Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Behind the Bluster, Russia Is Collapsing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    I rather think that there are two linked trends going on here.

    It is has been know in the West for some time - and I have certainly posted prvious links to the figures - that demographicaly Russia is in severe trouble. Their popluation is actualy falling every year and the modest amount of immigration they get is not sufficient to back up the shortfall of the 'native' Russians. Well one way to increase the population is to absorb new populations (or old ones as they might say) such as the Ossetians and perhaps the Crimeans. It is a temporary fix only and they would be wiser increasing their expenditure on social infrastucture rather than on the military to try to reverse the long term demographic trend.
    Russia is not know for its introspective qualities. Failures, problems and ills are almsot always blamed on an outside force and all would be well if it was removed.

    The Russian people are force fed a diet of this and you see it reflected in thier posts and what they are willing to beleive. Look at the way so many here swallowed the party line hook lin a sinker. Russia giving passports and weapons to the Ossetians, providing fighter cover for the Abkhazians and massing troops are seen as "responces" to nefarious US plans. Likewise NATO's march east is seen as encroaching on Russian interests rather than scene as defensive moves by people tired of Russian domination.

    As long as Russia has ills, or men seeking power her neighbors will be in jeporday.

    Comment


    • #17
      Zraver,

      On the other hand Chechnya was a real stinker (probably continues to be so), and who knows what broth is really brewing up in the Russian-dominated Central Asian Republics? Russia alone can keep something of a lid on that area. Can an introspective and withdrawn Russia handle the wildfire that would blaze there the moment its grip slackens? I don't think so. As we found out before, it won't be a wildfire limited to those lands; they will become the base and sustenance of unimaginable mischief. AlbanyRifles had a good signature there: When the gods truly want to punish us, they fulfill our wishes. This seems to be one such wish.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cactus View Post
        Zraver,

        On the other hand Chechnya was a real stinker (probably continues to be so), and who knows what broth is really brewing up in the Russian-dominated Central Asian Republics? Russia alone can keep something of a lid on that area.
        This implies a lid needs to be kept on them. Why does a lid need to kept on them? I think the world has moved past the fear of steppe horsemen, they have no nukes or nuclear ambitions and lack easy access to the global community and are generally not of a wahabist bent.

        Can an introspective and withdrawn Russia handle the wildfire that would blaze there the moment its grip slackens? I don't think so.
        what wildfire?

        As we found out before, it won't be a wildfire limited to those lands;
        example please

        they will become the base and sustenance of unimaginable mischief. AlbanyRifles had a good signature there: When the gods truly want to punish us, they fulfill our wishes. This seems to be one such wish.
        nice logical fallacy to justify behavior. We don't know what they will become. We can make reasoned assumptons, but cannot be certain. But in so far as Central Asia goes its been a rather introspective and peaceful part of the worlds since the end of the Mongols. Or at least thier wars have not spread globally. The sole excpetion is Afghanistan which is part of the wreckage of the USSR and before that the Great Game drawing in both Imperial Russia and Britian.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          nice logical fallacy to justify behavior. We don't know what they will become. We can make reasoned assumptons, but cannot be certain. But in so far as Central Asia goes its been a rather introspective and peaceful part of the worlds since the end of the Mongols. Or at least thier wars have not spread globally. The sole excpetion is Afghanistan which is part of the wreckage of the USSR and before that the Great Game drawing in both Imperial Russia and Britian.
          True, it is blatantly deterministic (and as distasteful to me as it can be to you)... but all the reasoned assumptions I can make point to the need of the Russian lid. Too much corruption, injustice and tyranny has long existed in those places... but also a neutral ideological vacuum. The moment the grip weakens, the first to rush into the vacuum would be the wahabi/deobandi types as they are well-prepared, well-funded and well-motivated and they will breed like bunnies, as was seen in not only A'stan but also Chechnya. Unless you have a very strong alternative to fill into that area it is a very foolish gamble to take. The blowback will be global. A'stan manifested its global problem nature fastest, but Chechnya is doing it too slowly - the technical expertise for IEDs being provided by the Chechens in A'stan as one small example.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cactus View Post
            True, it is blatantly deterministic (and as distasteful to me as it can be to you)... but all the reasoned assumptions I can make point to the need of the Russian lid. Too much corruption, injustice and tyranny has long existed in those places... but also a neutral ideological vacuum. The moment the grip weakens, the first to rush into the vacuum would be the wahabi/deobandi types as they are well-prepared, well-funded and well-motivated and they will breed like bunnies, as was seen in not only A'stan but also Chechnya. Unless you have a very strong alternative to fill into that area it is a very foolish gamble to take. The blowback will be global. A'stan manifested its global problem nature fastest, but Chechnya is doing it too slowly - the technical expertise for IEDs being provided by the Chechens in A'stan as one small example.
            In both your examples I can point to specific reasons why the jihadists got a go at power. In the first- Astan a Soviet invasion preceded by a perceived anti-Islamic Marxist regime broke the back of an already weak national loyalty. This would have been fine, the tribes are the natural recourse. But the Soviet invasion turned A-stan into the playground of the ISI who sought out jihadist in response and brought them to fight the Soviets and later helped them form the Taliban.

