India-Russia: News & Analysis

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 Sep 2009 02:54

Putin and Medvedev - the Eastern answer to Remus and Romulus

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 831459.ece

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 12 Sep 2009 10:08

Vladimir Putin hints that he could return to lead Russia until 2024
September 12, 2009

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Sep 2009 13:14

Russian Search Engine

www.yandex.com
Russian language focused search engine

http://company.yandex.com/general_info/ ... t_team.xml

Yandex today
Yandex is Russia’s largest internet company, whose websites attract a workday audience of more than 11 million users (as of the start of 2009) from Russia, Ukraine and other countries.
1. What Yandex Does
Give answers
Our major goal is to give answers to users’ questions.
Questions can be explicit or implicit. Explicit questions are typed right in Yandex’s search box and return answers to users in the form of search results. To answer implicit questions like “what is the weather like today”, “is there anything important going on now”, “can I drive downtown without traffic jams” Yandex offers its users specialized information services.
World-class technology
Russia is one of the few countries with homegrown world-class internet technologies. Besides Russia, local search engines lead in the US, China, South Korea and the Czech Republic.
Among the technologies developed by Yandex, many are pioneers in their niches. Yandex was the first to use Russian language morphology in information search (even before the internet came to Russia) and the first to launch parallel search (simultaneous search in multiple sets of information). Since 2002, clients of the Yandex.Mail service have been protected by Spamooborona – the first Russian internet anti-spam technology implemented in a mass online service, attracting a million-strong audience. The Yandex.News service uses a proprietary fact extraction technology to perform citation search and to form “press-portraits”. Yandex was also the first to introduce a system of text-based advertising in Russia.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 12 Sep 2009 14:25

RussiaToday (Youtube links) 2 -3 days old.

Rage and Inquisition surrounds 8th Anniversary of September 11th Attacks

"Stop the 9-11 cover-up"

"Part of US government and Congress lied about 9/11"

Kevin Barrett 9/11 - 'Van Jones should've done what I did!'

Billions were spent investigating Lewinsky, but not 9/11

=========
About Russia Today

What is Russia going to benefit from this kind of news ?

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 17 Sep 2009 09:10

A great editorial on Russia and Russians by Richard Pipes (Frank B. Baird Jr.) professor of history, emeritus, at Harvard University. In 1981 and 1982 he served as Director of East European and Soviet Affairs in President Reagan's National Security Council.

Pride and Power
Russia is caught between continents and haunted by its past. Richard Pipes on the need to convince a nation to dial back its aggressive tendencies and join the West..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 18994.html

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 17 Sep 2009 14:16

Apologies if this is a repost. BO seems to be following through on building better relations with Russia, & I think this is good for India.

AP sources: US to reveal Euro missile defense plan

By ANNE GEARAN and DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writers Anne Gearan And Desmond Butler, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is expected to announce Thursday that it will shelve many of the components of a European missile defense plan that has been a major irritant in relations with Russia.

Obama's top military adviser, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the administration was "very close" to the end of a seven-month review of a missile defense shield proposal, an idea that was promoted by the George W. Bush administration. Mullen would not divulge its results.

President Barack Obama faces the dilemma of either setting back the gradual progress toward repairing relations with Russia or disappointing two key NATO allies, the Czech Republic and Poland, that agreed to host components of the planned system.

Obama spoke to Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer on Wednesday, but Czech government spokesman Roman Prorok declined to provide details of the conversation.

Prorok said Ellen Tauscher, a U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, was briefing Czech officials in Prague and Polish officials in Warsaw on Thursday about Obama's decision.

"It is most probable that the U.S. administration will unfortunately scrap the plan altogether," said Jaroslaw Gowin, lawmaker for Poland's ruling Civic Platform party. "This would confirm that Central Europe is not in the center of Obama administration's interest. But maybe the U.S. will offer us an alternative."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates scheduled a news conference Thursday with a top military leader, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who has been a point man on the technical challenge of arraying missiles and interceptors to defend against long-range missiles that an aggressor such as Iran might lob at the U.S. or its allies. Two military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, said the news conference would concern the missile defense plans.

Obama took office undecided about whether to continue to press for the European system and said he would study it. His administration never sounded enthusiastic about the plan, and European allies have been preparing for an announcement that the White House would not complete the shield as designed.

The decision comes as the Obama administration has been seeking closer ties with Moscow and as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is preparing to visit the United States next week for the U.N. General Assembly and the Group of 20 nations economic summit.

The plan for a European shield was a darling of the Bush administration, which reached deals to install 10 interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic — eastern European nations at Russia's doorstep and once under Soviet sway.

Moscow has argued that the system would undermine the nuclear deterrent of its vast arsenal.

Medvedev has praised Obama for reviewing the plans, though the U.S. administration has maintained the Bush administration's argument that the European missile defense plans are aimed at countering a threat from Iran and pose no threat to Russia.

The administration has given few clues on how it intends to handle European missile defense. Officials have said the review would consider alternative plans to those involving Poland and the Czech Republic.

At an Army missile defense conference last month, Cartwright, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested that the U.S. may have underestimated how long it would take Iran to develop long-range missiles. That was seen as a clue that the administration might be backing away from the European plan as devised.

Military officials at the conference discussed possible alternatives for European missile defense, including using shorter-range interceptors from other locations closer to Iran.

Cartwright also has discussed ways the United States might join forces with other nations to watch and protect against Iranian missiles. Using multiple sensors, including some in the Persian Gulf region, theoretically could provide at least a partial shield for Eastern Europe without basing a full radar and interceptor system so close to Russia.

It was unclear Wednesday whether the administration would preserve any of the planned physical emplacements for the European system.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 17 Sep 2009 14:19

BO seems to be following through on building better relations with Russia

they cannot afford it due to the domestic economic mess.

its got nothing to do with promoting good relations although it will be spun as such.

The main losers would be the eastern european countries like Poland who were banking on $$$ and good will from the US for hosting their missile shield against Russia. Now they find out they have ruined their relationship with russia chasing after pie in the sky. There is no $$$ coming their way.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Sep 2009 15:43

Hostility between Uncle and Russia is in our interests actually.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 17 Sep 2009 18:02

Sanku wrote:Hostility between Uncle and Russia is in our interests actually.

IMHO, Not sure I agree, it will only push Russia into China's arms. Which is what has been happening for the last few years now. While Russia's relationship with China has cooled a bit, they still coordinate on Strategic Issues. Maybe I'm missing something - can you please explain how hostility between Unkil & Russia help us?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Sep 2009 23:46

arunsrinivasan wrote:
Sanku wrote:Hostility between Uncle and Russia is in our interests actually.
IMHO, Not sure I agree, it will only push Russia into China's arms. Which is what has been happening for the last few years now. While Russia's relationship with China has cooled a bit, they still coordinate on Strategic Issues. Maybe I'm missing something - can you please explain how hostility between Unkil & Russia help us?

