Streetwise Professor

April 28, 2009

184 Comments »

1. wow- Russia Blog must be really desperate.

   Comment by rtyb — April 28, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

2. [...] more here: DR (or is it S-O?) on Russian Demographics Bookmark [...]

   Pingback by DR (or is it S-O?) on Russian Demographics « MyPage Builder — April 28, 2009 @ 10:41 pm

3. 1. To be clear. The main issue I am addressing is the idea that bad Russian demographic trends will doom it to geopolitical irrelevance. Not issues of public health or social justice or “morality”.

   2. The reason I focused mainly on fertility was twofold. First, Russia Blog – an impartial, objective and patriotic American institution devoted to fostering greater understanding between the US and Russia – asked me to focus more on that. Second, as I pointed out mortality is nowhere near as important as fertility for making demographic projections, in Russia’s case the fact that mortality schedules become so bad at middle age simply brings forwards in time developments that would occur anyway but with a time lag.

   3. ” Well, since it is well understood that European and Japanese fertility are pretty appalling, that’s very cold comfort indeed.”

   That depends on which Europe you’re talking about. As I believe I said, the Med, Germania and Japan are indeed in a pickle. Britannia and Scandinavia are much healthier in that respect, and France now has a TFR that is about the same as that of the US.

   4. “DR says “Russia is becoming part of the rest of Europe with respect to ideas about ideal family size.” That’s the good news?”

   Erm, Eberstadt says that – I was quoting him to criticize, not to support!! And re-ideas on ideal family size, Russia is in the same category as aforementioned Britain / Scandinavia / France.

   5. Even by these comparisons, Russia doesn’t do that well. The total fertility rate is at the bottom of the list of countries included in his figures.

   Those figures end at 2006, and don’t include the 2006-2008 jump which took its TRF past the EU average.

   6. “Ditto for net female reproduction. (His discussion of NFR below the graph is very hard to follow, and doesn’t seem to match up with the evidence in the graph.)”

   The point I was making there was that, e.g., Germany’s NFR has been in the 0.6-0.8 range since around 1972 – already more than one generation, so fairly big natural population decline for it is now unavoidable. Russia has been in the demographic hole since 1992, with concrete trends to improvement since 2006 (for now discounting the issue of whether it was sustainable), which gives more scope for a possible recovery.

   Second, from the TFR growth you can see there was a major demographic transition from 1925-1945, and its post-war baby boom was not as pronounced as those of countries like the US or Western Germany. The high crude mortality rates we’re now seeing is partially the effect of that generation dying off. (There was a similar effect in the 1970’s and 1980’s for Germany, when its TFR collapsed and its last high-fertility era cohort, those from 1900-1914, died away).

   7. “What DR touts as the most accurate measure of long term fertility, the average birth sequence (ABS) does not provide tremendous evidence that a corner has been turned, as DR suggests. The measure showed little variation, and certainly no systematic improvement in the post-1998 period.”

   The main point is that the ABS has consistently been at 1.6 during 1993-2006 – the collapse years. First, it reinforces the point that fertility expectations fell by much less than the overall TFR and proves support for the thesis that its fertility collapse was a “transition shock” rather than a “values shift”. Second, the fact that there was so much birth postponement in the post-Soviet period means that there is a lot of pent-up desire to have more children – typically, couples who now have one child but want a second.

   8. “Why compare TFR and NFR across countries, but not ABS?”

   That would be a good idea, although ABS figures are pretty hard to hunt down. I suspect there’d be a similar pattern in Ukraine, the Baltic countries, etc.

   9. “Not surprising to those who have read DR’s comments here on SWP, his treatment of Russia’s appalling adult male mortality is cavalier, not to say amoral.”

   Not a serious argument, and quite tiring and banal besides. Do you go to bed weeping over the 200 / 1000 infant mortality rate in Afghanistan?

   10. “Gee, I thought the reason for pensions was so that people could live good lives into old age. That is, pensions are for people, but DR seems to argue that people are for pensions.”

   See 1).

   11. “(b) Russian death rates are so much higher than the corresponding rates in Europe, Japan, the US and Canada that the “productivity effect” is large (gliding over whether the value of lives should be measured by production); (c) early death, poverty, and lack of education are all affected by individual choices,”

   I’ve addressed all these points in the essay. Speculate whoever you want, but Russia’s tertiary enrollment ratio is one of the highest in the world.

   12. “DR has to squint very hard to put Russian infant mortality of 8.5/1000 “close to developed world standards of 3-7/1000.” The latter is a very wide range, and the Russian rate is still 20 percent above the highest of that range. It would also be worthwhile to present statistics on mortality before 5, rates of abandonment/orphaning/fostering. ”

   We are specifically concerned about the effects of early mortality amongst females which will negatively affect the value of the replacement level TFR. In this sense, 8.5 / 1000, and even 18.5, is statistically insignificant.

   Eberstadt raised this issue with me as well. Most births in Russia take place when the mother is under 30, and some quick calculations show that as of 2006 only 3.1% of women failed to live to that age (and 5.5% failed to live to 40). Not significant.

   Rates of abandonment/orphaning/fostering are a) extremely hard to measure or to make cross-country comparisons with and b) not at all directly related to the issue.

   13. “This is a very reductive analysis that elevates a biological fact into a demographic conclusion, thereby ignoring economic aspects of fertility. Women’s decisions to have children will depend in large part on their assessment of their future life prospects. A large risk that the father of their children will die prematurely, often of a behavioral choice that also tends to reduce earning potential, will affect decisions to marry, and decisions about fertility, and not for the better.”

   This is a valid point and I agree this affects family formation, etc. Nonetheless Russia has had a mortality crisis since the 1970’s, and this didn’t prevent it from maintaining relatively health demographics until after the Soviet collapse.

   14. The base for my projections is small and shaky? To an extent, I agree – though as I argued above, so are many of the pessimistic “refutations”. I certainly don’t believe my forecasts are certain for up till 2025, and I explicitly state they will almost certainly be wrong for after 2025.

   “First, demography is an inherently difficult thing to predict – especially its key component, fertility, which depends on a myriad of economic, social and cultural factors whose relations to each other are still little-understood. Second, though demography is a powerful trend it is frequently superseded by social, political and technological developments. Third, and consequently, the deterministic concept that “demography is destiny”, relying as it does by necessity on the fallacy of linear extrapolation, is of very limited utility in forecasting the fates of nations.”

   One more thing. I should also point out that a nation that remained locked in illiberal anarchy, Ukraine, on the surface shows much fewer signs of fundamental demographic recovery, despite a similar demographic profile to Russia – although I admit I haven’t looked at it in full detail. Perhaps an idea for a future avenue of research – the noxious effects of color revolutions on a nation’s precious bodily fluids?

   Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 28, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

4. “In a nutshell, he argues that survey evidence shows that Russians would desire, under optimal economic circumstances, to have about 2.5 children per family. Actual birth rates have been lower, due to seriously suboptimal economic circumstances”

   Many Russians themselves make this excuse, but in fact, it is not true. I have been living in a few different Russian cities for the past almost 15 years. Almost all Russian families have only one child at the most, even the wealthy ones

   They have their one kid to experience this aspect of life. But after that, why bother to have another? they say.

   Neighborhood Russian kids are always calling our home to play with one of my own 4 children. They long for brothers or sisters and ask their parents for a sibling for a birthday present. To their parents, (usually relatively well-off financially) this request is out of the question.

   It’s no different than in western Europe though.

   The reason for low birth rates is easy to figure out: It’s due to the modern phenomena of western-style affluence, birth control, urbanization, and strong social safety nets, and of course feminism. These have all led to the lowering of birth rates in all Western and modern societies.

   Until these factors change, birth rates won’t.

   Comment by Ray — April 29, 2009 @ 2:23 am

5. It’s a pity you seem to have missed my blog’s recent post on this subject:

   http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/editorial-the-incredible-shrinking-country/

   If you had read it, you would have seen that RUSSIAN demographer Anatoly Vishnevsky, someone who unlike DR/SO/AK (that’s just plain weird) is actually qualified to write about this subject, and has done so for the United Nations, has just published a report concluding that Russian racism is a serious threat to national survivial because it scares off immigrants who might offset the population decline.

   In a 2005 report, Vishnevsky revealed that under “pessimistic” projections Russia’s population would fall from 146 million in 2000 to just 92 million by 2100 — a loss of 54 million people or 37% of the population. Moderate projections put the loss at 45 million, optimistic ones at 34 million. In other words, Russia’s very best case scenario had it losing nearly a quarter of its population within a century.

   Those are the only facts that matter. The crazy rationalizations of Russia’s psychotic nationalist defenders cannot “explain” the loss of 34 million people, an accomplishment Hitler never dreamed of. They can only help defuse the push for reform and regime change, and therefore devastate Russia far worse than any foreign enemy might do.

   These are Russia’s real enemies.

   Comment by La Russophobe — April 29, 2009 @ 5:59 am

6. This is a quote from a Russian demographer at a conference held in Russia that sums up Russian demographics: Russia is plagued by European birth rates and African death rates. This of course leads to a rapidly shrinking population.

   True, the 50-year-old who dies of cardiac arrest may already have had children, but this ignores the social and economic consequences:

   1. A factory or business may now have one less experienced employee. This hurts production and forces the company to rely on less experienced and quite often less highly trained personnel. In other words, high mortality rates for men hurts industrial production, and this in turn hurts the Russian economy, which leaves Russia poorer which in turn leads to fewer women having children…. Tajik guest workers are useful for doing manual labor in construction, but won’t be much help replacing the engineers and specialized workers in factories producing tanks and planes and the mythical nanotechnology. It is called a positive feedback loop that reinforces Russia’s falling population.

   2. A family is left without a father or a husband (I am using the masculine as men have much lower life expectancies than women). This means one less salary that will hurt the entire family. In other words, he may have had children, but his children are more likely to suffer as well as his widow. This may mean that a young son or daughter won’t be able to buy an apartment without the help of a father and in turn will either put off having children or having a second child. Thus, though the 50-year-old man dying two or three decades earlier than he would in the rest of the G7 may not have changed the number of children he had, it may have a negative impact on the number of grandchildren that he may have….

   As for the 2007 uptick, I will have to look up an article that I read a couple months ago demonstrating that abortions went up drastically with the start of the crisis. In other words, whatever uptick existed in 2007 was wiped out in 2008 and is unlikely to recover in 2009.

   Michel

   Comment by Michel — April 29, 2009 @ 10:02 am

7. I found the article: http://deti.mail.ru/beremennosty_i_rody/newsabort. Published in February of this year, it notes an increasing number of abortions noting that it is expected that 100,000 to 200,000 fewer children will be born next year, and that this is worse than the all in births in 1999 following the 1998 default!