            In Chechnya, one has to wonder what would have happened if Russia had let them go peaceful in 91-92 lie they did Lithuania. I understand both Gorby and Yeltsin's reasons, and personally think they are correct, but it did spark a war and war breeds radicalism. I think we can keep a lid on radicalism in ways better than force or the threat of it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              Russia is not know for its introspective qualities. Failures, problems and ills are almsot always blamed on an outside force and all would be well if it was removed.

              The Russian people are force fed a diet of this and you see it reflected in thier posts and what they are willing to beleive. Look at the way so many here swallowed the party line hook lin a sinker. Russia giving passports and weapons to the Ossetians, providing fighter cover for the Abkhazians and massing troops are seen as "responces" to nefarious US plans. Likewise NATO's march east is seen as encroaching on Russian interests rather than scene as defensive moves by people tired of Russian domination.

              As long as Russia has ills, or men seeking power her neighbors will be in jeporday.
              First paragraph is not true, a lot of internal shortcomings are blamed on incompetency and corruption of people.

              The Russian people are very different some believe what they want others are always skeptical since the soviet days to take all with a grain of salt. They will most of the time be more critical of their own government when it does wrong. Example Sakharov, however he did not support the western view of dividing Russia based on ethnic lines with lots tied in parts (hist/ethno/eco) seperated.

              If the neighbors are not rational then no amount of negotiations will pacify their needs. Example: while Russia had to give up fees on aircraft traveling through her airspace the Europeans did not reciprocate in what they were supposed to so Russia tried to re-impose the fees but the move was perceived as undemocratic. Even though Russian airlines were deemed unsafe after they changed their fleets to what the western firms were running boeing etc...
              Russia restores Lufthansa's access to its airspace - for now - International Herald Tribune

              Afghanistan is in a league of their own... No need to blame Russia for it at least at this point of time the U.S. bears more responsibility.
              Last edited by cyppok; 06 Oct 08,, 23:29.
              Originally from Sochi, Russia.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                In both your examples I can point to specific reasons why the jihadists got a go at power. In the first- Astan a Soviet invasion preceded by a perceived anti-Islamic Marxist regime broke the back of an already weak national loyalty. This would have been fine, the tribes are the natural recourse. But the Soviet invasion turned A-stan into the playground of the ISI who sought out jihadist in response and brought them to fight the Soviets and later helped them form the Taliban.

                In Chechnya, one has to wonder what would have happened if Russia had let them go peaceful in 91-92 lie they did Lithuania. I understand both Gorby and Yeltsin's reasons, and personally think they are correct, but it did spark a war and war breeds radicalism. I think we can keep a lid on radicalism in ways better than force or the threat of it.
                The first point is only partially correct: The Soviet invasion did break down the fragile national loyalty Ahmed Shah Abdali had imposed since mid 1700s, and the first recourse to resistance was indeed the tribes. However the Soviet invasion did not turn A'stan into ISI's playground by itself, it was the Soviet withdrawal that allowed ISI to move into A'stan with impunity. Right until 1984 the Paks were highly wary about escalating things; they themselves became more Islamist than they made others Islamist (as part of Rawalpindi's Stay-Back Strategy).

