Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Behind the Bluster, Russia Is Collapsing

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

  • Behind the Bluster, Russia Is Collapsing

    Behind the Bluster, Russia Is Collapsing - washingtonpost.com



    DYING INSIDE
    Behind the Bluster, Russia Is Collapsing

    By Murray Feshbach
    Sunday, October 5, 2008; Page B03

    The bear is back. That's what all too many Russia-watchers have been saying since Russian troops steamrolled Georgia in August, warning that the country's strongman, Vladimir Putin, was clawing his way back toward superpower status. The new Russia's resurgence has been fueled -- quite literally -- by windfall profits from gas and oil, a big jump in defense spending and the cocky attitude on such display during the mauling of Georgia, its U.S.-backed neighbor to the south. Many now believe that the powerful Russian bear of the Cold War years is coming out of hibernation.

    Not so fast. Predictions that Russia will again become powerful, rich and influential ignore some simply devastating problems at home that block any march to power. Sure, Russia's army could take tiny Georgia. But Putin's military is still in tatters, armed with rusting weaponry and staffed with indifferent recruits. Meanwhile, a declining population is robbing the military of a new generation of soldiers. Russia's economy is almost totally dependent on the price of oil. And, worst of all, it's facing a public health crisis that verges on the catastrophic.

    To be sure, the skylines of Russia's cities are chock-a-block with cranes. Industrial lofts are now the rage in Moscow, Russian tourists crowd far-flung locales from Thailand to the Caribbean, and Russian moguls are snapping up real estate and art in London almost as quickly as their oil-rich counterparts from the Persian Gulf. But behind the shiny surface, Russian society may actually be weaker than it was even during Soviet times. The Kremlin's recent military adventures and tough talk are the bluster of the frail, not the swagger of the strong.

    While Russia has capitalized impressively on its oil industry, the volatility of the world oil market means that Putin cannot count on a long-term pipeline of cash flowing from high oil prices. A predicted drop of about one-third in the price of a barrel of oil will surely constrain Putin's ability to carry out his ambitious agendas, both foreign and domestic.

    That makes Moscow's announced plan to boost defense spending by close to 26 percent in 2009 -- in order to fully re-arm its military with state-of-the-art weaponry -- a dicey proposition. What the world saw in Georgia was a badly outdated arsenal, one that would take many years to replace -- even assuming the country could afford the $200 billion cost.

    Something even larger is blocking Russia's march. Recent decades, most notably since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, have seen an appalling deterioration in the health of the Russian population, anchoring Russia not in the forefront of developed countries but among the most backward of nations.

    This is a tragedy of huge proportions -- but not a particularly surprising one, at least to me. I followed population, health and environmental issues in the Soviet Union for decades, and more recently, I have reported on diseases such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic ravaging the Russian population. I've visited Russia more than 50 times over the years, so I can say from firsthand experience that this national calamity isn't happening suddenly. It's happening inexorably.

    According to U.N. figures, the average life expectancy for a Russian man is 59 years -- putting the country at about 166th place in the world longevity sweepstakes, one notch above Gambia. For women, the picture is somewhat rosier: They can expect to live, on average, 73 years, barely beating out the Moldovans. But there are still some 126 countries where they could expect to live longer. And the gap between expected longevity for men and for women -- 14 years -- is the largest in the developed world.

    So what's killing the Russians? All the usual suspects -- HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, alcoholism, cancer, cardiovascular and circulatory diseases, suicides, smoking, traffic accidents -- but they occur in alarmingly large numbers, and Moscow has neither the resources nor the will to stem the tide. Consider this:

    Three times as many Russians die from heart-related illnesses as do Americans or Europeans, per each 100,000 people.

    Tuberculosis deaths in Russia are about triple the World Health Organization's definition of an epidemic, which is based on a new-case rate of 50 cases per 100,000 people.

    Average alcohol consumption per capita is double the rate the WHO considers dangerous to one's health.

    About 1 million people in Russia have been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, according to WHO estimates.

    Using mid-year figures, it's estimated that 25 percent more new HIV/AIDS cases will be recorded this year than were logged in 2007.

    And none of this is likely to get better any time soon. Peter Piot, the head of UNAIDS, the U.N. agency created in response to the epidemic, told a press conference this summer that he is "very pessimistic about what is going on in Russia and Eastern Europe . . . where there is the least progress." This should be all the more worrisome because young people are most at risk in Russia. In the United States and Western Europe, 70 percent of those with HIV/AIDS are men over age 30; in Russia, 80 percent of this group are aged 15 to 29. And although injected-drug users represent about 65 percent of Russia's cases, the country has officially rejected methadone as a treatment, even though it would likely reduce the potential for HIV infections that lead to AIDS.