Sure, I should have in the first place. Any Russia-US hostility forces Russia to look for even stronger partnerships outside, true, but you assume that it would be China.

I on the other hand think that Russia is moving away from China not because it has found new friends in Uncle, but it has the exactly same issues with China and India has. Russia's natural geo-strategic partner is India and not China.

With Uncle our so called interests match only in the soft power sphere or trade at most. Geo-politically we are not really aligned OTOH Russia and India have a nearly perfect alignment and NOT A SINGLE KNOWN difference.

What can be a better partner?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 18 Sep 2009 01:22

Neshant wrote:
BO seems to be following through on building better relations with Russia
they cannot afford it due to the domestic economic mess.

its got nothing to do with promoting good relations although it will be spun as such.

Its more accurate to say that good relations are all the more important in bad economic times.

Nothing comes for free. This move took place because Medvedev has publicly said it prepared to make some very significant changes in its Iran policy in exchange for this, and the Obama administration is keen to strengthen his influence over Putin's.

Russia very badly needs improved relations with the US & EU - although oil prices are recovering, that is not enough. Cheap credit was just as important to Russian growth as many other Western states, fuelling enormous commercial growth. In particular Russia needs tens of billions in FDI to keep oil production volumes from declining as older fields run dry, and most of all it needs FDI in order to meet Medvedev's plans for diversifying the economy away from natural resource exports and the volatility they bring.

Last week Medvedev openly contradicted his own foreign minister Lavrov and said that Russia would be willing to consider additional sanctions on Iran. That leaves China on the UNSC, but China is rarely willing act alone, and certainly not on behalf of Iran.

In addition the US wants Russia to step back from sales of missiles to Iran (such as the S-300 SAM/ABM system), as well as sales of services and goods by Russian engineers and firms to Iranian missile development programmes.

This is a win-win deal for the US and Russia, because they both get something they wanted. The important thing is that it is shifting the focus from Europe to Iran, which was the primary concern.

Given the massive downsizing of Russian conventional forces going on right now, and its more gradual nuclear downsizing, EU and CAR efforts to bypass Russia on energy supplies, it seems unlikely that either the more aggressive Kremlin types or the more fearful Eastern European types will think for long that this deal means Russia is being handed back any kind of exclusive sphere of influence.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Sep 2009 01:30

arunsrinivasan wrote:
Sanku wrote:Hostility between Uncle and Russia is in our interests actually.
IMHO, Not sure I agree, it will only push Russia into China's arms. Which is what has been happening for the last few years now. While Russia's relationship with China has cooled a bit, they still coordinate on Strategic Issues. Maybe I'm missing something - can you please explain how hostility between Unkil & Russia help us?

He is correct. China will be preoccupied when the big boys are jostling for influence

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 18 Sep 2009 11:09

@ Sanku, am not an expert on Russia, or their thinking, so take this FWIW. Economically Russia is weak compared to US, China, & even Western Europe. If there is conflict with the West, China's economic might will give it a lot of leverage in Russia, as is already happening in many case, Oil deals, military exports, tourism, cheap goods, & even getting russian scientists & engineers to work (last bit is anecdotal). India cant even compete from the economic angle. Further, China, as a P-5 in the UN, is the natural partner to Russia in jostling with the West - you can see this in their coordination over Iran, NoKo etc, that gives China leverage over Russia.

While India is the best partner for Russia, we dont have the economic or strategic weight, & worse do not have the "balls" to play realpolitik the way China can. So Russia, will always be friendly with us, but when it comes to realpolitik, they will find it better to turn to China, unless China, screws up its relations with Russia.

Better Russia - west relations is also imp. from the angle of tackling Afghanistan & Islamic terrorism, & reducing TSP's leverage with Unkil.

The downside however is that it would improve West's leveage with Russia, & it could affect us in future e.g. the Cryogenic deal etc. However on balance I think it is still better for India.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Sep 2009 15:18

arunsrinivasan wrote:Economically Russia is weak compared to US, China, & even Western Europe. If there is conflict with the West, China's economic might will give it a lot of leverage in Russia, as is already happening in many case, Oil deals, military exports, tourism, cheap goods, & even getting russian scientists & engineers to work (last bit is anecdotal).

Arun neither am I an expert, remotely so, but you have
1) Not considered any of the very gaping issues between Russia and China
2) All you mention can happen to Russia w.r.t. China with or without any closeness with west, so why is that not happening?

Remember, China is still not is condition to economically help Russia, it can be a consumer of Oil but what else? Mil exports are falling and will fall further, Tourism is not really a big deal, cheap goods is actually a anti russia thing (does India welcome Chinese cheap goods or only accept it?) and I am sure using their engineers is not what the Russian states want the Chinese to do.

No of the conditions you list, only the sale of Oil to China would be of Russian interest, Russia is certainly not happy losing its engineers and being the latest dumping ground of Chinese junk.

That plus history of confrontation at the border, of influence at CAR etc etc...

As trade blocs go, BRIC has equal India and China role, and as P5 they have been in conflict rather than in agreement over there usually.

Better Russia - west relations is also imp. from the angle of tackling Afghanistan & Islamic terrorism, & reducing TSP's leverage with Unkil.

Only very little, the GOAT is a sham, and the entire war on terror has done F*** All for us in terms of its usefulness (barring removal of Taliban from Afg power) The buggers fan Islamlism by one hand and fight it with other thus maintaining an useful equilibrium. No Russia as very little role to play in GOAT.

As a matter of fact given that Chinese are the closest bosom buddy of the west, a Russia-West-China entity is more likely to emerge if Russia gets closer to West, the Chinese getting in on Unkil's coat tails.

The best situation is a conflict between the two, the Chinese will be forced to pick a side, and that wont be pretty (since we know which side they will have to take)

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 18 Sep 2009 17:53

Sanku wrote:
Arun neither am I an expert, remotely so, but you have
1) Not considered any of the very gaping issues between Russia and China
2) All you mention can happen to Russia w.r.t. China with or without any closeness with west, so why is that not happening?

Remember, China is still not is condition to economically help Russia, it can be a consumer of Oil but what else? Mil exports are falling and will fall further, Tourism is not really a big deal, cheap goods is actually a anti russia thing (does India welcome Chinese cheap goods or only accept it?) and I am sure using their engineers is not what the Russian states want the Chinese to do.

No of the conditions you list, only the sale of Oil to China would be of Russian interest, Russia is certainly not happy losing its engineers and being the latest dumping ground of Chinese junk.

That plus history of confrontation at the border, of influence at CAR etc etc...

As trade blocs go, BRIC has equal India and China role, and as P5 they have been in conflict rather than in agreement over there usually.

Better Russia - west relations is also imp. from the angle of tackling Afghanistan & Islamic terrorism, & reducing TSP's leverage with Unkil.
Only very little, the GOAT is a sham, and the entire war on terror has done F*** All for us in terms of its usefulness (barring removal of Taliban from Afg power) The buggers fan Islamlism by one hand and fight it with other thus maintaining an useful equilibrium. No Russia as very little role to play in GOAT.

