Posted on September 12, 2008 - by Venik
Good Things about Palin
If back in 2000 you told me that getting Junior into the White House would help Russia’s economic and political recovery, I would have asked you to stop smoking crack. Bush and Cheney were aggressively anti-Russian in their election campaign. They criticized Clinton for being soft on Russia in view of Moscow’s military campaign in Chechnya, among other reasons.
One thing I knew for certain: the second war against Iraq was unavoidable if Bush was to become president. Obviously, I was right about that, but I completely failed to consider the wider implications of the Iraq war on US reputation, the prices of oil and, by extension, on Russia’s economy and foreign politics. The events of 9/11 did not precipitate the US invasion of Iraq – they delayed the invasion.
Bush had no reason and no previously-stated desire to fight Taliban. If anything, in late 1990s Taliban was shaping up to be a valuable partner for the US oil interests in the region. As you may know, several US energy firms, including the ill-fated Enron, were in negotiations with Taliban regarding an oil pipeline to traverse Afghanistan. In July of 2001 these negotiations stalled and the US government even threatened Taliban with unspecified military action.1 As Bush later discovered, Taliban had little tolerance for pressure.
The US actions against Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as political disputes with Iran and Venezuela, contributed to rising energy costs and weakened US economy. Political tensions between Washington and Tehran escalated in early 2008 and led to a 50% hike in the price of crude in just six months.2 Needless to say, Russia, as the world’s largest exporter of natural gas and the second largest exporter of oil, benefited from these aggressive US policies.
An idiot in the White House is good for the Kremlin and this brings me back to Palin. Regardless of your opinion of McCain there is one fact you can’t deny: the man is of that certain age when he can keel over and die at any moment. I don’t even need to bring up his health problems to make my point. This will leave us with a provincial “hockey mom” and an apparent warmonger running the country.
There is no doubt that, left to her own devices, Palin will make Dubya look like Mahatma Gandhi. Energy prices will skyrocket and Russia will finally be able to afford the six aircraft carrier battlegroups Putin and his admirals talked so much about. Palin is not in the White House yet, but she is already messing up US foreign politics. By resolving to go to war against Russia, Palin puts additional stress on the already deeply fractured NATO. European NATO members will be even more reluctant to offer membership to Georgia or Ukraine, now that they know America’s possible future leadership actually is stupid enough to start a nuclear war.
Russia will, no doubt, respond to Palin’s rhetoric but the more important question is: will the McCain-Palin duet be good or bad for Russia’s economy and its global aspirations? As a great military power, the US creates a lot of instability in the world when it decide to throw its weight around. This is especially true in the post-Cold-War era, where there is no Soviet counterbalance to America’s actions. Instability leads to higher prices of hydrocarbons and other natural resources. This, in turn, benefits the world’s biggest exporter of natural resources – Russia.
With its technologically underdeveloped economy, Russia can barely survive in a world where everything is peaceful and quiet; where energy and other resources are abundant and inexpensive. Russia is working on developing other aspects of its economy but this process will take time – years, decades, perhaps. For now, Russia is relying on its wealth of natural resources. This wealth comes from the sheer size of Russia’s territory. Maintaining and even increasing this territory depends on Russia’s military might. Russia’s military requires generous funding, most of which comes from exporting natural resources. And so by throwing its weight around in a series of poorly-planned, unilateral adventures, Washington helps financing the Russian army.
None of these arguments, of course, will make me vote Republican. However, this is something definitely worth consideration. Today there is no ideological component to the standoff between Russia and the West. Everything will boil down to two issues that are key for Russia: demographics and economy. Russia, simply put, is running out of people. Russia loses as many as 700,000 population every year. Estimates show that by 2050 Russia’s population will drop from 145 million to between 80 and 100 million, majority of whom will be Muslim3. The fate of Russians living outside the country became an existential issue for Russia.