   Again, SWP, you were right in saying that one year does not make a trend and the evidence coming out of Russia shows that there will be a dramatic fall in births in Russia in 2009 and 2010, though I am sure that Da Russophile believes that some form of economic miracle will sweep across Russia that will allow both the economy and birth rates to recover.

   Here is the article in Russian:

   На фоне кризиса возросло число абортовВерсия для печати

   К концу 2009 года Россию ожидает резкий спад рождаемости. Основной причиной тому служит финансовый кризис и, как следствие, увеличившееся число абортов. Медики бьют тревогу: такого наплыва женщин, решивших прервать беременность, не было уже 10 лет, со времен дефолта 1998 года. Статистика того периода была катастрофической – демографические последствия дефолта привели к тому, что в 1999 году число новорожденных детей почти на 70 тысяч меньше, чем годом ранее.

   В качестве главной причины для прерывания беременности женщины называют экономические трудности. У одних ипотека, у других кредит, третьих сократили. На аборт решаются даже те, кто планировал ребенка.

   С 1 января 2009 года государство разрешило гасить ипотечные кредиты с помощью материнского капитала, но это пока удается единицам. С одной стороны – повышают возрастной ценз для участников программ по поддержке молодым семьям, с другой – в некоторых регионах заговорили о возможных задержках выплат детских пособий.

   По прогнозам экспертов, уже в следующем году в России родится на 100-200 тысяч детей меньше, чем в нынешнем. Также они утверждают, что сократить число абортов при сложившейся экономической ситуации можно лишь пойдя наперекор демографической политике государства, объясняя людям, что не следует заводить детей, пока нет уверенности в собственном будущем.

   «Снижение рождаемости мы увидим через 7-8 месяцев, – говорят сотрудники Центра экологии и демографии человека, – и переломить эту тенденцию получится не раньше, чем через 7-10 лет. По крайней мере, окончательно демографические последствия кризиса 1998 года были преодолены лишь к 2006 году».

   Comment by Michel — April 29, 2009 @ 10:25 am

8. Michel–

   In my haste in responding to DR’s piece, I forgot to mention the abortion issue. Indeed, quite important.

   Comment by The Professor — April 29, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

9. Michel you and your fine Russian language skills are truly the bane of the insane Russophile. I can just picture them ripping out their hair! It’s almost like you were put on earth just to drive them out of their “minds”. Bolshoe spasibo tebe dorogoi! Molodets!

   Comment by La Russophobe — April 29, 2009 @ 1:01 pm

10. Yes, the most chilling line in that article for Da Russophile and other who believe that birth rates are improving: “На аборт решаются даже те, кто планировал ребенка.” Translation: “Even women who had planned to their pregnancy are deciding to go for an abortion.” Simply put, these are not simply women who had an unexpected pregnancy, but women who wanted a child, deliberately got pregnant, and changed their minds because of the crisis. That is a demographic nightmare, and even Da Russophile won’t be able to spin this in a positive light (though I am sure he will try ).

    Michel

    Comment by Michel — April 29, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

11. First, for anyone interested – http://www.russiablog.org/2009/04/russias_fertility_future.php

    @Michel/SWP,

    Re-recent effects of abortion.

    “As for the 2007 uptick, I will have to look up an article that I read a couple months ago demonstrating that abortions went up drastically with the start of the crisis. In other words, whatever uptick existed in 2007 was wiped out in 2008 and is unlikely to recover in 2009.”

    You are, quite simply, wrong.

    Number of births by year:
    2006 – 1479,6
    2007 – 1610,1
    2008 – 1717,5 (273,7 in Jan-Feb)
    2009 – ? (270,8 in Jan-Feb)

    So there was an uptick in a) 2007 AND 2008 and b) nothing was wiped out in 2008 and c) the figures so far indicate stagnation rather than collapse.

    That said, I actually agree with you that fertility is likely to decline through 2009, and probably 2010 – in fact, I imlicitly predicted as much.

    From December 7
    “All vital demographic statistics, with the exception of the total fertility rate, improve during this period – the expanding social safety net checks mortality increases, but the confidence crisis temporarily dents the former.”

    An incidental point, but significant nonetheless, is that despite the crisis, mortality has continued falling quite rapidly, decreasing by 5% in Jan-Feb of this year as compared with 2008. And unlike fertility it shouldn’t have a time lag.

    Now let’s go to your article, Michel:

    The article says that after the 1998 default, there were 70,000 fewer births. That’s true, but ignores the fact that there was an almost full recovery in 2000.

    1998 1283292
    1999 1214689
    2000 1266800

    Now even in the extreme case the births fall by 200,000 in 2009 – which I would stop to note would still be marginally above the level of 2006 – those anonymous quoted experts have absolutely no grounds for saying it would 7-10 years to get a recovery with such a degree of certainty, which simply doesn’t exist in demography.

    Re-Russia has European birth rates and African death rates point

    1. As I pointed out, the death rate only becomes “African” amongst groups of people with marginal contributions to fertility pattrns.

    2. Again as I pointed out, the death rate is most “African” for manual laborers and uneducated folks. I can assure you they most certainly would be working on nanotechnology projects.

    3. “A family is left without a father or a husband (I am using the masculine as men have much lower life expectancies than women). This means one less salary that will hurt the entire family.”…that is, as I said in my previous reply here, a valid point, but ignores the fact that the RSFSR maintained respectable fertility rates despite the fact the mortality crisis became noticeable as early as the 1970’s.

    @Loserdope,

    “It’s a pity you seem to have missed my blog’s recent post on this subject:”

    Not at all.

    “If you had read it, you would have seen that RUSSIAN demographer Anatoly Vishnevsky”

    I’ve critiqued Vishnevsky in the comments to this post – http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2008/12/31/new-year-update-russophile-predictions/

    “someone who unlike DR/SO/AK (that’s just plain weird) is actually qualified to write about this subject”

    People can judge how qualified I am, or not, by what I write. And speaking of which, what are your qualifications for writing on Russia? Pray tell.

    “In a 2005 report, Vishnevsky revealed that under “pessimistic” projections Russia’s population would fall from 146 million in 2000 to just 92 million by 2100 — a loss of 54 million people or 37% of the population…Russia’s very best case scenario had it losing nearly a quarter of its population within a century.”

    Centennial forecasts are absolutely meaningless, for reasons I explained in the article. Just study the history of UN projections for global population in 2050 (let alone 2010) just within the last thirty years.

    “Those are the only facts that matter. The crazy rationalizations of Russia’s psychotic nationalist defenders cannot “explain” the loss of 34 million people, an accomplishment Hitler never dreamed of.”

    1. Even if Russia loses 34mn people, it is projected to be because of low fertility and high mortality trends linearly extrapolated to the future. That is quite different from genocide.

    2. You are quite simply ignorant, because the Nazis planned to exterminate the entire Slavic urban population and helotize the peasants. Refer to Generalplan Ost. Then again perhaps that would have been just fine by you.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 29, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

12. [...] This is an article I wrote for Russia Blog. There is a lively ongoing critique of it by Craig Pirrong and his supporters, with my rebuttals, at Streetwise Professor. [...]

    Pingback by Rite of Spring: Russia Fertility Trends | Sublime Oblivion — April 29, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

13. Perhaps the most hysterically funny aspect of this totally unqualified cretin’s gibberish is his underlying assumption that data produced by a Kremlin run by a proud KGB spy is reliable.

    Does this ape really believe that the Kremlin has a policy of full disclosure of facts that make it look bad? Does he really think we might believe he’d admit it if the Kremlin were ruining Russia, and that even though the entire educated world diagrees with him HE ALONE is in possession of of the “real” truth about Russia, which is to be found in the Kremlin’s own statements? If so, that’s pretty insulting of our intelligence.

    Another truly hilarious aspect of this court jester’s nonsensical ramblings is his total lack of familiarity with life on the ground in Russia. ANY of us who have lived there know perfectly well why Russia isn’t among the top 100 nations of the world for adult lifespan; Russians have the most barbarically unhealthy diets imaginable, they smoke, they drink, they are surrounded by toxic pollution and they are almost unimaginably violent, with the #5 murder rate on the planet. They also lead the world in indicia such as divorce rate and suicide, opening a clear window into just how very troubled their souls are. Thus, we don’t need any data from any source to know that Russia is perishing.

    But this silly little goat goes on bleeting, asking the world to ignore what is happening and consign the people of Russia once again to the dustbin of history. What did they ever do to him to make him hate them so much? He won’t say.

    Comment by La Russophobe — April 29, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

14. Exactly La Russophobe! DR hasn’t lived in Russia! He left as a small child and was raised in the United States… where he still resides! He mocks and dismisses those of us with real experience of life on the ground in Russia as emotional liars. He’s just a deranged fool who is clearly a victim of his own delusions. In addition, he refuses to answer the question of why he remains a resident of the United States. I keep asking when he plans to return to Russia and serve in the military… zero response-

    I am suspect of any blog who wishes to use DR as a contributor, a man who condones and justifies Russia’s use of rape as a warranted warfare tactic (see Georgia post)…scary-

    Comment by rtyb — April 29, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

15. Da Russophile writes: “That’s true, but ignores the fact that there was an almost full recovery in 2000.” Well, there was full recovery to 1998 levels, but Russian birth rates NEVER recovered to 1990 levels let alone 1980 levels. As always, you like to cherry pick you data. Let’s compare birth and death rates on a decade by decade basis.

    1980: birth rate = 15.9 per 1,000; death rate = 11.0 per 1,000
    1990: birth rate = 13.4 per 1,000; death rate = 11.9 per 1,000
    2000: birth rate = 8.7 per 1,000; death rate = 15.3 per 1,000

    The date for 2007: birth rate = 11.3 per 1,000; death rate = 14.6 per 1,000

    As you can see, even after 8 years of Putinism, birth rates have yet to fully recover to 1990 levels, let alone that of the 1980s and the death rate barely moved, though it is better than the all time high of 16.1 per 1,000 of 2005.

    What can we expect in the next few years? Well, birth rates will plunge. Likely lower than the all time low of 1999 which was 8.3 deaths per 1,000 and the death rate is more likely to climb up past 16 per 1,000. In other words, you will likely see two people dying for each person born. Not very good from a demographic perspective.

    Comment by Michel — April 29, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

16. To add to that, in the last 5 years russia has lost 440,000 people to emigration. The brightest and the brainiest.

    Comment by voroBey — April 29, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

17. @Michel,

    And you like to change the topic. You explicitly stated that “In other words, whatever uptick existed in 2007 was wiped out in 2008 and is unlikely to recover in 2009.” I called you out on it for the pure invention that really is, which you haven’t acknowledged.

    Now that it doesn’t work, you disingenuously switch the comparison of 2008+, from 1998 to the post-Soviet collapse – a truly bizarre analogy. You also ignore that Putin inherited a lot of problems – widespread poverty, economic backwardness, recalcitrant governors and oligarchs, high debts – that occupied attention and precluded a concerted campaign to reverse negative demographic trends from the beginning.