As a matter of fact given that Chinese are the closest bosom buddy of the west, a Russia-West-China entity is more likely to emerge if Russia gets closer to West, the Chinese getting in on Unkil's coat tails.

The best situation is a conflict between the two, the Chinese will be forced to pick a side, and that wont be pretty (since we know which side they will have to take)

FWIW, I still dont buy your arguments, let me try & explain my thinking a little better (dont think I did a good job the first time). While I think it is better for us if Russia develops better relationship with USA, I also recognise that my understanding could be wrong. So here goes.

Economic Relationship: I think you are underestimating China' economic power. Their economic power comes across in many ways, first as Buyer of energy(oil & gas), raw material, finished goods, high-tech equipment. Second, as an Investor in business in other countries. Third, as a Lender, especially on very favourable-terms when a country / company is facing economic troubles, & lastly as a Seller of cheap goods (this is the least valuable). On each of these dimensions, few countries come close, leave alone India, even US will find it difficult to compete with China on some of these dimensions, especially as the Chinese Govt controls most levers of economic power unlike USA. So to even believe we (India) or together with Brazil we can even take the fight to China is unrealistic. As a buyer, investor or lender China holds tremendous power, see the fears in US, about Chinese investments in US Treasuries, we have Geithner running to China, to explain US policies etc. To underestimate China's economic might & the leverage it would buy with Russia is a huge mistake. If anything it already has huge leverage with Russia.

Just as an example of how Chinese economic power buys leverage see what is happening in Vietnam where the govt. is arresting its citizens, who question China see my post a week or so back Vietnam to Its Journalists: Don't Tread on China. This is in spite of history between Vietnam-China. Am not trying to say Russia & Vietnam are equal, but just trying to highlight what economic power can buy. Just today, I read the news that Australia & Japan voted against India in ADB. Some more examples, the average Western leader shits in their pants about meeting the Dalai Lama, US is waffling on F-16s to Taiwan the list goes on & on.

China - West Relations: The relationship between West - China is driven by economics, on every other dimension, from a strategic perspective there is suspicion and fear of China & its long term intentions. Thanks to the economic crisis, even on the economic dimension there is tension. The Western fear of China comes from both the left (I mean liberals / socialists) & the right for differing reasons - left because, chinese exports are leading to job-losses, lack of human rights, closed society, support for dictatorships, etc. The right because - unhappy with "undervalued yuan", they are afraid of Chinese economic & military power, their industrial espionage, they see the balance of power slowly shifting towards China after close 500 years of Western dominance & they dont like it.

This fear of China, means that the West (esp. Unkil) wants to a counter-weight & hence their new found love for India. They see shared values with India e.g. open society, democracy, capitalism etc. & more importantly they are not threatened by India. Am not saying we should get into bed with the West, but we would be stupid to not take advantage of their fear of China. Dont forget that West doesnt sell Military Tech to China, but Russia does, even though that has dropped off late. Only France (a special fav of many in BR) has been trying to remove the export ban. So I dont see how China is a darling of the West.

Russia - China relationship: I know the history of conflict between them. To an extent that history & the fear of China, (similar to the west) has lead to some cooling off in the Russia - China relationship recently. Still China, holds tremendous power thanks to its economic power, & if Russia is in conflict with the west, they will invariably have to turn towards China for help. As India while a friend, does not have the same power as China (Security Council Veto power), nor will India take on the West for Russia. Just

In 1962, Russia refused to support India & it was Unkil who came to our support. In the 90's China was running riot in Russia, & you can also see their close coordination in the UNSC on NoKo, Iran etc. Russia came close to approving re-export of its mil-tech from China to TSP, recently, only strong pressure from India led to it being stopped. Not sure how much mil-tech was exported below the radar. Rumours on Gorshkov is that China, ensured that the original plans were lost to delay its refit.

If anything as long as China is ruled by Communists it will slowly become China (except for close buddies like TSP) vs rest of the world.

What is GOAT? Not sure I fully understand your arguments on the Islamic terror side.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 23 Sep 2009 09:33

The great Game Folio - C Rajamohan

In scrapping the plans to deploy missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic last week, US President Barack Obama may have brought down American political stock in Eastern Europe, where the post-Soviet regimes have relied on Washington for their security. The US losses in Eastern Europe might be worth it, if Obama’s attempt to’re-set’ relations with Russia produces gains elsewhere, in regions that matter more to him at this juncture.

India will surely be interested in finding out if the new US-Russian rapprochement will lead to their cooperation in the Great Game territory — Iran, Central Asia and the Af-Pak region.

After September 11, 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin had strongly supported the US war on terror in Afghanistan and American military presence in Central Asia. As Washington continued to treat Moscow with condescension, expanded the Western military alliance, NATO, into Eastern Europe, and promoted colour revolutions to undermine Russian influence in the former Soviet republics, a disappointed Putin distanced himself from Washington and drew closer to Beijing.

The renewed chill between Washington and Moscow has tended to complicate India’s diplomacy in many areas. If the US and Russia construct a measure of bilateral understanding on regions of interest to us, Delhi’s own room for manouevre will significantly improve.

Above all, an American strategy to stabilise the Af-Pak region has a better chance of succeeding with Russian support than without it. US-Russian strategic coordination on Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia does not automatically follow from the latest moves on missile defence. It might certainly need Western recognition of a Russian sphere of influence in Eurasia. The enduring Western tradition of Russo-phobia is a major political obstacle.

As Russia and the West probe each other for a new strategic bargain, India should be doing what little it can to encourage Washington and Moscow to coordinate their moves in Afghanistan. After all India has a shared interest with the US, Russia and Europe in preventing the return of the Taliban.

Party or army?

Winning Russian support in Afghanistan might be a lot easier for Obama than persuading his own Democratic party, which is in control of both houses of the Congress, to back the war in Afghanistan.

Obama is torn between the rapidly declining support for the Afghan war within the liberal wing of his party which wants a clear exit strategy, and the mounting pressure from US military commanders for an early decision on deploying additional troops into Afghanistan.

In a series of TV appearances on Sunday morning, Obama said he was not going to take an immediate decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan. He also insisted that unless there was a clear strategy for Afghanistan, he was not going to address the question of how many troops must be committed to the war.

As he seemed to tilt towards the liberal wing of the Democratic party, the Republican opposition accused him of walking away from his campaign pledge to confront, head-on, violent extremism in the Af-Pak region. The Republicans also accused the president of undermining the military commanders on the ground — General David Petraeus, the chief of Centcom and General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. As the White House put out the word that the president is rethinking the entire approach to Afghanistan, The Washington Post leaked a report from General McChrystal that was submitted three weeks ago. In his gloomy assessment, General McChrystal argued that if there is no deployment of additional troops now, the whole Afghan mission might end in failure. Trapped between the party and the army, Obama now has no place to hide.

