The Spectator, 22/10/2005
In fairness to Putin, even if he was ‘very straightforward and trustworthy’, he’s in a wretched position. Think of the feet of clay of Western European politicians unwilling to show leadership on the Continent’s moribund economy and deathbed demography. Russia has all the EU’s problems to the nth degree, and then some. ‘Post-imperial decline’ is manageable; a nation of psychotic lemmings isn’t. As I’ve noted before in this space, Russia is literally dying. From a population peak in 1992 of 148 million, it will be down to below 130 million by 2015 and thereafter dropping to perhaps 50 or 60 million by the end of the century, a third of what it was at the fall of the Soviet Union. It needn’t decline at a consistent rate, of course. But I’d say it’s more likely to be even lower than 50 million than it is to be over 100 million. The longer Russia goes without arresting the death spiral, the harder it is to pull out of it, and when it comes to the future most Russian women are voting with their foetus: 70 per cent of pregnancies are aborted.
A smaller population needn’t necessarily be a problem, and especially not for a state with too much of the citizenry on the payroll. But Russia is facing simultaneously a massive ongoing drain of wealth out of the system. Whether or not Dominic Midgley was correct the other day in his assertion that the émigré oligarchs prefer London to America, I cannot say. But I notice my own peripheral backwater of Montreal has also filled up with Russkies whose impressive riches have been acquired recently and swiftly. It doesn’t help the grim demographic scenario if your economic base is also being systematically eaten away.
Add to that the unprecedented strains on a ramshackle public health system. Russia is the sick man of Europe, and would still look pretty sick if you moved him to Africa. It has the fastest-growing rate of HIV infection in the world. From virtually no official Aids cases at the time Putin took office, in the last five years more Russians have tested positive than in the previous 20 for America. The virus is said to have infected at least 1 per cent of the population, the figure the World Health Organisation considers the tipping point for a sub-Saharan-sized epidemic. So at a time when Russian men already have a life expectancy in the mid-50s — lower than in Bangladesh — they’re about to see Aids cut them down from the other end, killing young men and women of childbearing age, and with them any hope of societal regeneration. By 2010, Aids will be killing between a quarter and three-quarters of a million Russians every year. It will become a nation of babushkas, unable to muster enough young soldiers to secure its borders, enough young businessmen to secure its economy or enough young families to secure its future. True, there are regions that are exceptions to these malign trends, parts of Russia that have healthy fertility rates and low HIV infection. Can you guess which regions they are? They start with a ‘Mu-’ and end with a ‘-slim’.
So the world’s largest country is dying and the only question is how violent its death throes are. Yesterday’s Russia was characterised by Churchill as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Today’s has come unwrapped: it’s a crisis in a disaster inside a catastrophe. Most of the big international problems operate within certain geographic constraints: Africa has Aids, the Middle East has Islamists, North Korea has nukes. But Russia’s got the lot: an African-level Aids crisis and an Islamist separatist movement sitting on top of the biggest pile of nukes on the planet. Of course, the nuclear materials are all in ‘secure’ facilities — more secure, one hopes, than the secure public buildings in Nalchik that the Islamists took over with such ease last week.
Russia is the bleakest example on the planet of how we worry about all the wrong things. For 40 years the environmentalists have warned us that the jig was up: there are too many people (see Paul Ehrlich’s comic masterpiece of 1970 The Population Bomb) and too few resources — as the Club of Rome warned in its 1972 landmark study The Limits To Growth, the world will run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993. Instead, poor old Russia is awash with resources but fatally short of Russians — and, in the end, warm bodies are the one indispensable resource.
What would you do if you were Putin? What have you got to keep your rotting corpse of a country as some kind of player? You’ve got nuclear know-how — which a lot of ayatollahs and dictators are interested in. You’ve got an empty resource-rich eastern hinterland — which the Chinese are going to wind up with one way or the other. That was the logic, incidentally, behind the sale of Alaska: in the 1850s, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, the brother of Alexander II, argued that the Russian empire couldn’t hold its North American territory and that one day either Britain or the United States would simply take it, so why not sell it to them first? The same argument applies today to the 2,000 miles of the Russo–Chinese border. Given that even alcoholic Slavs with a life expectancy of 56 will live to see Vladivostok return to its old name of Haishenwei, Moscow might as well flog it to Beijing instead of just having it snaffled out from under.