    Your own attempts at making demographic projections are without evidence and a perfect example of what is usually called truthiness.

    @Loserdope,

    1. I covered Russia’s mortality crisis at Out of the Death Spiral, mentioning all the points you raised.

    2. So you believe that Rosstat fixes the data?

    Perhaps.

    But in that case, why did GDP fall by -9.5% in Q1? Why did the mortality rate rise slightly in 2008? You do realize your own stats for murder and suicide come from them? You do realize how hard it would be to maintain two different databases, one for internal consumption and one for public, and to prevent any leaks, any accidental cross-pollinations, the whole problem of maintaining consistency with earlier data, etc?

    Second, you do realize that everyone uses data from national statistical agencies, like Rosstat, because quite simply there exists no global organization rich and powerful enough to monitor so many indicators by themselves?

    @rtyb,

    As I told you already (and IIRC, not once), the reason I don’t “answer the question of why he remains a resident of the United States” is because I fail to see how it has any bearing whatsoever in this “discussion”. You are an emotional liar.

    Second, your assertion that I “condones and justifies Russia’s use of rape as a warranted warfare tactic” is a pure smear, when what I actually said was that in some situations it is understandable due to accumulated emotional stress, not to mention backstabbing from your likes, who have made it clear that they love Nazis and Wahhabi terrorists far more than their own people – be they Russians or Americans.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 29, 2009 @ 7:10 pm

18. No Da Russophile, I am demonstrating how you are grasping at straws and focusing on a very narrow period to try and minimize the true long-term trends. You point to a short lived uptick in birth rates and gloss over the fact that death rates are still extremely high.

    Comment by Michel — April 29, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

19. In other words, you a) cannot admit to being wrong even on a basic factual point, b) repeat arguments that I’ve already covered at some length in the original article and c) concentrate on one ultimately minor point of my argument, ignoring the plethora of other evidence supporting it. I will graciously accept your concession of defeat.

    For that matter, that of rtyb and LR too. I am under the impression you’ve all said what you wanted to say, what with recent exchanges devolving into snide insinuations on character from your side, so I will close and readers can judge by themselves who they feel has the better case.

    From now on I will only reply to SWP and new commenters.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 29, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

20. Speaking of which,

    @Ray,

    While what you describe is of course a common feature of post-industrial societies, nonetheless the point stands that there remain substantial differences in fertility expectations in this group – from the highest in the US/France (around 2.1), going down to Scandinavia/UK/Canada (1.6-1.8), further down to Germany and the Med (1.3-1.4) and bottoming out with Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan (1.0-1.2).

    Based on multiple weighted surveys of many people, Russia’s “natural position” seems to be in the Scandinavia/UK group. I don’t dispute the fact that many parents don’t want to have any more kids after having the first one – especially in big cities and amongst the better-educated well-off (it should be noted that despite being one the richer Russian regions, Moscow City and St.-Petersburg also have the lowest TFR in all Russia), with whom I presume you have had the most contact with. That said, while I appreciate your input, I value measure-able trends more than anecdotal evidence.

    The fact remains that people in more ordinary Russian towns say they actually plan to have around 1.8-2.0 children (some 0.5 children lower than “ideal family size, as in most countries), and bearing in mind the other evidence from ABS, marriage rates, etc, I think this will be achieved sometime around the 2015-2020 period assuming no negative discontinuities. IMO, the evidence that the current crisis is one so severe as to have a multi-year SYSTEMATIC impact, i.e. to bring forth a discontinuity / second fertility collapse on the post-Soviet pattern, as opposed to a 1-2 year dip in the TFR, is wanting.

    Of course from 2015 there will be increasing pressure on the crude birth rate since the 1980’s generation will be aging beyond their childbearing years – pessimists here make a valid albeit overstated point. Michel’s scenario of a collapse of birth rates to lower than 8.3 / 1000 is only possible if a) there is no permanent improvement in the TFR beyond 1.3 or 1.4, which as I said is highly questionable, and b) only in the 2020’s or 2030’s, certainly not “in the next few years”.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 29, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

21. Dear Da Russophile, I have to say that I am a proponent of the social sciences not social science fiction. I base my analysis on existing social indicators, in the same way that the SWP bases economic analysis on existing economic data. I look at existing trends and existing statistics, not hope disguised in verbiage.

    You write: “I think this will be achieved sometime around the 2015-2020 period assuming no negative discontinuities.” In other words, you are hoping that there will be a miraculous change in 5 to 10 years (much like Putin & Co. promised that Russia would achieve great things in 2020), but just to be safe you insert a weasel out clause (“negative discontinuities.”)

    Also, you seem to be placing an inordinate amount of hope on how many children women in Russia “plan” to have as opposed to the number of children they actually will have. The fact of the matter is that women worldwide will invariably state that they want more children than they will have. IIRC, women in Canada will say that they want on average 3 children, though in reality they are likely to have fewer than two. Attribute it to wishful thinking or wishing to uphold social standards about women and motherhood. However, I prefer to base demographic trends on the number of children women actually have as opposed to how many they want to have, or plan to have.

    The existing social statistics are as follow:

    1) Birth rates have dropped drastically since the 1980s. The “baby boom” of the 1980s is now finishing having their children (go talk to women in Russia and they will tell you that it is better to have children before the age of 30). As I have noted several times, you will have a smaller cohort of women having children and unless this smaller cohort compensates by having larger numbers of children, this will lead to fewer children overall being born in Russia. However, given the economic crisis, women will put off having children, hence the increasing number of abortions;

    2) Birth rates recovered somewhat for a few years, but birth rates have not exceeded death rates since 1990 or in other words a full generation;

    3) Death rates dropped a bit, but are still exceedingly high. Death rates have not been below 10 per 1,000 since the 1970s. As a point of comparison, Russia’s death rate is roughly twice Canada’s death rate (14.6 in Russia per 1,000 versus 7.6 in Canada);

    To summarize, your analysis is based on wishful thinking and the facts do not substantiate your analysis.

    Comment by Michel — April 29, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

22. One more thing. I should also point out that a nation that remained locked in illiberal anarchy, Ukraine, on the surface shows much fewer signs of fundamental demographic recovery, despite a similar demographic profile to Russia – although I admit I haven’t looked at it in full detail. Perhaps an idea for a future avenue of research – the noxious effects of color revolutions on a nation’s precious bodily fluids?

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 28, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

    Interestingly I remember Eduard Hugo talking to somebody about demographics on his Ukraine blog. At least what that other person was saying is that Western Ukraine features better demographic indicators than the Eastern part and that it’s Eastern Ukraine’s anemic birth/death rates that create all the demographic doom and gloom. To this Eduard noticed that similar situation exists for example in Estonia where Estonians have demographic indicators comparable to Scandinavian countries while Russian minority is living in Russia in demographic terms. “I have no real explanation for this, other than to say that culture does matter,” Eduard concluded.

    PS

    Can you please stop advertising me in your posts as a Muslim fundamentalist? This is ridiculous. I have nothing to do with either Islam or Muslims.

    Comment by Nobody — April 30, 2009 @ 3:09 am

23. Nobody,

    The reason as to why Russians in Eastern Ukraine or Estonia would have higher death rates is quite simple: drinking and smoking. Russian men in Russia could easily add a decade to their life expectancy if they drank less. Also, before Da Russophile comes back with official stats “showing” how alcohol consumption is not that high, I will preempt him by saying that much of the alcohol consumption in Russia is not recorded or tabulated in the official statistics as it involves homemade alcohol (samogon), alcohol produced not for consumption but drunk anyway (spirits or ethanol) or the consumption of products such as “troynoy eau-de-cologne. If Eduard’s stats are correct, then the most likely explanation would be alcohol consumption and/or smoking as factors contributing to higher death rates among certain populations in both Estonia and Ukraine.

    Michel

    Comment by Michel — April 30, 2009 @ 7:20 am

24. They were not talking in the sense of Russians in Ukraine and Estonia having only higher death rates. Fertility seems to be also low, at least compared to Western Ukranians and ethnic Estonians.

    Regarding the subject itself, I would agree with AK on one thing: demographic trends appear to be notoriously difficult to predict even though the UN usually errs almost always on only one side – overestimating future fertility and birth rates. It always revises its predictions in only one direction. By the way, I checked that Rosstat study linked by AK and a thing that calls attention is that ideal family size seems to be significantly lower for teenagers. This makes me think that the low fertility trend will deepen in the future. I would also throw into this the massive migration of young Russians from the periphery to Moscow and Peter mentioned by many people I talked to who recently visited Russia. From what I remember from my childhood one child families were a norm in Moscow. In my classroom virtually nobody had sisters or brothers. This second wave of urbanization for sure will not improve Russian birth rates.

    However, I think we should wait a few years before we can know sure whether the current upward trend is temporary. This is true that pro natalist politics usually tend to produce short term gains because they tend to affect timing of births more than the planned fertility. Yet, demography is a fluid business. World wide demographic indicators are mostly collapsing and soon the UN won’t be able to overestimate future fertility as we are fast approaching the point beyond which we can only be able to underestimate it.

    Comment by Nobody — April 30, 2009 @ 7:55 am

25. The problem with migrating to Moscow is the cost of rent and housing. I have friends who moved to Moscow from smaller cities. They have good jobs, but most of their salary goes to pay rent. There is no way they could afford to buy a room let alone an apartment. This means that they are not optimistic as to getting married, let alone starting a family. In the regional cities, not much better in most cases unless they can inherit an apartment of their parents can help them financially. The main problem facing young couples is solving the eternal housing question.

    Comment by Michel — April 30, 2009 @ 8:40 am

26. Paul Goble has a piece today on the demographic decline in Siberia, the folly of the Kremlin’s neglect of the area and the consequences:

    The region’s population is not only declining, he says, but its level of education and culture is falling as well, trends that mean “if the political elite does not recognize fully the seriousness of the situation, it will soon become too late to engage in any talk about ‘the fates of Siberia.’”

    Ryzhkov says that he is talking about Siberia as “a geographic term,” the two federal districts that extend from the Urals to the Pacific that constitutes 80 percent of Russia’s territory, 22 percent of the country’s population, and is responsible for 30 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

    But the population is declining. Since 1990, five million of its residents have died or left. As a result, the population of Chukotka has fallen by more than half, of Magadan by 40 percent, Kamchatka by 18 percent, and so on. And this is happening despite the wealth of the region and security considerations with regard to China with its enormous population next door.

    http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/04/window-on-eurasia-moscow-has-cast-aside.html

    China will be the ultimate beneficiary.