    And then there's tuberculosis -- remember tuberculosis? In the United States, with a population of 303 million, 650 people died of the disease in 2007. In Russia, which has a total of 142 million people, an astonishing 24,000 of them died of tuberculosis in 2007. Can it possibly be coincidental that, according to Gennady Onishchenko, the country's chief public health physician, only 9 percent of Russian TB hospitals meet current hygienic standards, 21 percent lack either hot or cold running water, 11 percent lack a sewer system, and 20 percent have a shortage of TB drugs? Hardly.

    On the other end of the lifeline, the news isn't much better. Russia's birth rate has been declining for more than a decade, and even a recent increase in births will be limited by the fact that the number of women age 20 to 29 (those responsible for two-thirds of all babies) will drop markedly in the next four or five years to mirror the 50 percent drop in the birth rate in the late 1980s and the 1990s. And, sadly, the health of Russia's newborns is quite poor, with about 70 percent of them experiencing complications at birth.

    Last summer, Piot of UNAIDS said that bringing Russia's HIV/AIDS epidemic under control was "a matter of political leadership and of changing the policy." He might just as well have been talking about the much larger public health crisis that threatens this vast country. But the policies seem unlikely to change as the bear lumbers along, driven by disastrously misplaced priorities and the blindingly unrealistic expectations of a resentment-driven political leadership. Moscow remains bent on ignoring the devastating truth: The nation is not just sick but dying.

    [email protected]

    Murray Feshbach is a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.
    Last edited by Shek; 07 Oct 08,, 04:06.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  • #2
    Interesting article Sir, I have felt for some time the Russian "old school" who tasted power in the old days sorely want those ways back, in the old USSR they could hide the true fact's for the most part about there internal problems, not anymore, even more worrying for them these problems are out of control. Not to many people have much sympathy for them either.
    sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

    Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T_igger_cs_30 View Post
      Interesting article Sir, I have felt for some time the Russian "old school" who tasted power in the old days sorely want those ways back, in the old USSR they could hide the true fact's for the most part about there internal problems, not anymore, even more worrying for them these problems are out of control. Not to many people have much sympathy for them either.
      There is a tendency here in the "West" U.S. & Europe to amalgamate two different views to be the same one.

      view 1: Ergo Russia going to its natural state and perhaps absorbing regions that never should have been seperated from it in the first place, Belarus, Eastern Ukraine, Norther Kazakhstan. After which pure economic forces in relations should guide the marginal benefits negotiations with the outside world.

      view 2:the above + former domination projections. however view 2 takes out the marginal benefit negotiations for the purpose of economic well being in order to force geopolitical power struggle. Ergo complete re-establishment of USSR with maximum amalgamation of powers underneath a Russian umbrella.

      (noone bar very few insane people holds view 2, most people do hold view 1 as a rational point. while in the west it is considered the same thing. The actual pressure from the outside today is helping view 1 to come to fruition.)
      Originally from Sochi, Russia.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by cyppok View Post
        There is a tendency here in the "West" U.S. & Europe to amalgamate two different views to be the same one.

        view 1: Ergo Russia going to its natural state and perhaps absorbing regions that never should have been seperated from it in the first place, Belarus, Eastern Ukraine, Norther Kazakhstan. After which pure economic forces in relations should guide the marginal benefits negotiations with the outside world.

        view 2:the above + former domination projections. however view 2 takes out the marginal benefit negotiations for the purpose of economic well being in order to force geopolitical power struggle. Ergo complete re-establishment of USSR with maximum amalgamation of powers underneath a Russian umbrella.

        (noone bar very few insane people holds view 2, most people do hold view 1 as a rational point. while in the west it is considered the same thing. The actual pressure from the outside today is helping view 1 to come to fruition.)
        One of those very few insane people is Vladimir Putin, he is on record as saying the break up of the USSR was a disaster. He has bullied former Soviet states in what can only be seen as imperial posturing etc.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          One of those very few insane people is Vladimir Putin, he is on record as saying the break up of the USSR was a disaster. He has bullied former Soviet states in what can only be seen as imperial posturing etc.
          A leopard never changes its spots.
          sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

          Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

          Comment


          • #6
            russia: the not-so-interested reluctant empire

            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            One of those very few insane people is Vladimir Putin, he is on record as saying the break up of the USSR was a disaster. He has bullied former Soviet states in what can only be seen as imperial posturing etc.
            USSR break up was a disaster for the millions of people living within those borders. Imagine your VA/pension etc. benefits magically disappear.

