Today Sean-Paul Kelley at the Agonist writes about the Russian hijinks in Georgia and Kaliningrad, which he argues is like a "dead cat bounce" - a slight, fitful resurgence in an otherwise long, steep decline:
But, in the long run Russia has deep, systemic problems as a nation, what with a demographic collapse ongoing. Russia loses 800,000 people a year, net. That alone, when factored out twenty or thirty years into the future is catastrophic for Russia. Second, it's armed forces need dire reform. While officers in the Russian military do not outnumber enlisted members, the number isn't too far off. The army is too top heavy and even with oil in over $100 a barrel the Russians are having a hard time just maintaining what equipment they have. There are no new weapon systems coming on line. (If I recall correctly they were delivered one new fighter in the last several years.) Russia doesn't have a carrier and more, doesn't have a shipyard capable of building one.
Then again, the author breezily mentions that Washington willingly "allowed" Georgia to start a war (without any attribution of source), and that Barack Obama should disassemble the "national security state" by letting Russia do whatever it pleases to its neighbors. Apparently the "binary" foreign policy of the Bush years, which involved inviting Putin over for lobster picnics and paling around on fishing boats, was much too tough. (Yes, that was Obama's advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who poked fun at the inept soft Russia policy of the Bush White House).
Yeah, Russia have deep systemic problems, but i do not think this is a "dead cat bounce". Birthrate is growing, in 2007 people loss is about 470 000.
Aside from the fact that you seriously misrepresent what I wrote you don't say anything as to whether you agree with the premise that Russia is in decline or not? As for attribution as to who started the fight? There was an article in the New York Times recently that was as close to a smoking gun as anyone is ever going to get. The bottom line is Saakashvili miscalculated and provoked the fight.
As for the 'binary' comment what I meant was the whole 'good versus evil' thing. It's time to move past that. International politics is amoral. Always has been and always will be.
And Roman, a birthrate of 470,000 people in a nation the size of Russia? If that's your evidence, well, it ain't much to be proud of. And I wonder how much of that is due to Putin's $2500 baby bonus program that's being ongoing for a few years now. What happens when oil is under $50 a barrel and stays there? Can Russia afford that?
Thanks for checking in, Sean.
I do agree with your argument that Russia is in decline.
I did not write about who started the war, but rather questioned your argument that Washington allowed the Georgians to start it - most of the evidence points to the contrary.
This is a pretty big difference - whether or not Georgia fired the first shot, and whether or not Condoleezza Rice told them that that would be A-OK.
I was also just pointing out that Obama's main policy adviser on Russia made a regular practice out lambasting the Bush administration for being so soft on Russia, but your point about ammoral geopolitics is certainly well taken.
I've never held the position that Washington encouraged Georgia to fight the war. I think Washington might have been willing to turn a blind eye to it as their might have been benefits to derive from it. Just so we're clear.
As for the rest, no worries. We'd probably agree on a lot more than we disagreed on. ;-)
Sorry it took so long to reply. I'm on the road and in Cambodia right now.