    Comment by penny — April 30, 2009 @ 9:57 am

27. @michel

    I am no expert on these issues but I was told that Russian companies pay the bulk of their taxes in places where their headquarters are registered and not where their actual mineral extracting activities and so on are carried out. If this is the case, then such a taxation system should place the periphery at disadvantage. From what I remember from my experience in Russia, one child family is such a norm that it may be absolutely hopeless in big cities. If anything Russian government should better try to reverse the trend of the last years by favoring the periphery. Concentrating on agriculture may make sense in this regard both because of Russia’s enormous potential in this area and because this could revitalize the countryside and provincial cities. However, I am pretty much sure that this runs contrary to many very powerful vested interests in Moscow and elsewhere. But without some paradigm shift in the way this government approaches development, it’s hard to see how it can achieve a real breakthrough in demographic terms.

    Comment by Nobody — April 30, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

28. A RUSSIAN confirms Putin has sent the population of SIBERIA into exile with extreme prejudice:

    http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/04/window-on-eurasia-moscow-has-cast-aside.html

    Comment by La Russophobe — April 30, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

29. oops .. great minds think alike, Penny!

    Comment by La Russophobe — April 30, 2009 @ 2:12 pm

30. “They were not talking in the sense of Russians in Ukraine and Estonia having only higher death rates. Fertility seems to be also low, at least compared to Western Ukranians and ethnic Estonians.”

    While I can’t speak of western Ukrainians, I can say that ethnic Estonians have behaved quite differently from Russophones throughout the whole post-1945 period, with significantly lower death rates and replacement-level TFRs from the 1950s on. At one point in the late 1980s, a journalist observed that assuming there was no immigration from that point on, by the 2080s there would be 1.7 million Estonians and only three hundred Russophones in Estonia.

    Why? Different patterns in reproductive behaviour–not only did Estonians wait relatively longer than Russophones to become first-time parents, they have more children and are much more likely not to be married–along with different patterns in mortality, with significantly elevated levels of everything from cardiovascular disease to HIV infection among Russophones. This shift alone, with a relatively stable or slowly declining Estonian population alongside a rapidly shrinking Russophone population, will have major impacts on Estonia, not least because Russophone labour plays a critical role in many industrial and shipping industries, including those geared towards the Russian market.

    I’ll provide link to Estonia specifically when I get home, but for the time being this paper

    http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol17/10/17-10.pdf

    exploring demographic trends in the post-1945 Baltic States holds true. The Baltics and Finland have long behaved quite differently, as far as marriage and reproduction goes, than Russia.

    As for the main point of the post, I quite agree. Leaving aside the apparent confusion between TFRs and completed fertility, it’s one thing to suggest that Russians might want to have large numbers of children–might–but another to say that they actually will. I’d be willing to bet that instead of seeing a baby boom, you’ll see the preferences of Russian women shift towards, in keeping with southern and central European precedents.

    Later,
    Randy

    Comment by Randy McDonald — April 30, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

31. Nobody,

    You are right. Corporations pay taxes based on where they are registered, and of course the largest companies are registered in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Most of the money from the sale of oil and gas, is concentrated in a few cities and in turn most of the Russian wealth is concentrated in a couple dozen large corporations. I agree that this skewed development model works against population growth. However, despite the propaganda, I have my doubts as to whether the ruling elite (political and economic) is really concerned about the well-being of the population.

    Michel

    Comment by Michel — April 30, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

32. DR, your response regarding rape as a Russian tactic to rtyb…..”when what I actually said was that in some situations it is understandable due to accumulated emotional stress”…..is very careless at the least or totally disgusting at worst.

    Allied soldiers in WWII were emotionally stressed too, they weren’t mass rapists, nor were they excused if they raped women. The Russians on the other hand were a disgusting lot.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,585779,00.html

    Comment by penny — April 30, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

33. @Nobody,

    Re-Ukraine. First, the Western regions only make up a small percentage of Ukraine’s population and as such the (true) fact that they have somewhat higher life expectancy does not play much of a role. Russia has unambiguously better demography than Ukraine as a whole, as a crude comparison for 2008 proves:

    BR – 11.0 in UKR, 12.1 in RU
    DR – 16.3 in UKR, 14.8 in RU

    For 2007 its TFR was 1.32 and Russia had 1.41 (actually its been higher in Russia since 1998). It’s overall life expectancy is only marginally higher than Russia’s (by about 1-2 years).

    PS. Ukraine’s stats for Jan 2009 are worrying. BR fell to 10.7 and DR rose to 18.1, whereas in Russia for that period BR remained steady and DR fell by 5%. @Michel, SWP et al. – when talking of a humanitarian crisis because of economic collapse, you might want to start citing Ukraine instead of Russia, at least for now. At least there’s evidence to back it up.

    Second, re-West Ukraine better than overall Ukraine. That is true, but not to the extent you stress. West Ukraine has significantly lower mortality rates than Eastern Russian-leaning regions, but it too has a mortality crisis nonetheless. And the differences between birth rates are pretty small, although in the Western favor.

    That’s from a cursory look at Ukraine’s national statistical service. However, I can’t find a regional breakdown of Ukraine’s TFR and life expectancy, which would be much more useful in making a reak judgment.

    “Can you please stop advertising me in your posts as a Muslim fundamentalist? This is ridiculous. I have nothing to do with either Islam or Muslims.”

    Sorry – I just copied that part from my old article verbatim.

    “This second wave of urbanization for sure will not improve Russian birth rates.”

    The migration to Moscow only really applies to Moscow Oblast, although its true there has been substantial migration in general from rural to urban areas. That said, the percentage of urban residents has remained fixes at around 70-75% since 1989, presumably because of higher fertility amongst rural folks.

    “World wide demographic indicators are mostly collapsing and soon the UN won’t be able to overestimate future fertility as we are fast approaching the point beyond which we can only be able to underestimate it.”

    True, and in fact fairly recently it raised its medium projection of world population in 2050 from 8.9bn to 9.3bn, mostly because of an unexpected recent up-tick in the developed world.

    @penny,

    It seems Ryzhkov doesn’t know the difference between Siberia and the Far East. And he cherry-picks the absolute worst declining, remotest and lowest population regions – Chukotka, Magadan and Kamchatka.

    @Michel,

    “The reason as to why Russians in Eastern Ukraine or Estonia would have higher death rates is quite simple: drinking and smoking. Russian men in Russia could easily add a decade to their life expectancy if they drank less. Also, before Da Russophile comes back with official stats “showing” how alcohol consumption is not that high, I will preempt him…” – Michel

    “Many commentators believe that Russia’s excessively high mortality rates preclude a demographic recovery – an example of this line of reasoning appears in Rising Ambitions, Sinking Population by Nicholas Eberstadt. It is certainly true that Russia’s life expectancy is exceptionally low by industrialized-world standards and that death rates for middle-aged men today are, amazingly, no different from those of late Tsarism. This development is almost entirely attributable to the extreme prevalance of binge drinking of hard spirits. Yet their conclusions don’t follow the arguments.” – myself

    Thank you for unequivocally proving you did even read my article before dissing it. Case closed.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 30, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

34. “Russia’s life expectancy is exceptionally low by industrialized-world standards” – Da Russophile

    So, what exactly have you been smoking? The average life expectancy for a Russian male is 59.12 years. This puts it in the same league with Madagascar (60.23), Ghana (58.65), and lagging behind countries such as Bangladesh (62.81). No, dear Russophile, the life expectancy of Russian males is not “low by industrialized-world standards” it is merely high by Sub-Saharan African standards Now, lets compare the life expectancy with that of males in industrialized countries: Japan (78.73), France (77.68), Canada (76.98) and the United States (75.15). Again, even in the United States that has a relatively low life expectancy as compared to other industrialized countries, the males will live on average more than 25% longer than Russian males.

    Comment by Michel — April 30, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

35. I don’t even know what you’re trying to prove now, Michel.

    You haven’t read the article, that much is obvious.

    In that paragraph I quoted, the “prevalance of binge drinking” was hyperlinked to here, where I said much the same thing as you did.

    “Russia’s infant mortality rate, at 10.8 / 1000 people in 2008, is respectable compared to countries of roughly similar income levels (Mexico – 19.0; Latvia – 9.0; Poland – 6.9) and far better than most developing countries. Nor is Russia’s female life expectancy all that bad compared with the typical Asian or Latin American country. The same cannot be said of male life expectancy. According to CIA estimates, in 2008 it stands at a meagre 59.2 years – the US (75.3), Poland (71.4), India (66.9), Ukraine (62.2) and even Bangladesh (63.2) score higher, while Russia’s neighbors in this area are the likes of Madagascar (60.6) and Ghana (58.7). The main reason is amazingly high mortality rates for middle-aged Russian men, which by Rosstat calculations are somewhat higher today than they were in 1897.”

    As usual, the harder you try the more you fail.

    @penny,

    I will quickly note that the Eastern Front in WW2 was completely different from the Western, from its initiation by Nazi Germany extremely barbaric and not subject to traditional laws of war – and as such they cannot be comparable in this sense. Allied servicemen did not have to look at the destroyed cities and massacred villages of they country before coming to Germany. And this is the last of what I’ll say on this matter in this thread.

    @Randy,

    While I don’t doubt mortality rates are higher for Russophones than for ethnic Estonians, I suspect the difference is not as cardinal as you make it out to be. First, Russians only make up about a quarter of the population, so to a large extent Estonian (or Latvian) will reflect the demographic trends of the aborigines – and while their stats are better than those of Russia, they are not extraordinarily so. Second, to take the example of Lithuania, where Russians make up about 10% of the population and as such should be large insignificant, its LE in 2007 was 71 years, and as is usual for the post-Soviet region with very high death rates for middle-aged men, and with the dubious distinction of having the world’s largest suicide rate. (I do however recognize that Lithuania is Polish-influenced, and therefore not strictly comparable to Estonia or Latvia). I guess the main point I’m making is that mortality trends are similar and bad everywhere in the Christian post-Soviet space, they’re just a little to moderately worse among Russian or Russophone populations. Of course, detailed ethnic stats would be great, if you could find them.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 30, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

36. Well, at least you concede my point: Russian males are dying in droves. So, how exactly is this good for Russia?

    Comment by Michel — April 30, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

37. Okay, I am bored, and I am reading your “article.” I will say, the first part is not bad, but I have reached that section where you veer off into science fiction. You write:

    “Talking of which, we now move on to the fun bit – the Transformation scenario. This is an event or series of events which would induce a demographic paradigm shift. In the previous post, we’ve identified the artificial womb as a revolutionary concept for supply-side demographics, which will make the ‘birth rate’ independent of sociological factors.”

    In other words, your glorious solution for Russia is to develop artificial wombs so the state can produce the babies it needs and bypass women altogether? Presumably women have these nasty tendencies to think about the well-being of their future children?

    Michel

    Comment by Michel — April 30, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

38. There, I finished reading your text. I love one of your recommendations. You write: “Convert wine production into a strategic industry and massively fund its expansion. Try to remake Russia into a wine-drinking nation. Aim to turn vodka into an exclusively export industry.” I never knew you were a budding comic Da Russophile Though, I have to say that I am impressed by the combination of science fiction and comedy in one article discussing Russian demographics LOL!