Training mission

Liberal opponents of the war in Washington say they are not for the abandonment of Afghanistan. Instead of sending more American troops into the war, the Democrats want a major new investment of resources into standing up a credible Afghan national army. India does currently train a modest number of Afghan military and police officers. An Indian offer to significantly expand its Afghan training mission might find considerable resonance in the Obama administration.

The writer is Henry A. Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress, Washington DC

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 13:18

arunsrinivasan wrote: FWIW, I still dont buy your arguments,

Then you have to take my points and explain why they are wrong, as long as they stay you can not make that assertion.

Economic Relationship: I think you are underestimating China' economic power.
So to even believe we (India) or together with Brazil we can even take the fight to China is unrealistic.

You have to justify such statements, I am not underestimating anything, but you may be overestimating China. To show that Russia and China have economic linkages which are very important for Russia, you have to show data that supports the claim. Making that assertion is not good enough.

Meanwhile I see no such data, most of China's trade is with US and bypasses Russia, that is oft seen data so I wont bother posting it here.

Just as an example of how Chinese economic power buys leverage see what is happening in Vietnam

Uh fine.. China is a big bully, that part is obvious and known, I just dont see how that influence is already spread over Russia -- and you are saying that it will spread to Russia more if Russia and west are loggerhead.

No reason to believe that, lot of reasons to believe otherwise.

if Russia is in conflict with the west, they will invariably have to turn towards China for help. As India while a friend, does not have the same power as China (Security Council Veto power), nor will India take on the West for Russia.

Again no reason to believe that assertion, Russia being at geo-strategic loggerheads with the west does not come in the way of it having better trade relations if it helps the west, Russia has been in worst shape before however it cosied up to China only in the Yelstin era when it was cosying up to the West too.

As soon as the Nationalist Putin came to power he immediately corrected the slide. Now Russia plays by its correct size.

The more anatagonistic the west is to Russia the more will Russia look to a partner for Geo-strat which is not a threat, Russia going with China is like bullet through the brain to cure headache, and by the look of it the nationalists understand that part.

What is GOAT? Not sure I fully understand your arguments on the Islamic terror side.

Global alliance against terror.

What I am saying is that post Chinese break out of the Soviet bloc, Soviets have realized the threat that the Chinese are and have never been close expect in the Yelstin dark days of the Russian federation.

This is born out by solid geo-pol issues between the two, just like between India-China. So trade not withstanding (dont we trade with China) Russia will not go close to China if it needs more partners, India will the partner. Also China will have to chose a side.

The Russians are still to big to need China for anything other than trade and that situation will be so for many years to come.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 23 Sep 2009 16:36

@ Sanku, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. FWIW Rajamohan's hypothesis seems similar to mine

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 16:51

arunsrinivasan wrote:@ Sanku, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. FWIW Rajamohan's hypothesis seems similar to mine

Not surprising, I have hardly ever managed to agree with Rajamohan's analysis. I lost a lot of respect for him when he showed his cards as pro-US person during the 123 debate.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Oct 2009 08:12

Investing in India-Russia Relationship

The two countries are hoping eventually to raise trade volumes from the existing $2.5 billion to $10 billion. To place this in proper perspective, one has only to consider trade volumes between Russia and the European Union, which tripled between 2000 and 2007 to $63 billion and even between Russia and Turkey, which rose from $11 billion in 2004 to $38 billion in 2009.

As the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, and second largest of oil, Russia has enough and more to satiate India’s energy security needs. India has spent valuable time revisiting done deals with the U.S. (not signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, civil nuclear deal, etc.). It can surely spare some time to rebuild relations with an old friend.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 01 Oct 2009 10:12

Sanku wrote:
arunsrinivasan wrote:@ Sanku, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. FWIW Rajamohan's hypothesis seems similar to mine
Not surprising, I have hardly ever managed to agree with Rajamohan's analysis. I lost a lot of respect for him when he showed his cards as pro-US person during the 123 debate.

Rajamohan is Henry A. Kissinger's Chair at the Library of Congress, Washington D.C.

I guess he must get a good whiff of hair-tonic and old-man-smell every time Henry comes into the library and sits on him.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 02 Oct 2009 10:36

prad wrote: during the Cold War non-Soviet Europe had everything to loose against Russian aggression, so they naturally formed a coalition with US. but now, not everybody has everything to loose and there are newer players whose eagerness to avoid Russian influence in their countries is greater than the old and perhaps spent Atlantic powers.

This premise was the basis of the Cheney-Perle neocons' "New Europe" formulation. The assistance of former Warsaw Pact nations was sought in support of every neocon adventure from Afghanistan to Iraq (where countries like France, characterized as "Old Europe", refused to join in).

The Poles especially, and other actors like the Czechs and Hungarians to some extent, almost tripped themselves up in their enthusiasm to cement and expand relations with Washington... by offering whatever the neocons wanted.

But what did they actually they get in return?

At first, it seemed that the US was willing to support its political proxies in "New Europe", at least in terms of electoral contests. Their backing of Yuschenko and setting up of the made-for-TV "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, certainly led to much celebration in the "New Europe" republics at the successful staring-down of Putin.

But when it came to putting up more than political campaigning and media spin, the US was full of bluster but proved strangely lacking in the vigour required for follow through.

For example, during the Russia-Georgia war last year, a major contributor to the Neocon Coalition of the Willing found himself left high and dry.

And now, in a move that even the exultantly optimistic Poles have seen as a grave betrayal of trust, Obama has pulled the plug on the missile defense shield.

I don't think the message has been lost on the Poles, Hungarians, Czechs or other former Soviet satellites whom the neo-cons wanted to co-opt into their containment of Russia. The US is backing off, especially after Afghanistan and Iraq have called its hyperpower omnipotence into question, and especially while its economy continues to take a savage beating.

These nations will now have to look at other options than joining the Neocon vanguard. One possibility will be to find some sort of rapprochement or accommodation with the Russians. That would be welcomed by the Russians' European partners like Germany, who might entice such cooperation by offering quid-pro-quo support in the EU for instance. However, as you say, it will be a very bitter pill for Warsaw, Prague et. al. to swallow.

Another possibility is that these nations will develop increasing proximity to China, and serve as China's gateway into the EU (perhaps even EU defense and arms markets) just as Pakistan once served as the US' gateway to Beijing itself.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 02 Oct 2009 23:32

prad wrote: Poles becoming Chinese puppets at the EU??? that is far-fetched. China has nothing to gain by increasing animosity with the Russians. a direct Polish-Chinese nexus is impossible and the Russians will become even more aggressive if they hear of such moves.
.

Not sure if you're aware, but there's nothing far-fetched about China extending its influence in Eastern Europe even in the face of Moscow's opposition. It's been happening for decades. Albania was a satellite of China, rather than the USSR, since the late 1950s.http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-169.html The NATO bombing of PRC's Belgrade Embassy was no accident either... unless one accepts the US line.