That’s the danger for America — that most of what Russia has to trade is likely to be damaging to US interests. In its death throes, it could bequeath the world several new Muslim nations, a nuclear Middle East and a stronger China. In theory, America could do a belated follow-up to the Alaska deal and put in a bid for Siberia. But Russia’s calculation is that sooner or later we’ll be back in a bipolar world and that, in almost any scenario, there’s more advantage in being part of the non-American pole. A Sino–Russian strategic partnership has a certain logic to it, and so, in a darker way, does a Russo–Muslim alliance of convenience. In 1989, with the Warsaw Pact crumbling before his eyes, poor old Mikhail Gorbachev received a helpful bit of advice from the cocky young upstart on the block, the Ayatollah Khomeini: ‘I strongly urge that in breaking down the walls of Marxist fantasies you do not fall into the prison of the West and the Great Satan,’ wrote the pioneer Islamist nutcase. ‘I openly announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world, can easily help fill up the ideological vacuum of your system.’
In an odd way, that’s what happened everywhere but the Kremlin. As communism retreated, radical Islam seeped into Afghanistan and Indonesia and the Balkans. Crazy guys holed up in Philippine jungles and the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay which would have been ‘Marxist fantasists’ a generation or two back are now Islamists: it’s the ideology du jour. Even the otherwise perplexing enthusiasm of the western Left for the jihad’s misogynist homophobe theocrats is best understood as a latterday variation on the Hitler/Stalin pact. And, despite Gorbachev turning down the offer, it will be Russia’s fate to have large chunks of its turf annexed by the Islamic world.
We are witnessing a remarkable event: the death of a great nation not through war or devastation but through its inability to rouse itself from its own suicidal tendencies. The ‘ideological vacuum’ was mostly filled with a nihilist fatalism. Churchill got it wrong: Russia is a vacuum wrapped in a nullity inside an abyss.
*May 12*
940: Sixty-two-year-old Eutychius of Alexandria, the Greek who wrote *Nazm
al-Jauhar*, a history, of what some may consider of dubious accuracy ...
18 comments:
"A smaller population needn’t necessarily be a problem, and especially not for a state with too much of the citizenry on the payroll.
But Russia is facing simultaneously a massive ongoing drain of wealth out of the system."
Avind in vedere citatul de mai sus, opinia mea este ca ...
asternuturile "vizionarului" Steyn ar trebui primenite.
Nu am fost si nu sint o admiratoare a lui M.Steyn, ...
articolele lui imi par pline de viziuni facile, imbracate in ... poleiala de "atacuri" la "political correctness".
Articolele si argumentele lui demonstreaza un nivel de cultura cam de spoiala a unui ins care pina la 40 de ani a fost disk-jokey, apoi critic de operete si de film ... (nothing wrong with that),
ca dupa aia sa se axeze pe comentarii politice, si experte analize internationale ...
Care este problema, Sehe?
Am impresia ca te legi de un pasaj scris in stilul cinic al lui Steyn ca sa-l anulezi complet.
Mie unul imi place stilul lui.
nu e nici o problema.
stiu ca tie iti place ...,
dar mie nu-mi place.
si am ales s-o spun, decit sa tac.
Hai sa fim ceva mai seriosi, domnisoara Sehe! Supararea e in alta parte. Se va vedea mai la vale :)
Steyn s-a nascut in 1959.
He left school at 16 and worked as a disc-jockey before becoming musical theatre critic at the newly established The Independent in 1986. Adica de musical, nu de opereta. Asta la virsta de 27 de ani.
He was appointed film critic for The Spectator in 1992. Adica la virsta de 33 de ani.
After writing predominantly about the arts, Steyn's focus shifted to political commentary and moved to the conservative broadsheet The Daily Telegraph.
Since then, he has written for a wide range of mostly conservative publications, including The Jerusalem Post, The Orange County Register, Chicago Sun-Times, National Review, The New York Sun, The Australian, Macleans, Irish Times, National Post, The Atlantic Monthly, Western Standard and New Criterion.
Publicatii de trei lulele, cum ar veni... :)
Paranteza: Alvin Toffler, inainte sa scrie Future Shock (la 42 de ani), a facut o sumedenie de meserii, majoritatea manuale si necalificate. Nici macar disk-jockey.
Acum incepe partea nasoala... :)
Uite ce zice unul:
Ambiguous name. From the time I first began reading Steyn, in the American Spectator in the mid-90s, friends and I wondered about his name. The guess was that his name was Stein but he had changed the spelling to make it less common. Steyn seemed quite artificial. Then, several years late, I saw an interview or quote of Steyn's in which he explained that his real name was some very conventional, Anglo-Saxon name like "Anthony Wilson" (that's not the exact name he gave, but it was something like that), so he adopted a Jewish-sounding name that would stand out more. In other words, he was saying that he was an Anglo-Saxon pretending to be a Jew in order to advance his career in journalism. Later, he seemed to contradict that story as well.