            Former Soviet Republics are a dead weight (for the most part) that Moscow had to maintain. It's about the dumbest move to get those back again within the the "sphere of influence" and throw 'good' money at them. The era of Communist expansionism to bring the glorious equality to peoples of the world is long long over.

            On the mild side think of the pains of West Germany had to go through integrating East Germany. On the more extreme South Korea taking in the North (if this ever happens). Russians are far better off investing into less developed regions within their borders. Kazakhstan can wait :)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Spork55 View Post
              USSR break up was a disaster for the millions of people living within those borders. Imagine your VA/pension etc. benefits magically disappear.

              Former Soviet Republics are a dead weight (for the most part) that Moscow had to maintain. It's about the dumbest move to get those back again within the the "sphere of influence" and throw 'good' money at them. The era of Communist expansionism to bring the glorious equality to peoples of the world is long long over.

              On the mild side think of the pains of West Germany had to go through integrating East Germany. On the more extreme South Korea taking in the North (if this ever happens). Russians are far better off investing into less developed regions within their borders. Kazakhstan can wait :)
              But are they investing in their less developed regions? People living in Pskov area at least say it´s not. Has the Russia invested something into Moscow-St.Petersburg highway? The heating systems in cities?
              If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

              Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T_igger_cs_30 View Post
                Interesting article Sir, I have felt for some time the Russian "old school" who tasted power in the old days sorely want those ways back, in the old USSR they could hide the true fact's for the most part about there internal problems, not anymore, even more worrying for them these problems are out of control. Not to many people have much sympathy for them either.
                Sgt. Major,

                If you look at the career timeline of the ruling "security clique" you will find that they were not so much true "old school", but rather the "last class" of a dying school. Most of these men never really tasted the old power or the old perils, they just tasted the bitterness of the old power going down and humiliation of new perils manifesting themselves. Maybe if they were as cognizant of the old perils, they wouldn't be so eager for the trappings of the old power? Anyway this ain't the same old leopard, it looks like a whole new evolution of a dangerous cat.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Cactus

                  Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                  Sgt. Major,

                  If you look at the career timeline of the ruling "security clique" you will find that they were not so much true "old school", but rather the "last class" of a dying school. Most of these men never really tasted the old power or the old perils, they just tasted the bitterness of the old power going down and humiliation of new perils manifesting themselves. Maybe if they were as cognizant of the old perils, they wouldn't be so eager for the trappings of the old power? Anyway this ain't the same old leopard, it looks like a whole new evolution of a dangerous cat.
                  Fairpoints Cactus, my comment was more relating to Putin himself and his KGB upbringing.
                  sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                  Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cyppok View Post
                    (noone bar very few insane people holds view 2, most people do hold view 1 as a rational point. while in the west it is considered the same thing. The actual pressure from the outside today is helping view 1 to come to fruition.)
                    View 1 may be completely rational from a Russian perspective on basis of demographics, but have the Russians considered how irrational Russia's position would become on certain "autonomous republics" in its southern underbelly if the rationale of demographics is applied from the outside? Russia should take some time off to digest what it has eaten and what the outside world has more-or-less accepted. Outside world is rather puritan these days about what appears as territorial gluttony.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                      View 1 may be completely rational from a Russian perspective on basis of demographics, but have the Russians considered how irrational Russia's position would become on certain "autonomous republics" in its southern underbelly if the rationale of demographics is applied from the outside? Russia should take some time off to digest what it has eaten and what the outside world has more-or-less accepted. Outside world is rather puritan these days about what appears as territorial gluttony.
                      You are forgetting certain things historically. This is not a demographic perspective but more a historical one. Norther Kazakhstan in part was part of Ural governorate before the revolution and perhaps some time after. Eastern Ukraine was a seperate entity before the Revolution Malorossia which was mostly settled in the last 300 years since before that most of it was under Ottomans/Lithuania/Poland and was sparsely populated because of the Tartar raids etc. Belorussia is just a name of the region convoluted into a nation, same with Ukraine but categorically speaking the latter has certain parts that were somewhat reluctant to be part of anyone other then themselves ergo Halych-Volhin region.