A primary foreign policy objective for East European nations is to resist hard-power subjugation by a resurgent Russian sphere of influence.

Russia's worst-case scenario is that the Anglo-American axis will co-opt these nations... as seemed very likely to happen with the NATO expansion, the missile defense shield, etc. That is because any relationship between the East European nations and America is chiefly centered around common hostility towards (and containment of) Russia.

Absent this, Moscow knows it is not going to be able to dominate these nations itself, by incentive or by coercion. Russia realizes it has almost no chance of achieving direct influence in Warsaw, Prague or Budapest in the near-to-medium term... in addition to the bitter history, Russia simply does not have much to offer these nations. They have alternate sources of energy available to them, and the Russian market is unimpressive compared with the EU to the west.

So Russia, which cannot fill the vacuum itself, may in fact prefer that it be filled by China rather than the Americans.

China is not shy of pushing its influence even into territories within the Russian Republic proper... what makes you think China will demur at expanding its influence in Eastern Europe for fear of "Russian aggression"?

For its part, Russia might actually see an opportunity to regain some influence over the Eastern European countries by virtue of China becoming involved there. China can offer these countries more than Russia can, economically.

Moscow itself may be able to re-establish a degree of soft influence in Eastern Europe by acting in concert with China... OTOH, Moscow would be completely shut out of Eastern Europe by a harshly adversarial relationship, should that region fall within America's sphere of influence.

Today the Poles etc. have seen that they are nothing more than a sideshow for American policymakers... abandoned to secure Russian guarantees on Iran, clearly demonstrating that American interests converge on the Gulf with Eastern Europe occupying a secondary position. That the abandonment was aimed at ensuring the security of Israel may be even more galling to the anti-Semitic among the East Europeans!

The whole incident is an object lesson in the way America treats its "lower-caste" allies, and I would hope that South Block takes very careful notice.

Obama, with his gargantuan sense of entitlement, will probably expect the Poles to keep eating out of his hand in spite of this disappointment. He sees the world as an extension of his Affirmative Action feeding trough, after all. Let's see if it does indeed work out that way.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 Oct 2009 01:39

Good discussion on Atlanticist dynamics, all.

I feel that the Chinese interests in Eastern Europe would be more economic than geo-strategic, at least in the medium term, since it has nothing to gain by competing with Russia for strategic influence in those regions.

The East European attitudes towards China would be different of course, as they place premium on anyone who might help them away from any kind of dependence on Russia, whether economic or military.

The Atlanticists' main strategy in the past of course has been in getting the USA to fight their battles for them. Now that the US is backing out on them, their real main option is the ISLAMIC WORLD.

The Eastern European countries don't really have borders with Islam. Austria doesn't count, of course, since they're closer to the Germans, who are more inclined to pursue rapprochement with Moscow rather than be turned into a bulwark against it.

So while people like Brzezinski have gushed over China's maturity and strategic patience, the fact is that their hopes for China can only be in the long term, like if some conflict arises between China and Russia over ownership of Siberia, for example.
In the near term, the champions of Atlanticism like Poland, Hungary, Georgia, etc, can only count on Islam as an ally against the Russians, now that the US is backing out on them.
Therefore, they will go to bat for Chechnya, Iran, Pakistan, Taliban, etc, because these are the only allies against Russia they can see on the landscape.

So China may be their longterm bet, but Islam will increasingly be their near-term bet.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 05 Oct 2009 14:10

The Russian MoD's acknowledgment that it is considering procuring its next generation of helicopter carriers from France, when coupled with its purchase of UAVs from Israel, and the repeated failures of the Bulava missile programme is very important.

The Russian state is making it very clear that the Russian military industrial complex must serve the military and national interest instead of vice versa.

Russian industry is unable to supply what the Russian armed forces need and want across the board when it comes to time, cost, performance and reliability, in part because the state does not have the funds to pay for that kind of development.

Its quite likely that the Russian defence industry will shrink dramatically in order to remain competitive, and that much of what it produces will be under license, with consequent limits on re-exporting.

Russia's defence industry may come to look a lot like China's after 1979 - importing designs and technology in some areas, stealing in others, attempting to innovate in certain areas (especially related to strategic and asymmetric weapons), and exporting lower technology items.

Its a real question whether 20 years from now countries like India, China or any other emerging powers will find much advantage in relying on Russian equipment or design expertise in the way that they do now.

====================================================================================

- Eastern Europe is even more heavily dependent on Russian energy than the West because of gas lines from the COMECON/Warsaw Pact era. This dependency if anything heightened their sense of insecurity.

- Eastern Europe's attitude to Russia is going to change as the implications of Russia's current massive conventional downsizing begin to sink in and alter the strategic picture, along with the steady, continuous downsizing of its nuclear arsenal.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 05 Oct 2009 23:53

I don't know about that scenario Prad - Russia is going to be a very strange beast.

Even though Russia is going to shrink demographically, militarily and most likely industrially, it will still have several major assets

- its population is politically apathetic except in one regard - they prefer strong, even ruthless leadership to stave off chaos.

- it is the largest energy exporter in the world, and whether we're talking about gas, coal, or nuclear fuel it is well placed to remain in that niche for some time. Those resources will keep the state strong even if the Russian nation suffers. The Russian ruling class will continue to kick back those profits to buy allies among transit states and customers.

- it still has a highly educated population, with some strong scientific and engineering institutions

- it is possible that climate change will open up huge potential for Russia both in terms of agriculture and energy, and offer it the possibility of reversing demographic trends through immigration

Ultimately what the Russians would *really* like to do is to integrate with Europe, but on their own terms, and direct the EU in the way that France used to up until the 1980s, but even more so. As Russia's population shrinks and weakens militarily, this may become somewhat less intimidating a prospect - it may even be that Russia and Turkey will be admitted simultaneously to balance each other, or that Russia and Turkey will gain a special EU associate status that provides the benefits of membership (free movement of goods, services, money , people and investment) without giving them a formal vote in EU decision-making.

While this is possible it would require radical changes to the way that the legal system works in Russia, which would in turn have huge implications for the political system. This is a direction Medvedev is comfortable with, but not ex-KGB types who don't like the idea of rule of law rather than might, or of allowing civil society to shape its own destiny instead of being dictated from above. Medvedev's message to the EU and US is work with me if you want to see Russia's political and legal culture change for the better. The skeptics in the EU and US of course insist this is just a puppet show directed by Putin, and that nothing will change no matter how much cooperation and conciliation there is.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 06 Oct 2009 01:04

Prad,

Yes, protectionism is one strand that emerges in economically difficult times. But there are other factors that I believe will offset it

- Europe's dependence on Russian energy will make them ever more keen on recycling those petro-Euros back in to their economy. Russia's price is going to be economic and security integration with the European order, which has always been one of the historical cornerstone in Russian conceptions of its security.