    Michel

    Comment by Michel — April 30, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

39. “Well, at least you concede my point: Russian males are dying in droves. So, how exactly is this good for Russia?”

    Read the Rite of Spring article, instead of just SWP’s criticism of it. My point was not that’s its “good” but that it has minor effects on long-term demographic trends relative to fertility.

    “In other words, your glorious solution for Russia is to develop artificial wombs so the state can produce the babies it needs and bypass women altogether?”

    That is certainly an idea worthy of serious exploration by the world’s governments, for feminist and ecological purposes.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 30, 2009 @ 11:31 pm

40. The migration to Moscow only really applies to Moscow Oblast, although its true there has been substantial migration in general from rural to urban areas. That said, the percentage of urban residents has remained fixes at around 70-75% since 1989, presumably because of higher fertility amongst rural folks.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion

    I think it’s more tricky than that. This migration may not be massive in terms of numbers, yet it seems to disproportionately affect a particular segment of the population – young singles, a segment that counts a lot from the demographic point of view.

    Comment by Nobody — May 1, 2009 @ 12:10 am

41. That’s from a cursory look at Ukraine’s national statistical service. However, I can’t find a regional breakdown of Ukraine’s TFR and life expectancy, which would be much more useful in making a reak judgment.

    From what I remember from that thread, they said that one Western province has nothing and nothing less but the highest birth rate in Europe

    Comment by Nobody — May 1, 2009 @ 12:17 am

42. nothing and nothing less = nothing more and nothing less

    Comment by Nobody — May 1, 2009 @ 12:19 am

43. Volynsk, Roven and Zakarpatie had BR = 14.7-14.8 in 2008, which is highly differentiated from the rest of Ukraine which is at 9.0-12.0 (including Western regions like Lviv, where it is 11.3, for instance). It is indeed the highest BR in Europe (for European countries, that is!), though my rough calculation of TFR gives a figure of 1.8-2.0 means that part of the reason is an exceptional youth bulge from the 1980’s cohort.

    Still, that’s quite an impressive TFR for a post-Soviet region and it would be interesting to see why its so much higher than in either the rest of Ukraine or even neighboring Poland, with whom they’ve got firm historical links. IIRC, those three are also the poorest Ukrainian regions. In any case, considering they have 3.4mn people between them, its not making a significant difference on the overall situation in Ukraine or even just its western part.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 1, 2009 @ 12:53 am

44. I believe that there are solutions to dangerously low fertility levels in nations which are past the demographic transition. Moreover, while I support reasonable immigration, mass migration should not be looked to as the easy fix for the problem.

    One current theory has it that cultures where there are fairly traditional gender roles like Japan and Italy have women less likely to go through the process of child rearing more than once or twice while trying to maintain a career. And nations that have flexible labour markets where women can work part-time for a few years or actually quit to spend a few years with the kids and yet be rehired in her field. Employers who are not saddled with extreme obligations to each employee are more willing to hire new ones which means that leaving work to raise kids is not career suicide.

    I see Europe as being far better placed to work out and adopt conditions which promote replacement fertility than Russia, at least until there is a significant change in Russian economic, political and societal orientation.

    Comment by Snake Oil Baron — May 1, 2009 @ 2:39 am

45. “While I don’t doubt mortality rates are higher for Russophones than for ethnic Estonians, I suspect the difference is not as cardinal as you make it out to be. First, Russians only make up about a quarter of the population, so to a large extent Estonian (or Latvian) will reflect the demographic trends of the aborigines – and while their stats are better than those of Russia, they are not extraordinarily so.”

    They _are_ extraordinarily different. Going at pub.stat.ee to the table “POPULATION, 1 JANUARY by Sex, County, Year and Ethnic nationality” reveals that the national population fell from 1 372 thousand in 2000 to 1 341 thousand in 2009, with the Estonian population going from a bit less than 936 thousand to a bit less than 921. The population fell by 31 thousand during this time period, and even though Estonians make up ~70% of the Estonian population they’re responsible for less than half of the population’s decrease. Assuming as is plausible that ethnically differential emigration hasn’t occurred, that suggests

    Going to the table “POPULATION BY SEX, AGE AND COUNTY, 1 JANUARY” I pulled statistics over the same time 2000-2008 period for the three counties with the largest populations, of Harju (Tallinn area), Ida-Viru (Narva) and Tartu (obviously), areas with a 50:50 Estonian:Russophone population, a large Russophone majority, and a large Estonian majority. Harju’s population fell by a half-percent, Ida-Viru’s by 5.5%, and Tartu’s by 0.3%.

    Finally, if you go to the table “BIRTHS, DEATHS AND NATURAL INCREASE by Year, County, Sex and Indicator,” and if you run these statistics for Estonia and these three counties, you’ll see that kind of pattern, natural increase returning first in largely Estonian Tartu in 2004 then in Harju in 2005. For the last five years of the data set, Ida-Viru’s population has continued to decrease by a thousand people per year.

    The net picture is one showing ethnic Estonian populations remaining relatively stable and even resuming growth while Russophone populations continue to contract. This contrast is all the more pronounced given that ethnic Estonians constituted until recently a “younger” population than Estonian Russophones, a population formed almost entirely by the immigration of relatively young people.

    Estonians are increasingly adopting–or returning to–the patterns of their Nordic kin, with high completed fertility and stable natural increase, the only pre-1991 operiods of natural decrease coming in 1978-1981 and again in 1985 owing to the aging of the population. Estonian Russophones, despite living in a country considerably richer and stabler than Russia, are sharing instead in the common post-Soviet Russophone trap of high mortality and low natality. Estonian Russophones might well want large families, but unlike their Estonian counterparts they don’t seem to have them.

    Making long-term projections is obviously problematic, but if–as judging by the precedent of the past two decades–this gap in demographic behaviours is sustained, and the ethnic Estonian component of Estonia’s population remains stable while the Russophone component continues to shrink, then the country’s demographics are going to change radically. The table “POPULATION BORN IN ESTONIA BY PLACE OF BIRTH AND ETHNIC NATIONALITY” suggests that even in 2000, more than 80% of births were to Estonian mothers. What will the Estonia of 2029 look like?

    Similar patterns prevail in Latvia, although with the significantly greater intermingling of ethnic Latvians and Russophones I expect it to have a less pronounced effect. Lithuania’s distinct from the other two Baltic States, agreed.

    I can’t speak with any authority over events elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, save that western Ukrainians do appear to have somewhat better vital statistics than their eastern counterparts and that the countries with the lowest TFRs in Central Asia (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan) are also the countries with the largest Russophone populations and where the Russian language is in widest use.

    The relevance of this digression to the post at hand? Briefly put, in a large variety of settings, including environments where Russophones/Russians enjoy relatively greater prosperity than other conationals (Ukraine, Central Asia) or are absolutely richer and live in stabler environments than in Russia (Latvia, Estonia), Russians still haven’t responded with either a baby boom or decreased mortality.

    The article suggested that desired fertility in Russia is high and will therefore lead to an uptick in TFRs. Another, more accurate, interpretation might be that relatively high levels of desired fertility reflect lag from the period of high fertility that lasted into the 1980s, and that as time passed desired fertility will drift downwards towards actual, low, TFRs, as has been the pattern elsewhere in the developed world.

    Comment by Randy McDonald — May 1, 2009 @ 2:40 am

46. “Michel, SWP et al. – when talking of a humanitarian crisis because of economic collapse, you might want to start citing Ukraine instead of Russia, at least for now. At least there’s evidence to back it up.”

    There’s clearly evidence to support _both_ cases.

    Comment by Randy McDonald — May 1, 2009 @ 2:46 am

47. I see Europe as being far better placed to work out and adopt conditions which promote replacement fertility than Russia, at least until there is a significant change in Russian economic, political and societal orientation.

    This is open to debate. Europe’s immigration policies have ended with whole areas of the Middle East transplanted as they are to European cities where the natives occasionally look as if under siege by a new wave of barbarians. If this does not end eventually with some some sort of a civil war in some places, then I will be surprised.

    The general public in Europe seems to have very limited awareness of the incoming demographic implosion with a collapse of social systems associated with it. Europeans by far are more preoccupied with saving blue whales and reducing their carbon footprints. This is obvious from reading European forums where news about collapsing fertility are greeted with remarkable enthusiasm.

    At least Russian government has a very clear sense of urgency in this sense. The demographic issue was defined as the national challenge number one. Even if the current uptick will run out of steam, and it probably will, it’s very likely that the authorities will come up with a second demographic stimulus package. Russian government is not constrained by political correctness and other lunacies the European style. If necessary it will go all the way to threatening people with reduced pensions if they fail to comply. This is by far not the end of the story. If anything I will predict that both will do badly, but I have by now zero expectations from Europe.

    Comment by Nobody — May 1, 2009 @ 3:00 am

48. @Randy,

    Re-Estonia.

    “Assuming as is plausible that ethnically differential emigration hasn’t occurred, that suggests”. But that certainly is not the case. Many Russians emigrated from the Baltics during the 1990’s, and mostly amongst younger people. Older people didn’t because they have nowhere to go back to and will find it difficult to adjust, and considering that the bulk of the Slavic population infusion took place during the 1950’s and 1960’s (I’m assuming this because from the 1970’s on net migration for the RSFSR turned positive), this means that many of them will now be in their 50’s and 60’s even though they came in their 20’s. Not prime reproductive material.

    Second, I looked at the natural increase figures, and indeed Harju and Talinn are both much healthier looking than Ida-Viru. However, I also noticed that Harju, Talinn and Tarju are the ONLY regions even as of 2007 to have positive net population growth. All the small counties, which I assume are rural, ethnic-Estonian counties (is this correct?) have falling populations with significantly more deaths than births. I think the more reasonable explanation is that all the young people have migrated to the likes of Talinn and Harju, boosting their birth rates, while old folks back in the small towns and countryside are dying out.

    And many young Russophones left for Russia, or for Talinn, or abroad (I’ve met many ethnic Russian laborers from the Baltics while in Europe, but no ethnic Estonians or ethnic Latvians), leaving their old folk to die away in Narva.

    “Briefly put, in a large variety of settings, including environments where Russophones/Russians enjoy relatively greater prosperity than other conationals (Ukraine, Central Asia) or are absolutely richer and live in stabler environments than in Russia (Latvia, Estonia), Russians still haven’t responded with either a baby boom or decreased mortality. ”

    1. Many of these Russians are almost urban workers, and in some cases like the Baltics and especially Central Asian countries, have lost great numbers of people from their young, reproductive-age cohorts.

    2. For Russophones, living in what are essentially foreign countries cannot be good for morale, especially in certain Baltic nations whose “stabler environments” are based on linguistic, cultural and political oppression of Russophones as has been documented by HR organizations like Amnesty International.