                The Soviet withdrawal created two important conditions that allowed the rise of Taliban: (1) Numerous petty warlords who were corrupt, unjust and tyrannical... and weak, and (2) Opened opportunity for return of the refugees whose tribal identities had been broken and replaced by Islamist loyalties. It was not just ISI, but Rawalpindi, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh who exploited the vacuum to prop in their proxies, the Taliban (who had arisen spontaneously from the refugee camps in response to the warlords). I noticed you said the same thing in the Iran thread, but you are ascribing too much power to the ISI: It doesn't have, for instance, its own brigade-level artillery; it could support the 1997 and 1999 Talibani assaults against Massoud only with the permission from the GHQ, Rawalpindi. The interesting thing here also is that it was Russia more than any other foreign supporter of the Northern Alliance who kept them alive... hence indirectly allowing the US to use them in 2001.

                Sure you can keep a lid on radicalism by means other than violence, but it involves moving in faster than the wahabi/deobandi types once the vacuum is created. It involves providing a real alternative real fast to their demogogic fantasies and promises. In short it involves spending a lot of treasure and sweat... maybe even blood.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by cyppok View Post
                  First paragraph is not true, a lot of internal shortcomings are blamed on incompetency and corruption of people.

                  The Russian people are very different some believe what they want others are always skeptical since the soviet days to take all with a grain of salt. They will most of the time be more critical of their own government when it does wrong. Example Sakharov, however he did not support the western view of dividing Russia based on ethnic lines with lots tied in parts (hist/ethno/eco) seperated.
                  You blame western views in your denial of blaming things on non-Russians. Or more accurately you restate the claim the west wants Russia broken up.

                  If the neighbors are not rational then no amount of negotiations will pacify their needs. Example: while Russia had to give up fees on aircraft traveling through her airspace the Europeans did not reciprocate in what they were supposed to so Russia tried to re-impose the fees but the move was perceived as undemocratic. Even though Russian airlines were deemed unsafe after they changed their fleets to what the western firms were running boeing etc...
                  Russia restores Lufthansa's access to its airspace - for now - International Herald Tribune
                  Who determines what rational is?

                  Afghanistan is in a league of their own... No need to blame Russia for it at least at this point of time the U.S. bears more responsibility.
                  How is it the US's fault?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                    The first point is only partially correct: The Soviet invasion did break down the fragile national loyalty Ahmed Shah Abdali had imposed since mid 1700s, and the first recourse to resistance was indeed the tribes. However the Soviet invasion did not turn A'stan into ISI's playground by itself, it was the Soviet withdrawal that allowed ISI to move into A'stan with impunity. Right until 1984 the Paks were highly wary about escalating things; they themselves became more Islamist than they made others Islamist (as part of Rawalpindi's Stay-Back Strategy).
                    The Soviet withdrawal and ISI involvement only occurs because of the Soviet Invasion.

                    The Soviet withdrawal created two important conditions that allowed the rise of Taliban: (1) Numerous petty warlords who were corrupt, unjust and tyrannical... and weak, and (2) Opened opportunity for return of the refugees whose tribal identities had been broken and replaced by Islamist loyalties.
                    who stoked those Islamist feelings? Pakistani madrassas funded by Saudi money- aided and abetted by the ISI. The ISI uses the same groups to attack Indian targets in Kashmir and inside India itself.

                    It was not just ISI, but Rawalpindi, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh who exploited the vacuum to prop in their proxies, the Taliban (who had arisen spontaneously from the refugee camps in response to the warlords). I noticed you said the same thing in the Iran thread, but you are ascribing too much power to the ISI: It doesn't have, for instance, its own brigade-level artillery; it could support the 1997 and 1999 Talibani assaults against Massoud only with the permission from the GHQ, Rawalpindi.
                    It had and I believe still has more influence than any other foreign source.