- Russia's (although shrinking) European population will also be an attractive source of labour to the alternatives. Because mind you if they get Russia, they'll get Belarus and Ukraine as well, and the remaining Russian diaspora in Central Asia, particularly Kazakhstan.

Its the perfect solution for the Russian ruling class - they have all the money they want to lavish on themselves, and they can send the neglected elements of the Russian population to supply desperately needed labour in the EU (which will provide the social services the Russian elite is too venal to provide). Meanwhile they will can use the new security architecture to defend their interests in a depopulating Far East and troublesome Caucasus.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 06 Oct 2009 02:37

Hi Prad,

The outline in my post is not 'my' proposal - its what a significant section of the Russian establishment, and its friends in the EU hope for.

The economic link between the EU and Russia and growing interdependence simply did not exist in 1991 , but it is a reality today, and it is deepening. Gorbachev and Yeltsin bet on it but it didn't come in time to help them.

Will that best case scenario emerge? Perhaps not quite like that, but I do think Russia, Europe and perhaps America are going to see a fundamental restructuring of mutual ties because of both internal pressures and a changing global environment.

Few really expected in 1898 that anything like the Atlantic alliance would emerge in 50 years - former enemies - Britain, France and Germany in a tight alliance with the aloof Americans, or that it would continue to be a major factor 50 years after that.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Oct 2009 11:55

prad wrote:50 years is a huge time frame. Russia doesn't have 50 years. at max, its window of opportunity is 10-15 years. in that time if something significant doesn't happen in favor of Russia, it might well and truly move off the global stage.

and even if in 10 years, Russia can integrate into the EU, its long term decline is inevitable. eventually, its power will decline and once that happens, it will be meal time for its neighbors.

I fail to see what drastic demographic or other changes are going to happen in 10-15 years. I also think that the "news of Russia's death are greatly exaggerated"

Russia may hunker down and get rid of its large Mil-Ind complex in favor of lighter more techonolgy advanced force.

This also means that Russia will change its doctrine from USSR type (emphasis on numbers and domination through presence) to a US style doctrine. (Emphasis on tech and cutting deals and careful positioning of bases)

In fact what we see is a resurgent Russia, going from strength to strength after post USSR rebirth.

It has already won two battles, in Georgia and pushing US missile shield out.

-----------------------------

The demographic decline is also not a irreversible social or genetic phenomena in Russia, this can be corrected within 20 years if Russia wants and once some stability returns, it will do that, Russia is a old country, it makes no sense to look at it in 20 year windows. It has been around and will be around.

----------------------------

In the economic terms US is not growing either and is not likely to, the only growing countries are India and China with Russia showing luke warm signs of growth.

So
1) I will not write of Russia
2) In 10-15 year terms the better behaved Russia may infact very well emerge the partner of choice for Europe (all of it including East) once its present Big bear image is toned down a bit.

Russia will remain, due to implacable geographical and civilization reasons, opposed to the US and China

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 07 Oct 2009 00:39

Hi Sanku,

+ The demographic crisis is one that no one in the Russian leadership denies - Putin has described it as Russia's greatest existential crisis.

It is not a simple problem that can solved by orders from above, or even with vast amounts of oil money.

Although the number of births has gone up, the main demographic problem is the very high rate of mortality of *young* Russians, largely from self-destructive behaviour and substance abuse. These young casualties will now never work and raise families, and the knock on effect last, and *magnify* down each generation. There just isn't enough of either civil or traditional society to reach out and help people step back and/or recover.

Communism damaged the fabric of Russian society in some very fundamental ways. It violently destroyed both traditional communities, as well as modern civil society and left families alone and isolated in order to maximise the state's power. The only way to fix it is to make additional fundamental breaks from the Soviet past.

One post-Soviet compromise has been to try to allow the Russian Orthodox Church to play a larger part in society across the board, including the military and foreign affairs - the Kremlin is still moving slowly because its worried about a) the Orthodox Church's moral condemnation of the Soviet era which Putin finds politically destabilising and b) the potential for encouraging increased islamic activism amongst the large integrated and only nominally Muslim population like the Tatars.

+ Russia's conventional forces are not going to see significant technological upgrades for over a decade, at least. They simply do not have the money. Their first priority is organisational and personnel reform. Most of their money is going in to switching to a smaller, better paid volunteer military, and providing housing and services for serving and pensioned-off officers who are living in very depressing conditions.

The Russians are going to be relying on a) nuclear weapons and b) new regional security architectures to protect themselves from other states, especially strong ones.

The conventional forces are now being restructured for dealing with separatist insurgencies, keeping smaller non-NATO neighbours in line, peace enforcement in ethnic conflicts, etc. They are finally moving away from the Total War/ World War set up. So a comparison with current American forces is probably not the best one. What comes to mind is actually British Empire/Commonwealth forces between the two world wars. That kind of vulnerability is deeply upsetting to many senior Russian officers, who had blocked reform for years, even when it was clear that Russia could not sustain the old model.

+ The Russians want the same status on the global stage as the Americans. That's the psychological and political bottom line for most Russians. If the Americans wont give it to them, they will undermine and oppose them wherever they can until the Americans either relent, or are cut down to size.

In that sense no one can count on any extended alliance with the Russians - for the right price from the Americans, they will step away and drop effective active support to any partner, whether Iran or Syria or China or North Korea or Venezuela. You cant play poker unless you're willing to put your cards down at some point.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2009 03:16

prad wrote:in the long term, US economy has only one way to go: UP. end of story. the sheer vastness of the country and the huge population allows for nothing but consistent growth.

Not believable, anyway in long term nearly all economies go only one way UP. Still relative powers change. See the difference?

BETTER BEHAVED RUSSIA???? Russia has already ruthlessly used its energy supplier status to bend Eastern Europe to their will. you think Russia is better behaved??? what world are you in?

Hmm probably a little better than sending in tanks right? More over it still has much better behavior than either US or China (talking of post USSR Russia) towards the world.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2009 03:23

Johann wrote:Hi Sanku,

+ The demographic crisis is one that no one in the Russian leadership denies - Putin has described it as Russia's greatest existential crisis.

Uh so does EU, so do USA (talking of anglo-saxon core) do I expect them to perish in 20 years?

No, so yes there is a demographics concern, but that is true for China too.

I still dont see how that becomes doom and gloom scenario. Perhaps you can post some numbers to illustrate why Russian population will become a significant issue and that too in 20 years.

+ Russia's conventional forces are not going to see significant technological upgrades for over a decade, at least. They simply do not have the money.

Well that I cant believe that. Russia is for the first time since USSR adding newer platforms. Its defence yards (though reduced in numbers) are full of orders to the point that it can not even export since their expansion is tying up all they have.

The rest of the post is about how Russian have this mindset and that mindset etc. -- Personally I dont believe a bit of it. Does not make any sense to me (and I have/do deal with Russians) You have this point of view of how Russians are. I reject every word of it.