    3. In Russia itself, there is a rich region, Khanty-Mansi, which is 66% Russia and is significantly ahead of the rest of Russia in economic development. In 2007 the TFR was at 1.66; BR = 14.6 and DR = 7.0, and further improved substantially in 2008. These figures are quite respectable, and indicative that in economic prosperity and a developed healthcare system will probably substantially improve its demography.

    Re-crisis,

    “There’s clearly evidence to support _both_ cases.”

    There a lot more evidence for Ukraine.

    As of March 2009, every third Ukrainian had difficulty buying food, source = http://unian.net/eng/news/news-303999.html
    The same was true for only 10% of Russians in the same period, source = http://www.levada.ru/press/2009041702.html

    And this isn’t my opinion, it’s the voice of the people.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 1, 2009 @ 8:56 am

49. I am glad Anatoly Karlin’s piece has provoked a lively discussion about the conventional wisdom of Russian demography, and that University of Houston Prof. Pirrong has hosted it here. I currently live up I-45 from Prof. Pirrong in Dallas, Texas.

    My own article on the American politics of discussing Russian (and by extension, European) demographics is here:

    http://www.russiablog.org/2009/04/power_and_population_debating.php

    I believe that there has been a tendency in Washington to downplay unfavorable demographic trends in Ukraine and Georgia (which have high emigration rates, with many of those emigrating going to work in Russia, in addition to low birth rates) in favor of playing them up in the Russian Federation. U.S. conservatives may also be guilty of emphasizing these problems in “Old Europe” while overlooking them in Japan, since the Japanese seem to be made of more martial stuff. There hasn’t been a very good analysis that I have seen of Japan’s Lost Decade and whether the Japanese baby bust preceded it or accelerated as a result of that economic crisis. The implications for our own present situation here in the U.S. are obvious.

    As for the tendency for knees to jerk on the American Right when it comes to Russia, the comments in reply to this ill-thought out post over at the Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog are instructive:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/28/the-russians-are-coming/

    Comment by Charles Ganske — May 1, 2009 @ 12:46 pm

50. Charles, go away. Your theory that the hatred of Putin and his evil ways are somehow limited to the ‘right’ is wishful and delusional thinking. I have spent years working in Russia and I am easily considered someone who stands on the left and voted this way during our last election. It’s called human rights and the last time I checked, it wasn’t a big concern for the far right and it is of zero concern to Putin. The educated masses of the right and left are fairly united on their understanding of current depraved state Russian Politics and Putinocracy. I’ve discovered that men like you, who claim that people like LR have an unusual hatred of Russia, are typically men with an unusual and unhealthy obsession with young Russian women errr young Russians in general. Charles, maybe you can explain why you choose to live in the United States? Why not move to Russia??? I have a feeling you would be chased out of there fairly quickly. You live in a fantasy world that doesn’t exist outside of your rich imagination. Why do I get the feeling you are a Ludlum fan????

    And for anyone who isn’t unfamiliar with the very unqualified Mr. Ganske, you can read more about him here:

    http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/editorial-that-neo-soviet-ape-charles-ganske-at-it-again/

    And Charles, I find your weak attempt to tie yourself to Professor Pirrong by way of Dallas pretty sick and twisted. You live in the same State (A VERY LARGE STATE). The similarities end there.

    Charles, you’re wrong. No one here hates Russia. Quite the opposite. We actually care about what is happening to her citizens. You only care as much as you can exploit them and attempt to weave some controversy in your effort to play pretend spy. You and DR are the ones who hate the people of Russia. You offer them nothing. And you offer the US less. Leave.

    Comment by rtyb — May 1, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

51. Oy- double negative error above… please excuse- Anyway, do read about Mr. Ganske… on LR’s blog-

    btw Charles, DR considers himself a Green Socialist and is quite the defender of communism. How does this figure into your ideology over there in the creep zone at Russia Blog? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t but I’m interested in hearing your defense. Is Russia Blog now opening itself up to Communists?????????

    I can’t figure out which is worse, Russia Blog allowing DR to post or DR wanting to post there… Initially, I thought RB was undermining its credibility by allowing DR to post but then I realized, they have no credibility. So really, it only hurts DR.

    Comment by rtyb — May 1, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

52. Stipulated: Ukraine is a basket case that faces impending economic collapse (cf. its CDS spread), and arguably a worse demographic problem than Russia. No surprise here. Ukraine suffers the same legacy of autocracy, Tsarist or Communist, that has devastated Russia, and does not have the resources that prop up Russia. Ukraine has the same institutional deficit as Russia, an obsolete, Soviet-built, energy inefficient economy, a dysfunctional political system, etc. (Though I will note that even without the natural resource endowment of Russia, Ukraine grew as much or more during the period of Russia’s growth in the 2000s.)

    Ukraine also has to put up with–and fight–the continued attempts of Russia to undermine its sovereignty and economic independence. I truly sympathize for it.

    But, the attempts to draw attention to Ukraine and away from Russia seem to me to be merely an effort to get me and others here to avert our eyes from Russia. I will continue to focus on Russia because: (a) Russia has nukes, Ukraine doesn’t; (b) Russia has energy and other strategic resources, Ukraine doesn’t; (c) Russia has imperial ambitions, and ambitions to be a Great Power, Ukraine doesn’t.

    Indeed, Russia has pretensions, and has always looked down on Ukraine as one of the “little brothers.” (Many Russians derisively refer to Ukraine as Little Russia.) But now I’m not supposed to pay attention to big, important Russia, and instead am supposed to play up the travails of its little brother Ukraine? Indeed, the comments section of this blog have seen much Russophile derision of Ukraine.

    I empathize for Ukraine, and do not wish it ill. The same goes–believe it or not–for Russia. But I will continue to focus on Russia, because for better or worse–and these days, usually for worse–it matters more economically and geopolitically.

    Maybe more later, but off to DC.

    Comment by The Professor — May 1, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

53. Dear DR, I suggest you do some serious research into the Discovery Institute before continuing your little collaboration with Boy Ganske. It’s heavy on the God, Christianity and CULT aspect of things and well, this seems to go against your view. Public execution for women who have abortions. Do you agree with this DR? Is this your new stance? I can only assume that Ganske suffers from some sort of multiple personality disorder if on one side, he’s criticizing the ‘Right’ while at the same time working for an organization that is considered an extreme fringe right-wing cult. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a contradiction and everything out of Yuri Manchurn’s mouth is a lie… which goes against the “Value System” of DI! So I wonder, who is using who? Oh yeah, and DR… DI isn’t really big on the Jews.

    Anyway, here’s a lovely little piece on DI which sort of ties into my original theory;)

    http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080507/NEWS/805070345

    Comment by rtyb — May 1, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

54. I’ll admit DR that I may very well have my cults all mixed up right now. I’m having a hard time sorting them out and their various funding sources… but it the fact remains that Russia Blog’s/Boy Ganske’s DI is dubious at best and their funding and effort behind Russia Blog a mystery.

    DR, if you wish to explain your ties to DI (how you can reconcile their beliefs w/ yours), their intentions in Russia and their funding sources, etc… I think many of us would be very grateful:) Because right now, I’m very confused and as much as I disagree with much of what you say, I have a hard time believing you would align yourself with these people….

    Can I expect to see DR posting on a Scientology blog soon?

    Comment by rtyb — May 1, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

55. Here, DR. I meant to paste this into my last post. Just some background on Boy Ganske’s best friend Yuri:

    http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/the-further-misadventures-of-screwball-yuri-mamchur-neo-soviet-con-man/

    Comment by rtyb — May 1, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

56. rtyb, I agree with you that both the right and left in the US have failed in upholding human rights as a foreign policy. Bush suspended any human rights principles regarding Russia, well, really Condi Rice, when he failed to denounce Putin’s increasing abuses. Hillary Clinton on her visit to China conveyed that human rights wouldn’t be an issue as long as the Chinese help shore up our economy. So, please don’t think that the left are better champions of human rights. Actually, it was Reagan whose simple core principles and articulated boldness that freed more Eastern Europeans and Russians than anyone.

    DR’s inadequate responses, worse his defense, regarding the Red Army’s horrific amount of rapes during WWII has ended my care to respond to him anymore. Yuri Manchurn is a moronic figure who has been caught setting up sock puppets.

    Comment by penny — May 1, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

57. @SWP,

    I will have you notice that all I did to “draw attention to Ukraine”, was include it at the END of a list of 14 points dedicated to defending my work against your criticisms, many of which I found lacking. Furthermore, it was more than semi-jocular – one would think that the phrase “Perhaps an idea for a future avenue of research – the noxious effects of color revolutions on a nation’s precious bodily fluid ”, would be a dead giveaway. It was not my conscious intention to shift discussion towards Ukrainian and Baltic demography, but rather the flow of the thread abetted by Randy and Nobody.

    @rtyb,

    I am not impressed by your low-life smears against Russia Blog, Charles and myself, especially relying as you do on LR, an anonymous cyber-thug held in deep disrepute amongst all serious Russia-watchers, for your “evidence”. I will not dignify your witch-hunt with a lengthy response, except to note that:

    * Charles replied in detail (i.e. more than she deserved) to LR, refuting her insinuation of links between RB and religious fundamentalism here. LR simply ignored it and continues to ignore it. I’ll even quote you the relevant part:

    “8) The Real Russia Project is just another program of Discovery Institute, along with the Cascadia Center for Regional Development (funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the 2nd largest non-profit foundation in the world) and the Technology and Democracy Program. Neither of those programs is related to Intelligent Design (unless you count intelligently designed transportation).

    9) The Real Russia Project is funded entirely by contributions from American businessmen based in the greater Seattle-Tacoma area who like Yuri and his hardworking immigrant’s pursuit of the American dream and who admire what he is doing.

    Now tell me, who funds La Russophobe, and where did Kim Zigfeld go to college? You can’t answer these questions at all. You try to compare yourself to some great anonymous dissident, but you largely swim with the mainstream with only an occasional hysterical addition to it. Meanwhile, we’re willing to take on the mainstream media and U.S. politicians’ views about Russia and succeeding in opening minds.”

    * RB is an impartial, objective and patriotic American institution devoted to fostering greater understanding between the US and Russia.

    * It is also quite ironic, but IMO telling, that you are the only here who sees it fit to ceaselessly demand physical penalties, i.e. the exile, of people whose political opinions are different from yours. Your McCarthyite rhetoric coupled with your professed belief in human rights strikes one as schizophrenic, indicative of severe cognitive dissonance and really, very un-American (an Orwellian word, I know…).