Ambigious nationality. When I first read Steyn he wrote from England, and seemed to know the country very well, and never (at least in my reading) suggested that he wasn't English, so I assumed he was English (or rather, since he was apparently a Jew, British). Then, in more recent years, he would occasionally mention that he lives in New Hampshire, again with no reference to any bi-national identity, so at that point I insensibly assumed he was American. But then he said he was Canadian. Yet he never speaks of Canada in the manner of one who was born and raised there or who lives there, or, indeed, who has any connection with or affection for that country at all. Furthermore, if you check out his February 2005 interview on C-SPAN, you'll see that he's described as a "North American journalist." If that's not being ambiguous about his nationality, nothing is.
Ambigious ethnicity and religion. See above. His name is Jewish, but synthetically so. Then he suggested that he's a WASP. Then he let out (at his website, see below) that he's of Jewish background. The only time I saw Steyn, on a discussion panel on C-SPAN a couple of years ago, he didn't look in the slightest degree like a Jew named Mark Steyn. He looked like a broad-featured, thick-haired, burly Celt, someone you'd expect to see playing rugby. All of which made one wonder, "Who is this guy?"
P R O B L E M A :
Mark is of Jewish descent, but was baptized a Catholic, confirmed an Anglican, and currently attends a small rural American Baptist Church. As John Podhoretz of the New York Post said, You’re not Jewish or gay? But you wrote a book on musicals?
Pentru amatorii de musicaluri am ceva cu totul si cu totul special: frumoasa Deborah Yates in musicalul CONTACT.
Daca v-a placut, puteti sa o vedeti intr-un interviu cu Charlie Rose.
Am uitat sa va previn: interviul lui Rose cu Deborah Yates incepe la minutul 18:45, :)
ce va mai aranjeaza cenzura... 'ai de sufletu' vostru...
de ce sa ne aranjeze cenzura ??
sintem siliti s-o facem din cauza unuia care abia asteapta sa ne umple de spam, sau sa ne impersoneze ...
multumim si pentru Deborah ..., intr`adevar frumoasa si pe gustul multora
(... ne-ai mai prezentat si altele, asemanatoare in frumusetze)
Scena "rock" e un pic inceata pentru gustul meu ...
O spun din oftica, fireste ..., ca pe mine sultanul ma da de toti peretii cind dansam rock ..., nici vorba de momente de "respiro" pe pian.
Bine, bine, :) n-am pofta de polemici azi.
Cu Mark Steyn cred ca am lamurit-o, asa ca iti propun sa ne oprim aici. Stim amindoi ce te doare, sa nu ne ascundem dupa cires si nici sa nu facem caz. Oricum, pentru mine discutia e incheiata si ai face bine sa nu incerci sa ma imbrobodesti fiindca chiar nu mai am nimic de adaugat/discutat la subiect. E crystal clear si cu asta basta.
Zi, mai bine, daca ti-a placut Deborah Yates, The Girl in a Yellow Dress. :)
hait, ca am postat in acelasi timp. iar baiatul ala, din partea mea, poa sa fie si polinezian. :-) ce conteaza e ca e destept si imi place cum scrie.
e misto sa fii liber si independent... :-)))
putin imi pasa mie de "Jewish descent" atunci cind imi place sau nu imi place ceva ...
sau esti si tu unul dintr`aia care cred ca toti apartinind unei anume etnii trebuie sa gindeasca intr`un anume fel si, mai ales LA FEL ??
Daca pe forumul ZIUA adresez astfel de probleme, e doar pentru a da peste bot celor care alipesc etnia "jewish" unora (lenin) sau altora (hitler) ... DOAR pentru a-si argumenta si suporta ideile lor schizoide ...
Daca SteYn e evreu sau nu, habar nu am ... "facilul" ma deranjeaza la el, tzintirea la sigur a coardei "credulitatii" maselor,
ca si la, de ex. Chomsky, despre care stiu ca e evreu...
nu-mi place de astia, asa cum nu imi plac instrumentele cu sunet celest precum harpa si mandolina ...
tonul tau de "EvricA !! las'ca stiu eu cum gindesti ..." imi strica placerea de a discuta cu tine, baska ca imi aminteste de sigurantza amicului cu spamu`...
ha ha, din nou hait !!
By the way ...
te invit sa comentezi la postarea cu alegerile ...
vad ca`s cam singura acolo, pe nimeni nu intereseaza ...
ok, hai, pax! ;-)
e, ce mai conteaza alegerile!? seful de campanie a lui obrambura e evreu, mccain e vindut evreilor, ce dreaq mai conteaza cine iese?
:-))))))))))))
nu puteai posta acest truism la postarea cu alegerile ??
hehe, ba da, insa la ce bun?
acu', pe cinstite, astia doi sint chiar mai tembeli decit bush. cel putin patru ani o sa fie nasol, da' nasol de tot. as prefera sa fiu pe alta planeta in perioada asta.
si cu asta ma retrag in munti.
vrrrrrrrrrrrrr....
oooO !!
i-auzi ? ..., nici macar Sarah Palin nu te-a inflacarat ???
hibernare placuta !
Post a Comment