And since those two are not data points which can be debated (unlike demographics and addition of new military hardware) I wont even go into that.

In short I do not see any thing on how Russia is going down, it has already it bottom and now it will go up for the foreseeable future for sure.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 07 Oct 2009 03:28

Sanku wrote:Hmm probably a little better than sending in tanks right? More over it still has much better behavior than either US or China (talking of post USSR Russia) towards the world.

Hmm so you were against Russia sending tanks into South Ossetia?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 07 Oct 2009 05:57

Sanku wrote:
Johann wrote:Hi Sanku,

+ The demographic crisis is one that no one in the Russian leadership denies - Putin has described it as Russia's greatest existential crisis.
Uh so does EU, so do USA (talking of anglo-saxon core) do I expect them to perish in 20 years?

No, so yes there is a demographics concern, but that is true for China too.

I still dont see how that becomes doom and gloom scenario. Perhaps you can post some numbers to illustrate why Russian population will become a significant issue and that too in 20 years.

There's a lot of high quality material out there Sanku on how Russia's crisis is quantitatively and qualitatively unique, but the best and most recent is probably the UNDP's Human Development Report on the Russian demographic crisis from last year. It was largely prepared by Russian academics, and has an introduction by the serving Russian development minister.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/national ... 08_Eng.pdf

Since 1992, the natural decrease of Russia’s population has amounted to a staggering 12.3m people. This has been compensated to some degree by the arrival of 5.7m immigrants. But many are ethnic Russians from former Soviet republics, and the source is drying up.

forecasts from Rosstat, the national statistics agency, that Russia’s working age population will decline by 14m between now and 2025.

Chapters one and three also look specifically at the nature of substance abuse, and how the problem is one of not enough mothers rather than not enough babies.

+ Russia's conventional forces are not going to see significant technological upgrades for over a decade, at least. They simply do not have the money.

Well that I cant believe that. Russia is for the first time since USSR adding newer platforms. Its defence yards (though reduced in numbers) are full of orders to the point that it can not even export since their expansion is tying up all they have.[/quote]

Those projects are taking up production capacity because production is being drawn out by extremely low rates of funding.

Have you looked at the rate at which weapons are actually being inducted in to service? Or the rate at which weapons are being retired?

Earlier in the thread I had posted this url, which is very useful http://russiamil.wordpress.com/

Establishing air superiority is the first task in any modern campaign, and the VVS itself acknowledges the challenges it faces; http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KH22Ag01.html

In a series of interviews in August, the Russian Air Force (VVS) commander-in-chief, Colonel-General Aleksandr Zelin, outlined reform plans to enhance air power.

...While much of what Zelin said related to the development of future platforms and their procurement by the VVS, he said little about what the government and top brass plan in the meantime.

...Some elements of Zelin's statements were in fact quite odd, such as his admission that by 2025 the air force will not be capable of adequately conducting operations in support of a local war

Things are no better with the navy https://gushare.georgetown.edu/eurasian ... pm_023.pdf

Despite these figures, recent developments in the Russian shipbuilding program may be more impressive on paper than in practice. 520 million dollars of budgeted funding is insufficient for current shipbuilding projects. In 2007, 80 percent of the shipbuilding budget was consumed by the Borei-class SSBNs, leaving little for the surface ships. Only 8 million dollars were allocated to the Admiral Gorshkov frigate. Given its total price tag of approximately 500 million dollars, it will take many years to complete even one of these frigates at this spending rate. Funding for shipbuilding may also need to be diverted to the relocation of the main Black Sea Fleet base to Novorossiisk, if Ukraine follows through on its intention to ask the Russian navy to leave Sevastopol when the current basing agreement expires in 2017. Unless there is a very large increase in the RFN’s budget, we should expect completion targets for all the shipbuilding projects discussed in this section to be delayed significantly.

Or we can look at the Russian army - the T-90 was accepted in 1993, and has remained in low-rate production ever since. http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1778&catid=244 lists 334 in service, with a detailed breakdown of units equipped with them.

At this rate it will take decades to re-equip the entire Russian army, even if it reduces its tank strength from 23,000 to 2,000 as planned (see the September 8th post on the Russia Mil blog)

Sanku wrote:The rest of the post is about how Russian have this mindset and that mindset etc. -- Personally I dont believe a bit of it. Does not make any sense to me (and I have/do deal with Russians) You have this point of view of how Russians are. I reject every word of it.

It really isnt hard to find what Russia's ruling classes want or what governs their international behaviour - they're perfectly willing to talk openly to anyone who takes the time to asks.

These are a good start;

http://ecfr.eu/page/-/documents/ecfr_wh ... _think.pdf

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/ ... russia.pdf

or Dmitri Trenin's book, such as "Getting Russia Right"

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2009 14:17

pgbhat wrote:
Sanku wrote:Hmm probably a little better than sending in tanks right? More over it still has much better behavior than either US or China (talking of post USSR Russia) towards the world.
Hmm so you were against Russia sending tanks into South Ossetia?

No, but South Ossetia example is a good one of Russian restraint.

USSR would have shot half of Georgian parliament by now. This is east Europe, look at its history, what happened right now is pappi-jhappi by comparison.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2009 14:20

prad wrote:believe or don't believe, that is the truth. a vast country like US with the amount of natural resources it has and its huge population, there is no other way but growth.
.

As I said before assert != proof.

Fine you can believe. However you have still missed a major point of relative growth.

And I do not think US can gobble up major immigrants without changing its social structure. So far its immigrants were from Anglo-Saxon background.

It remains to be seen how the South American-Hispanic immigrants (only those are available for numbers right) do to the US internal fabric.

US has not been put to test. Not yet.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2009 14:31

Johann wrote:....

Johann, no you did not get my point, I am not saying the problems do not exist. They are known to exist.

However what I am saying is that what we see now is essentially the result to terrible 90s for USSR -- that puts a certain trajectory for Russia and what it is seeing is a effect of already seen troubles.

However by all accounts, Russia is turning around. So the rate of change is turning positive even if changes appear negative for some time.

Please note, I am not saying that Russia is returning to USSR like metrics of power any time soon. However the question remains, does this really hurt their
1) Geo-political significance
2) Power projection

Considering that their goals are now far modest already as compared to USSR?

Please note that I have seen both your position and prads position in above posts, and although I disagree with them both, I am in thinking much closer to what you have said before than what prad thinks.

I am also averse to making predictions on small set of data points in time and prefer looking at a large historical time lines for my projections.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2009 22:40

prad wrote: who says its only anglo-saxons.....the 40 million projection by 2050 might also be an understatement. when the labor population really starts shrinking, i expect America to really start pursuing policies that will attract more immigrants, and consequently immigration might increase even more.