The standoff between Russia and the West – from Russia’s perspective – is no longer about some silly ideology. It is about survival. Would have Russia responded militarily to Georgia’s attack against South Ossetia if Georgia was a member of NATO? Without a doubt. Medvedev just said as much during today’s Valdai Club meeting.4 Moreover, if Georgia was a member of NATO, Russia’s military response would have had to be far more forceful to achieve its goals. And NATO’s response would have been even weaker than it was, for its every European member would have been in a big rush to blame Georgia for everything in order to avoid activating the Alliance. Today there is a real danger of US policies toward Russia being represented by an inexperienced provincial politician with irrelevant degree from a second-rate college. Sounds like Russia’s oil bonanza will not end any time soon.
Footnotes:
- Forbidden Truth – U.S. – Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy And The Faild Hunt For Bin Laden, by Jean-Charles and Dasquie, Guillaume, Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation, 2002
- Karl Marx and the White House, by Venik, Let me Tell You…, July 27, 2008
- Russia faces demographic disaster, by Steven Ek, BBC, June 7, 2006
- Russia says Georgia would have been attacked even if it was in Nato, by John Kampfner, The Telegraph, Sept. 12, 2008
Popularity: 2% [?]
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) PostsRelated posts:
9 Comments
We'd love to hear yours!
Leave a Comment
Here's your chance to speak.
News from Russia- Russia's Putin warns against outside interference
(Reuters) February 8, 2012MOSCOW (Reuters) – Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the world faced a growing "cult of violence" and Moscow must not let events like those in Libya and Syria be repeated in Russia, warning the West against interference in a country he intends to lead for years to come. Weeks ahead of a March presidential election he is almost sure to win despite th […]
- Russians Rally for and Against Putin, Despite an Icy Day
(Time.com) February 8, 2012Unless you have a passion for ice fishing or catching pneumonia, Feb. 4 would have been about the worst day to spend outdoors in Moscow. The temperature fell to 20 degrees below zero Celsius, the kind of cold that sinks into your bones and sucks the feeling from your face. But on Saturday, exactly a month before Russia's presidential elections, Moscow b […]
- Results of Syria talks must not be set in advance: Russia
(Reuters) February 8, 2012MOSCOW (Reuters) – The outcome of any talks on ending the bloodshed in Syria must not be predetermined, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday, sticking to its opposition to Western and Arab pressure for President Bashar al-Assad to cede power. "It is not really the international community's business to try to determine the outcom […]
- Iran says can hit U.S. interests worldwide if attacked
(Reuters) February 8, 2012MOSCOW (Reuters) – Iran is capable of carrying out military strikes on U.S. interests all around the world if the Islamic Republic is attacked by the United States, Iran's ambassador to Moscow said on Wednesday. The United States has tried to force Tehran to scrap sensitive nuclear work by imposing sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and giving […]
- Russia reaches lake under Antarctica
(AP) February 8, 2012MOSCOW – After more than two decades of drilling, Russian scientists have reached the surface of a gigantic freshwater lake in Antarctica that had been hidden under miles of ice for 20 million years, potentially holding life from the distant past and a clue to the search for life on other planets. Reaching Lake Vostok is a major discovery avidly anticipated […]
- Russia's Putin warns against outside interference
(Reuters) February 8, 2012
Site stats
Visit My Website
September 12, 2008
Permalink
“higher prices of carbohydrates”?
What about higher prices of proteins and fats?
And, finally, what about hydrocarbon prices?
Reply
Venik Reply:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I was eating a Twinkie at the time
Thanks for spotting this.
Reply
Visit My Website
September 12, 2008
Permalink
US leadership seems to be progressing from dumb to dumber. The UN should adopt a resolution limited access to nuclear weapons based on IQ of individual politicians. Palin should go back to Alaska and grow chickens, or whatever she was doing there before McCain plucked her out of obscurity.
Reply
Visit My Website
September 13, 2008
Permalink
The figures from all reporting agencies, including those of Russia, show declining levels of oil exports. Please see this report, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3626
Also, high commodity prices are due to both higher demand and lowering quality of ores. (See Heinberg’s Peak Everything) I agree that Russia’s landmass holds great riches. I also believe that Russia doesn’t need, nor does it desire, to expand its empire further. And furthermore, it shouldn’t matter if Russia becomes majority muslim at some future point. Too many think Clinton was a liberal; his behavior marks him as a neoliberalcon. Upon examination, there’s a continuum of pollicy from Reagan to BushCo that didn’t skip a beat during Clinton/Gore.