    However, in this you are sadly typical of many Russian liberasts, which probably explains why they enjoy approval ratings of about 1% amongst the Russian population. You, LR and your types, are your own worst enemies.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 1, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

58. On no Penny, I don’t think the left is any better than the right… I guess I’m one of those lost souls right now, fiscally conservative, socially liberal… I’m just astounded by Boy Ganske’s attack on the right in some lame attempt to falsely align himself with the left. Uh no thank you Boy Ganske! I’m not fooled by your weirdo religious cult and your bizarro world support of Putinocracy in some demented effort to provide the mothership with unlimited access to little Russian Orthodox minds! btw- Tim Post loves to attack the ‘right’ as well. Again, why he or anyone else would suggest that because I’m not down with total and indiscriminate violation of human rights, I must be some sort of Limbaugh lover is just beyond me… wishful thinking on their part I suppose.

    But I’m loving Discovery Institute’s total desperation in the recruiting of a communist who is uh, not Christian. It just shows how sad that sham of an operation is and I hope DR wises up to their twisted intent. Regarding DR’s justification of rape during WWII and um, in Chechnya: I’m just trying to figure out how he defends the widespread rape of Jews during the pogroms? Just a little fringe benefit of ethnic cleansing? No? Massacre and rape that most likely included some of DR’s ancestors… was it justified? I’m going to say no, but maybe DR will figure out a way to indict his Jewish ancestors as evil murderer rebels who deserved to be raped and massacred by their Russian perpetrators who.. you know, just needed some sort of an emotional outlet- Did I get that right DR? pretty sick-

    btw- DR: Your enemy’s enemy is NOT your friend. In fact, they don’t like guys like you so be very careful what you wish for!

    Comment by rtyb — May 1, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

59. Nice try DR- LR’s hardly the only one who thinks DI is a bunch of freaks. And uh- I’m pretty sure Bill and Melinda won’t be making that MISTAKE again:))

    The Discovery Institute’s Hidden Religious Agenda

    by Lenny Flank

    (c) copyright 2005

    In all of its court documents and arguments, the Discovery Institute goes to great lengths to claim that it is only interested in science, and has no ulterior religious motives, aims or purpose, and emphatically is NOT out to advance any religious opinions. A quick review of published statements made by DI members, however, shows this to be at best mere legal evasion and sophistry, and at worst a deliberate lie.

    In 1999, an internal Discovery Institute document was leaked to the Internet by an internal source. The document outlined the Discovery Institute’s longterm plan to, as it states, produce a “broadly theistic understanding of nature” (Discovery institute, The Wedge Document, 1999), and its tactic of using the evolution “controversy” as a “wedge” to do this. The authenticity of the “Wedge Document”, as it quickly became known, was later admitted by the Discovery Institute.

    The very first sentence of the Wedge Document makes plain the underlying religious aim of the Discovery Institute and its anti-evolution campaign: “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western Civilization was built.” (Wedge Document) The Discovery Institute, like other fundamentalist Christians, refers to the rejection of this religious idea as “the philosophy of materialism” or “naturalism” or sometimes “darwinism” (all are phrases which have long been the fundie code words for “atheism”), and explicitly states that this materialistic atheism is the direct result of science: “This cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.” (Wedge Document) Thus, as the Discovery Institute’s basic complaint can be summed up as “science is atheistic”. Under the heading “Governing Goals”, the Discovery Institute lists, “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.” (Wedge Document, 1999)

    The goal of Discovery Institute’s “intelligent design theory”, then, is to replace “materialism” with . . . . well . . . they are very careful in court and in legislation to NOT name their replacement. However, since “materialism” and “naturalism” have long been the fundie code word for “atheism”, and since nothing but a god or deity is capable of using any NON-”materialistic” or SUPER-”naturalistic” mechanism or process, it seems pretty certain that what Discovery Institute wants is to introduce theism into science and to force science to bow before its religious opinions. As the Wedge Document puts it, “Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”

    The Discovery Institute, after a long silence, has attempted to deflect concerns about the Wedge Document in a web article (“The Wedge Document; So what?”, Discovery Institute website, March 1, 2004). Their “response” is fraught with deception and evasion.

    The Institute first tries to downplay the significance of the document, by dismissing it as a mere “early fundraising proposal”. Even a cursory reading of the document, however, demonstrates this claim to be nonsense. Nowhere in the entire document is there any appeal for funds, nor any mention of fundraising. What IS mentioned, however, are things such as “The Wedge Strategy”, “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary”, “Governing Goals”, “Five Year Goals”, “Twenty Year Goals”, and “The Wedge Strategy Progress Summary”. The document also lists a number of steps to be taken to advance the ID agenda — every one of which Discovery Institute subsequently carried out (or attempted to). The DI’s claim that the Wedge Document is just a “fundraising proposal” and not actually a planning document outlining the goals of the Institute and the steps it plans to take in order to reach those goals, is laughable and not worthy of any serious consideration.

    Even the Discovery Institute’s denial that the Wedge Document sets out a religious agenda confirms that it has a religious agenda. “We think the materialist world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the 19th century is false and we want to refute it. We further want to reverse the influence of such materialistic thinking on our culture. (Discovery Institute, “The Wedge Document; So What?”, 2004)

    Not only is the DI’s dismissal of the Wedge Document as a “fundraising proposal” dishonest and plainly untrue, it is also completely irrelevant. It makes no difference whether the Wedge Document is a strategy guide, a fundraising proposal, or a memo for the Institute’s janitor. What DOES matter (and what the Discovery Institute’s “response” fails utterly to acknowledge or defend) is that the Wedge Document clearly, unequivocably and unmistakably declares, in print, that the “governing goal” of the Institute is to advance their religious beliefs, that “intelligent design theory” is the primary method they have chosen through which to pursue that goal, and that they have an articulated pre–planned 20-year strategy to use ID “theory” as a method of advancing their religious goals. Despite all the DI’s arm-waving, the Wedge Document demonstrates with crystal clarity that the sole and only aim of the Institute is to use “intelligent design theory” as a means of advancing religion — exactly what the US Constitution says they CANNOT do. And when they claim that ID “theory” has no religious aims or purpose, the Wedge Document demonstrates that they are flat-out lying to us.

    More recent published statements by DI associates confirm that replacing “scientific materialism” with “God” or a “theistic understanding of nature” is indeed the only aim and purpose of “intelligent design theory”. DI associate George Gilder wrote an entire piece entitled “The Materialist Superstition” which decries “the Darwinian materialist paradigm”, and advocates replacing it with “intelligent design”, which, Gilder implies (but is very careful NOT to explicitly state), is NON-materialistic. (“The Materialistic Superstition”, Discovery Institute Website, 2005). Other ID advocates, however, have at times been less circumspect. DI guru Phillip Johnson, who talks much more openly than the others about the explicit anti-atheistic goals of “intelligent design theory”, specifically contrasts “scientific materialism” with “divine intervention”; “It is the alleged absence of divine intervention throughout the history of life — the strict materialism of the orthodox theory — that explains why a great many people, only some of whom are biblical fundamentalists, think that Darwinian evolution (beyond the micro level) is basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact.” (Johnson, “The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism”, First Things, November 1997, PP 22-25) “Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. . . . The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that “evolution is a fact,” and then they gradually learn more and more about what that “fact” means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe.” (Johnson, “The Church of Darwin”, Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999). “For now we need to stick to the main point: In the beginning was the Word, and the ‘fear of God’- recognition of our dependence upon God-is still the beginning of wisdom. If materialist science can prove otherwise then so be it, but everything we are learning about the evidence suggests that we don’t need to worry. (Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship; A Call to Separate Materialist Philosophy from Empriical Science”, address to the 1996 “Mere Creation Conference”) Johnson explicitly calls for “a better scientific theory, one genuinely based on unbiased empirical evidence and not on materialist philosophy” (Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship). Johnson doesn’t tell us what this NON-materialistic philosophy might be that he wants to base science on, but it is crushingly clear from the rest of his statements that he, like every other IDer, wants to base science on his religious beliefs.

    DI associate Michael Behe also makes the connection between fighting “scientific materialism” and “theistic understanding of nature” explicitly clear. “Darwinism is the most plausible unintelligent mechanism, yet it has tremendous difficulties and the evidence garnered so far points to its inability to do what its advocates claim for it. If unintelligent mechanisms can’t do the job, then that shifts the focus to intelligent agency. That’s as far as the argument against Darwinism takes us, but most people already have other reasons for believing in a personal God who just might act in history, and they will find the argument for intelligent design fits with what they already hold. With the argument arranged this way, evidence against Darwinism does count as evidence for an active God, just as valid negative advertising against the Democratic candidate will help the Republican, even though Vegetarian and One-World candidates are on the ballot, too. Life is either the result of exclusively unintelligent causes or it is not, and the evidence against the unintelligent production of life is clearly evidence for intelligent design.” (Behe, “The God of Science”, Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, p. 35) “Naturalism is a philosophy which says that material things are all that there is. But philosophy is not science, and therefore excluding ideas which point to a creator, which point to God, is not allowed simply because in public schools in the United States one is not allowed to discriminate either for or against ideas which have religious implications.” (Behe, Speech at Calvary Chapel, March 6, 2002)

    Another DI associate, William Dembski, makes the connection between ID and Christian apologetics even more explicit: “Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.” (Dembski, “Intelligent Design’s Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution”, Designinference.com website, February 2005). Indeed, Dembski titled one of his books “Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology” (Dembski, 1999). In that book, Dembski makes the religious basis of ID “theory” explicit: “The conceptual soundings of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.” (Dembski, 1999, p. 210). Other statements by Dembski make it clear that his designer cannot be anything other than God: “The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe’s irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.” (Dembski, “The Act of Creation”, ARN website, Aug 1998) “From our vantage, materialism is not a neutral, value-free, minimalist position from which to pursue inquiry. Rather, it is itself an ideology with an agenda. What’s more, it requires an evolutionary creation story to keep it afloat. On scientific grounds, we regard that creation story to be false. What’s more, we regard the ideological agenda that has flowed from it to be destructive to rational discourse. Our concerns are therefore entirely parallel to the evolutionists’. Indeed, all the evolutionists’ worst fears about what the world would be like if we succeed have, in our view, already been realized through the success of materialism and evolution. Hence, as a strategy for unseating materialism and evolution, the term “Wedge” has come to denote an intellectual and cultural movement that many find congenial.” (Dembski, “Dealing with the backlash against intelligent design”, 2004) ” “But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed…And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done – and he’s not getting it.” (Dembski, address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004) “Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Dembski, Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design, 2005)

    In these public statements by DI associates and its own internal documents, we see the legal and political strategy of “intelligent design theory” in a nutshell — ID wants to eliminate “materialism” and “atheism” in favor of “theistic understanding”, but since it’s illegal in the US to advance religion in public schools, ID advocates have no choice but to downplay and evade mentioning their clearly stated goal of doing exactly what the law says they cannot do — using the public schools to advance their religious beliefs. As the Wedge Document puts it, “We are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip Johnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” (Wedge Document, 1999)

    Some idea of the Dicovery Institute’s real aims can be revealed by looking at its funding sources. Nearly all of the Discovery Institute’s money comes in the form of grants from wealthy “conservative” fundamentalist Christians. In 2003, the Discovery Institute received some $4.1 million in donations and grants. Twenty-two different foundations give money to the DI; two-thirds of these are religious institutions with explicitly Christian aims and goals. In its first year of operations, DI got around $450,000 from the Maclellan Foundation, a fundie lobbying group in Tennessee. The executive director of the Maclellan Foundation was explicit about the purpose of its donation; “We give for religious purposes. This is not about science, and Darwin wasn’t about science. Darwin was about a metaphysical view of the world.” (NY Times, Aug 21, 2005) DI has also received donations from the Henry P. and Susan C. Crowell Trust of Colorado Springs. The trust’s website states, “OUR MISSION: The teaching and active extension of the doctrines of Evangelical Christianity through approved grants to qualified organizations.” Another DI donor is the AMDG Foundation in Virginia, run by Mark Ryland, a former Microsoft exec and Discovery vice president. According to the New York Times, “the initials stand for Ad Majorem Dei Glorium, Latin for ‘To the greater glory of God,’ which Pope John Paul II etched in the corner of all his papers.” (NY Times, Aug 21, 2005) The Stewardship Foundation gave the group more than $1 million between 1999 and 2003. According to their website, “The Stewardship Foundation provides resources to Christ-centered organizations whose mission is to share their faith in Jesus Christ with people throughout the world.”