                    The interesting thing here also is that it was Russia more than any other foreign supporter of the Northern Alliance who kept them alive... hence indirectly allowing the US to use them in 2001.
                    Very true, but Massoud and his allies were a better choice for Russia than the Taliban since Russia was getting a dose of what jihadist do in Chechnya.

                    Sure you can keep a lid on radicalism by means other than violence, but it involves moving in faster than the wahabi/deobandi types once the vacuum is created. It involves providing a real alternative real fast to their demogogic fantasies and promises. In short it involves spending a lot of treasure and sweat... maybe even blood.
                    I agree, but I think it is a viable alternative to overlordship.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I, for one, never underestimate my adversary.

                      I don't care about collapsing.

                      I am only satisfied when collapsed!


                      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                      HAKUNA MATATA

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The basic fact remains that Russian power will proportionaly decrease without substantial internal reform and increased immigration... Whether they chose to blame this on others is irrelevant; they need to address their problems, shouting about how unfair it all is and everyone hating you does not make the problem go away!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by snapper View Post
                          The basic fact remains that Russian power will proportionaly decrease without substantial internal reform and increased immigration... Whether they chose to blame this on others is irrelevant; they need to address their problems, shouting about how unfair it all is and everyone hating you does not make the problem go away!
                          The historic challenge posed by Russia is that it has never been in stasis, it has either contracted or expanded throughout its history. Russian leaders have always sought to mobilize nationalistic sentiment to rally support.

                          That means that the worse its domestic situation becomes in Russia, the more its leaders will be able to mobilize the support of a seething, resentful population willing to accept the blame of foreigners for their misfortunes.

                          Since Russia's influence is limited outside of military power and energy production, the primary ability Russia has to exercise diplomacy to meet its objectives is through the creation of crises. But by doing so, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy- as Russia precipitates crises, its neighbors and their allies will take counter-measures which then will provide the pretext for Russian leaders to claim that such actions are proof of an international conspiracy against Russia- necessitating further policies of national assertiveness.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Putin is banking very hard on oil prices rising while many others say its going to go further down. Its his life blood.;)
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Equilibrium View Post
                              The historic challenge posed by Russia is that it has never been in stasis, it has either contracted or expanded throughout its history. Russian leaders have always sought to mobilize nationalistic sentiment to rally support.
                              True, but isn't that on the resume of most countries? Every permanent member of U.N. security council has a long history of contracting and expanding esp. the Brits. not to mention Spain's or Italy's past. (except U.S. which hasn't done much contracting :) where the last territorial addition of a state was in '59.)

                              Originally posted by Equilibrium View Post
                              That means that the worse its domestic situation becomes in Russia, the more its leaders will be able to mobilize the support of a seething, resentful population willing to accept the blame of foreigners for their misfortunes.
                              Yes, that's been the case with great many countries. But the average Russian has never been as prosperous as he is today probably ever in history. Domestic situation is better today than most of the times in the past, and oil prices help but Russia will continue growing even if those drop to early 2000s levels.

                              On the other hand, the decade of the 90s has been a very difficult one for the Russians yet opinion of the West was better than it is today, even though there were political leaders trying to "mobilize the support of a seething, resentful population". I think today's Russia may be a very different animal than that of Czarist empire or the Soviet Union.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Spork55 View Post
                                True, but isn't that on the resume of most countries? Every permanent member of U.N. security council has a long history of contracting and expanding esp. the Brits. not to mention Spain's or Italy's past. (except U.S. which hasn't done much contracting :) where the last territorial addition of a state was in '59.)
                                The difference is that Russia has done its expansion consistently throughout its history through conquest or imposition and its contractions have always created large displacements in the societies and nationalities involved creating tensions in those nations.


                                Originally posted by Spork55 View Post
                                On the other hand, the decade of the 90s has been a very difficult one for the Russians yet opinion of the West was better than it is today, even though there were political leaders trying to "mobilize the support of a seething, resentful population". I think today's Russia may be a very different animal than that of Czarist empire or the Soviet Union.
                                It may be yet. But when Putin/ Medvedev is able to turn a nation's economy and socio-economic prospects to the perpetuation of its administration, political survival will be linked with the national interest- a historic Russian political tendency.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X