On another point, did you see this? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JI12Ag01.html
It should also be noted that BushCo merely escalated the already ongoing Iraqi Holocaust initiated by Clinton and fulfilled Clinton’s policy of regime change. Clinton also initiated what is now called the Bush Doctrine of naked aggression with his bombardment and subsequent invasion of Serbia over Kosovo. It might even be said that Clinton initiated the War OF Terror with his cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan.
Reply
Venik Reply:
September 13th, 2008 at 3:17 am
Clinton was perhaps more of a neocon than either Bush or Cheney, whose inept foreign politics greatly benefited Russia and China – an affront to the very core of neoconservative ideology, which knows no political party boundaries. For eight years, Clinton was effectively containing, disarming and demoralizing Russia, while plundering its natural resources and picking off its allies one by one.
Supply and demand theories apply poorly to the traditionally heavily-politicized natural resources markets. Even drop in demand can be adequately explained by weakening US economy, which was the direct result of the hugely expensive and destabilizing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as enormous expenses incurred by the federal government in its “war on terror” and the resulting decline in the transportation and aerospace sectors.
Reply
Venik Reply:
September 13th, 2008 at 3:46 am
BTW, thanks for the Asia Times link. I was busy moving my blog and I would have missed Bhadrakumar’s excellent analysis. Just a few days ago I talked to a retired high-ranking Russian Navy officer who served in the Caspian Flotilla during the Soviet years and later in the Black Sea Fleet. His assessment was that any NATO ship in the Black Sea was a sitting duck for Russian land-based aviation.
Reply
Venia Reply:
September 13th, 2008 at 5:56 am
No doubt that NATO fleet would not last longer than 10 minutes if something gets started there. I reckon it was just a poor attempt to demonstrate that NATO (read US) do not abandon its friends. Kind of keeping the face.
Reply
Visit My Website
September 13, 2008
Permalink
IMHO, nothing will change in US foreign policy apart from “language” to achieve “the goals” regardless of democrats or republicans being in power in White House. Internal policy may change (taxes, medical care and etc), but not foreign policy. If you look into US debts it is already about 175K per US citizen. What is average US family income per year?
Neither democrats nor republicans would commit bankruptcy. Both will do everything they can to keep US “consuming machine” alive.
Reply
Visit My Website
September 13, 2008
Permalink
The loss of population in Russia is down to 200k a year.
http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b08_12/IssWWW.exe/stg/d01/05-01.htm
What Putin is doing(cash for the 2nd child), is the most effective way to increase the birth rate:
“Russia’s birth, mortality rates to equal by 2011 – ministry
20:23 | 23/ 01/ 2008
Print version
PENZA, January 23 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s health ministry predicted on Wednesday that the birth rate in Russia would equal the mortality rate by 2011.
“By 2011 the mortality rate should be equal to the birth rate,” Social Development and Health Minister Tatyana Golikova said.
In the first eleven months of 2007 the mortality rate in Russia was 14.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, and 15.3 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2006, the minister said.
The average mortality rate for the 27-member European Union in 2006 was 10.1 deaths per 1,000 live births. The first time in European modern history the death rate exceeded births.
Demographic issues are widely seen as one of the main threats facing modern Russia since market reforms and economic hardship of the 1990s.
Many experts are concerned that Russia will be hit be a demographic crisis in the near future and according to UN predictions, Russia’s population, currently at about 142 million, could fall by 30% by the middle of the century.
In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin approved a set of targets to improve the country’s demographic policy to 2025. The proposals are designed to lower the national mortality rate, raise birth rates, improve national health and regulate immigration.
In 2008-2010, the country plans to invest almost 500 billion rubles ($19.3 billion) in socio-demographic programs.
Maternity incentives, including payouts of about $9,500 for the birth of two or more children, the so called baby-money, were introduced in early 2007 following a presidential initiative.”
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080123/97616414.html
Reply