States, but named U.S. missile defense plans in Europe among top threats to the national security.
The document, which has been signed by President Dmitry Medvedev, listed top challenges to national security and outlined government priorities through 2020.
"The international policy in the long run will be focused on getting hold of energy sources, including in the Middle East, the Barents Sea shelf and other Arctic regions, the Caspian and Central Asia," said the strategy paper that was posted on the presidential Security Council's Web site.
"Amid competitive struggle for resources, attempts to use military force to solve emerging problems can't be excluded," it added. "The existing balance of forces near the borders of the Russian Federation and its allies can be violated."