So you read this too

Various researchers have criticized the position held by Simon and others that increased U.S. population growth is sustainable. David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), place in their study Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. To achieve a sustainable economy the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third. Current U.S. population of more than 300 million and U.S. population growth of approximately three million people each year, partly fueled by immigration, are unsustainable, says study.[100][101]

"By high margins, Americans are telling pollsters it was a very good thing that Poles, Italians, and Jews emigrated to America. Once again, it's the newcomers who are viewed with suspicion. This time, it's the Mexicans, the Filipinos, and the people from the Caribbean who make Americans nervous." [144]

In 2006 the immigration-reduction advocacy think tank the Center for Immigration Studies released a poll that found 68% of Americans said US immigration levels are too high, and just 2% said they are too low. They also found that 70% said they are less likely to vote for candidates that favor increasing legal immigration.[145]

In 2004, 55% of Americans believe legal immigration should remain at the current level or increased and 41% say it should be decreased.[73]

In a 2002 study that occurred soon after 9/11 where 55% of Americans favored decreasing legal immigration, 27% favored keeping it at the same level, and 15% favored increasing it.[146]

In 1996, 70% of Americans wanted immigration reduced to 300,000 annually and 20% wanted to halt all immigration.[147]

One of the most important factors regarding public opinion about immigration is the level of unemployment; anti-immigrant sentiment is highest where unemployment is highest and vice-versa.[148]

And this is when

Current immigration rates are moderate, even though America admitted more legal immigrants from 1991 to 2000 (between 10-11 million) than in any previous decade. In the most recent decade, the 10 million legal immigrants that settled in the U.S. represent an annual growth of only about one-third of 1% (as the U.S. population grew from 249 million to 281 million). By comparison, the highest previous decade was 1901-1910 when 8.8 million people arrived increasing the total U.S. population by 1 percent per year as the U.S. population grew from 76 to 92 million during that decade. Specifically, "nearly 15% of Americans were foreign-born in 1910, while in 1999, only about 10% were foreign-born." [12]

Thank you very much prad, I could not have said better myself

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 08 Oct 2009 01:02

Sanku wrote:However what I am saying is that what we see now is essentially the result to terrible 90s for USSR -- that puts a certain trajectory for Russia and what it is seeing is a effect of already seen troubles.

However by all accounts, Russia is turning around. So the rate of change is turning positive even if changes appear negative for some time.

Please note, I am not saying that Russia is returning to USSR like metrics of power any time soon. However the question remains, does this really hurt their
1) Geo-political significance
2) Power projection

Considering that their goals are now far modest already as compared to USSR?

Sanku, Alexei Kudrin the Russian finance minister announced in 2008 (before the crash) that oil and gas revenue was going to peak in the next two years; that no matter how high the price went after that, decline in overall production (despite the opening of new fields) would mean revenue would decline.

Given the limits on Russian military spending in the last decade despite huge increases in oil and gas revenue, its safe to say that military budgets will remain under pressure.

If you read the material above, you will see that is why Russian officers themselves refuse to speak of comprehensive modernisation of Russian forces before 2020, and speak of modernisation after that point in purely speculative terms because they don't know what the budgetary means will be beyond that point.

While the professionalism and morale of Russian forces is likely to continue to improve significantly with current reforms, its force projection capabilities are eroding as Soviet era equipment deteriorates, and new equipment comes in very slowly. This will have consequences both in Russia's near abroad and internally.

Similarly the pressure on budgets is also going to affect social services, which are a vital part of Russian attempts to reverse its demographic decline, the most dramatic in the world.

The point I am making is that Russia's source of power is going to continue to shift from conventional military forces to economic and diplomatic influence. This is going to have a real effect on its near abroad, and possibly within its own boundaries. Russia is likely to become a different kind of power. Less hard power, more soft power, although the Kremlin will do its best to disguise the fact.

For example in Chechnya, Russia defeated the insurgency by outsourcing the war to one of the Chechen warlords, the Kadyrov family, while steadily reducing the role of Russian forces. Chechnya is not obliged to follow Russian law, and Russian forces have no jurisdiction over Kadyrov's forces. Chechnya now has a greater measure of autonomy than any other area in Russia - the only thing that keeps the Kadyrovs nominally loyal to Moscow is the massive flow of funds to them from the Kremlin. This is a pattern likely to be repeated through much of the North Caucasus, particularly the Muslim areas.

One of the broader consequences is that Russia will have to make more compromises than it did in Putin's second term and the start of Medvedev's. It represented a sort of peak in post-Soviet power, just as Bush's first term represented a peak in American power - however the gap between Russian and American power remains vast.

Thus countries counting on Russia to balance America will have to diversify their portfolio as Russian military and technological power declines faster than the US. Russia will still be a major power, but its means and goals will change.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Oct 2009 01:27

Johann wrote: Thus countries counting on Russia to balance America will have to diversify their portfolio as Russian military and technological power declines faster than the US.

I agree with you till you come to this point. However here I start disagreeing.

Do I expect to see a USSR kind of power Russia? Clearly not, in fact I have mentioned that it is changing/has changed.

Am I with you when you say that it will be more a USA like power? Yes absolutely.

Yet there is where the Russian resurgence will lie, and note it has already started -- Yuri dolgoruky is a small example -- but for me a hugely significant one. I can on the same lines quote many more examples. The modernization end date may be far, but it has begun and that's the important thing.

----------------------

The demographic decline, primarily due to the shock of abrupt transition will again sort itself out as Russia stabilizes (a hugely different take from the other countries where the stable system has resulted in demographic issues coming to fore as well a shock is likely to only make things worse)

http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP162/index2.html

the charts here themselves tell the story. The crises was of Yesltin's making (many scourges on him) and there is no reason to Russia to revert itself to its old pattern once the cloud passes.

So basically the next 15-20 years are going to be the worst for Russia before I expect it to fully recover (in terms of its relative position)

Meanwhile these 15-20 years are more than adequately covered by old Soviet systems still as far as military is concerned, and also given the huge slavic population overall, neither are they likely to die out completely tomorrow.

Meanwhile, oil is always a welcome commodity in this world, and along with everything else that Russia naturally has it will never get into Indian position of needing key resources from outside and consequent troublesome pressure points from outside.

So all Russia has to do is watch its step for a while.

Meanwhile -- all the Russian ambitions are clearly intact (your own links) as is their thinking of being a effective civilization pole independent of the west.

Also Russia still possess, a tremendous repository of quantity of fairly good military equipment (in relative terms) and more importantly skills and knowledge which are still outside the control of all but US in the world.

Those are critical bargaining chips that Russia can bring to the table for anyone seeking its support to change the locale.

Finally the 15-20 year period for Russia has one more advantage -- its rivals are badly faltering, all of them, including China. None of them are in a position to pick up a fight and impose itself on Russia and take advantage of their temprory weakness.

So overall, these micro analysis, along with the broad historical trend of Russia faltering once in a while and coming back to feet robustly again, tells me not much has changed still.