                      [but yes you are right the world is puritanic towards countries whom expand territorially these days. I could also say that those parts I mentioned would most likely vote to join Russia in a fair referendum even if it seems to you demographically they are not as similar]
                      Last edited by cyppok; 05 Oct 08,, 16:57.
                      Originally from Sochi, Russia.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                        View 1 may be completely rational from a Russian perspective on basis of demographics, but have the Russians considered how irrational Russia's position would become on certain "autonomous republics" in its southern underbelly if the rationale of demographics is applied from the outside? Russia should take some time off to digest what it has eaten and what the outside world has more-or-less accepted. Outside world is rather puritan these days about what appears as territorial gluttony.
                        You are forgeting certain things historically. This is not a demographic perspective but more a historical one. Norther Kazakhstan in part was part of Ural governorate before the revolution and perhaps some time after. Eastern Ukraine was a seperate entity before the Revolution Malorossia which was mostly settled in the last 300 years since before that most of it was under Ottomans/Lithuania/Poland and was sparsely populated because of the Tartar raids etc. Belorussia is just a name of the region convoluded into a nation, same with Ukraine but categorically speaking the latter has certain parts that were somewhat reluctant to be part of anyone other then themselves ergo Halych-Volhin region.

                        Russians in Kazakhstan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                        In 1925 despite local objections predominantly ethnic Russian North Kazakhstan Province as well as parts of Akmola Province, Aktobe Province, West Kazakhstan Province, Pavlodar Province, Kostanay Province and East Kazakhstan Province formerly considered southern Ural and Siberian oblasts of RSFSR were transferred to Kazakh SSR. Local Russians who opposed the land transfers were criticized by the Bolshevik leaders in Moscow as “chauvinists”.
                        Originally from Sochi, Russia.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cyppok View Post
                          You are forgetting certain things historically. This is not a demographic perspective but more a historical one. Norther Kazakhstan in part was part of Ural governorate before the revolution and perhaps some time after. Eastern Ukraine was a seperate entity before the Revolution Malorossia which was mostly settled in the last 300 years since before that most of it was under Ottomans/Lithuania/Poland and was sparsely populated because of the Tartar raids etc. Belorussia is just a name of the region convoluted into a nation, same with Ukraine but categorically speaking the latter has certain parts that were somewhat reluctant to be part of anyone other then themselves ergo Halych-Volhin region.

                          [but yes you are right the world is puritanic towards countries whom expand territorially these days. I could also say that those parts I mentioned would most likely vote to join Russia in a fair referendum even if it seems to you demographically they are not as similar]
                          It is hard to forget what one doesn't know in the first place ;) Historically most part of Russia was at one point of time Mongol lands, but that does not matter these days - does it? It is what one's military power can hold and economic power can sustain that is truly one's own. But I was being charitable and civilized when I alluded to demographics. Sure the demographics of the regions you mentioned may be favorable to joining Russia. But there are also separatist populations within Russia that Russia has to worry about. And due to the virulent nature of some of those populations, the outside world has to worry about it also - so we have accepted that Russians should take care of them as Russia claims them as its own. Do that completely and thoroughly before embarking on new projects.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                            It is hard to forget what one doesn't know in the first place ;) Historically most part of Russia was at one point of time Mongol lands, but that does not matter these days - does it? It is what one's military power can hold and economic power can sustain that is truly one's own. But I was being charitable and civilized when I alluded to demographics. Sure the demographics of the regions you mentioned may be favorable to joining Russia. But there are also separatist populations within Russia that Russia has to worry about. And due to the virulent nature of some of those populations, the outside world has to worry about it also - so we have accepted that Russians should take care of them as Russia claims them as its own. Do that completely and thoroughly before embarking on new projects.
                            Technically under Mongol administration you are also stretching it a bit 1925 is not that long from today and 1991 is even closer...

                            This wouldn't be a new project and I doubt it would happen soon. But what I am going to say is the more puritanical the west acts in this accordance the more pressure it brings to bear on those areas and Russia for it to occur faster. I know its paradoxical but true. The great leaders of those states start to wonder about loyalties and then nationalistic feelings rise up giving a push to a catalyst of what was talked about happening albeit on a small scale but still. I am being as civil as you but just pointing out the other Point of View. You also have to remember that whatever demographics are apparent still present a lagging indicator and change both ways positive and negative.

                            The point about historical separation as I pointed out earlier is that it was completely artificial. Imagine some committee decides over which area goes where based on their own ideas even though it took centuries for people to amalgamate and establish. If Russia didn't want the borders of today they would have been different but it does because the leadership wanted less people, ergo more control over resources and lower burden on them for performance. But the double edged sword came with the necessity of sustainability and now they are thinking that something has to change.
                            Last edited by cyppok; 05 Oct 08,, 22:02.
                            Originally from Sochi, Russia.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X