    The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute’s anti-evolution fight, though, is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson’s gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting “intelligent design theory”. By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other politically active group — only a museum trust in his wife’s hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Ahmsnosn has, by himself, provided about one-third of the toal donations to the Discovery Institute during its existence, and funds about one-fourth of the Institute’s annual operating expenses. He sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

    Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist — a fringe group of fundies who argue that the US Constitution should be abandoned and the US should be “reconstructed” under “Biblical law”.

    It is important to understand that intelligent design “theory” is, if you will pardon the pun, intelligently designed specifically and solely to attempt to evade and get around all of the Federal court cases which make it illegal to use the schools to advance religion. Why does the Discovery Institute backpedal and avoid talking about the “governing goals” listed in the Wedge Document? Because they know that their stated goal — using “intelligent design theory” to advance religion — is illegal, so they MUST pretend they don’t have any religious aims or goals. Why does the Institute fall all over itself to disassociate itself from creation ’science’? Because creation ’science’ has already been ruled illegal in the 1987 Supreme Court case. Why does the Institute bend over backwards to avoid answering questions about what their designer is, what it does, how old their “theory” concludes the universe to be, or whether humans are evolved from apes? Because each of those points were included as defining characteristics of creationism in the Arkansas and Louisiana cases, and DI has no choice but to avoid mentioning them (it’s also a political ploy on behalf of DI’s attempt to hold together young-earthers and old-earthers in its creationist “big tent”). Why does Discovery Institute currently declare that it does NOT favor teaching intelligent design “theory” as an “alternative scientific theory”? Because when it DID try to have ID taught as an “alternative theory” in Ohio, they lost crushingly and embarrassingly. Why has the Institute been advising the Dover School Board to end the lawsuit over intelligent design “theory”? Because DI knows as well as anyone else that they HAVE no “scientific theory”, and that a court case that established this would be the end of the entire ID movement.

    However, as I have long noted, fundamentalists are their own worst enemies, and their own incessant compulsion to attack “materialism”, “atheism”. “darwinism” and “naturalism”, gives the lie to their claims to be non-religious. Intelligent designer “theory” is, as the Discovery Institute admitted from the beginnning in its own internal documents, a legal and political strategy to “wedge” their religious opinions into public schools. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. It has the sole and only aim of advancing religion by attacking science’s presumed “atheism” and “materialism”. ID “theory” is nothing but an illegal advancement of religious beliefs, and IDers are flat-out lying to us when they claim otherwise.

    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/diagenda.html

    http://sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com/2009/03/discovery-institute-also-upset-with.html

    Comment by rtyb — May 1, 2009 @ 11:43 pm

60. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2201347/posts

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/14/a-liar-from-the-discovery-institute-say-it-aint-so/

    Want more DR?

    Comment by rtyb — May 1, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

61. Randy writes: “Michel, SWP et al. – when talking of a humanitarian crisis because of economic collapse, you might want to start citing Ukraine instead of Russia, at least for now. At least there’s evidence to back it up.”

    Randy, I have never been to Ukraine, nor do I speak Ukrainian. I will read the occasional article about Ukraine, but I do not go out of my way to do research on Ukraine. For these reasons, I do not and will not post extensively on Ukraine, any more than I will post on Brazil or Madagascar or any other country that I am not very familiar with.

    Comment by Michel — May 1, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

62. Want to attempt to discredit ALL of them DR because there are OH SO many!

    http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=cs_

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute

    I love this info regarding DI’s registered websites. Yup. Looks like their REALLY into protecting democracy in Russia! Uh-huh.

    The Discovery Institute has registered over two hundred website domain names.[6]. The majority of these sites are intelligent design-related, registered and operated by Discovery Institute Fellows and associates. William Dembski, for example, registered and operates UncommonDescent.com, OverwhelmingEvidence.com, and DesignInference.com while the institute’s Casey Luskin set up IdeaCenter.org.

    1. IntelligentDesign.org
    2. EvolutionNews.org
    3. IDTheFuture.com
    4. DissentFromDarwin.org
    5. DarwinAndDesign.com
    6. DarwinismAndID.com
    7. IconsofEvolution.com
    8. FromDarwinToHitler.com
    9. PriviledgedPlanet.com
    10. DarwinDayInAmerica.com
    11. JudgingPBS.com

    Shall we go on DR?

    Comment by rtyb — May 1, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

63. “Every time the Discovery Institute says something, it’s one long string of lies, distortions and half-truths, and this time is no exception.” March 29, 2009

    http://kriswager.blogspot.com/2009/03/discovery-institute-opens-mouth-lies.html

    “David Klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and the author of the new book, “How Would God Vote?: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative.” He recently explained to the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez that the purpose of the book is not to boost any candidate’s electoral chances, but simply to inform readers that, well, “the Bible commands you to be a Conservative” … and, as such, a vote for Obama is essentially a vote against God:”

    hmmm….

    How ’bout

    DI lies again:
    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/they_have_no_shame/

    OR

    Discovery Institute’s unintelligent designers have no scruples
    http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_26143.shtml

    Any shred of credibility you had DR has been washed away with these scary idiots. Go build yourself a new Jonestown. I’ll buy the Kool-Aid:))

    Good luck-

    Comment by rtyb — May 2, 2009 @ 12:04 am

64. And frankly, LGF just has too many posts calling out the feaks at DI to post. But here’s one. I encourage anyone who is interested to do their own research in to this fraud of an organization.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32605_Discovery_Institute_in_JPost-_Darwin_Led_to_Hitler

    And you know DR, It’s not even that the Discovery Institute is a cult or that they exist on the fringe or that they’re obsessed with pushing Intelligent Design (very Stalinesque btw): It’s that they’re blatant propaganda pushing LIARS. And I dunno, their MO just seems to fall way too closely in line with another propaganda pushing liar… Putin. And isn’t it funny that DI lives in Putin’s ass? And isn’t it funny that ‘true’ Religious Conservatives want NOTHING to do with DI? Ganske tries to take a swipe at the Heritage Foundation above and looks like an idiot yet again as even they laugh off his best pal Yuri Mamchur. I find that OH SO INTERESTING! And um, telling. It’s really too bad the morons at DI and their Russian “friends” don’t realize that they’re not fooling anyone… especially, when they’re dependent on three 20-something lonely boys to push their cause… pretty sad.

    So are you a religious conservative now DR? Seriously, have you found God, accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, denied your Jewish heritage, denounced communism and socialism, turned your back on the green movement? Is this the new DR? Please do tell- we’re all very interested…

    And Ganske, what’s with turning your back on your former conservative pals? Did they not pay you enough? The Putinites offered you more? Had to pick up the gauntlet for those who made you feel all ‘warm and fuzzy’ inside? Is that it???? Just wondering at what point someone totally decides to betray their own country and better yet, actually believes that’s he’s so “crafty” no one sees the little boy games he’s playing… Keep playing… maybe if you spin around three times and clap your hands, you really will turn into the Russian Jack Bauer or Jason Bourne. All your dreams will come true! Good for You Ganske!! Good for you! Dream BIG little boy!

    Comment by rtyb — May 2, 2009 @ 12:29 am

65. Prof. Pirrong,
    As we say here in Texas, if you wrestle with a pig, sometimes the pig likes it. The pigs seem to have gone hog wild in your absence.

    I have enjoyed reading the comments from real people using their real names at this forum. The trolls? I don’t feed them. Neither do Thomas P.M. Barnett or any of the other bloggers I admire who put their thoughts out there to be critiqued, and right or wrong can stand by what they write instead of hiding.

    The Real Russia Project and our co-sponsors had about 300 people on hand last week in D.C. at World Russia Forum, including the head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (I think one of my former professors at UT-Austin, an octagenarian who used to work for NASA, probably knows him well) and the U.S. Undersecretary of State. All of which shows just how well this smear job is going three years on. Seriously, if I were a donor to this professional troll, I would ask for my money back. But desperation breeds desperate measures, like saying that the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA and Washington D.C. is the same as some cult somewhere (nice try), or citing a blogger who hates DI who knows nothing about Russia (he even said that Russia Blog endorsed Russia’s “brutal assault on Ossetia”) and has alienated most of his readership with his censorous arrogance and loathing of all religious people. I’m sure Michael Medved would find claims that a think tank he supports is secretly anti-Semitic hilarious.

    Speaking of supporters, there is no mystery about ours, innuendo aside, they’re listed on our website at http://www.realrussiaproject.org. As Dr. Lozansky pointed out at the Foundry blog, one of the founders of the Heritage Foundation back in the 70s, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, also helped Lozansky to found World Russia Forum. What happened since then? When did the lines between anti-Soviet, or even anti-Kremlin, and anti-Russian get blurred, to the point that many who claimed to be conservatives became radicals, with an almost utopian faith in revolutions and military power? When did they forget what Solzhenitsyn wrote, that the line between good and evil runs not through governments or systems, but through the human heart?

    If anyone had the guts to take off their online Darth Vader mask and actually meet the folks they have spent the past three and a half years villifying, then they were more than welcome. I just tell people when we meet that if they Google me, they’ll see I have an anonymous stalker…and I’m afraid, to quote Austin Powers, “that’s no chick, that’s a man, baby!” No lady on Earth, I must concede, could possibly be this obsessed with me.

    Remember the words of the late Richard Nixon, a tragic figure who saw things clearly once he had to face the truth: “Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” (there I suppose, is your Nixon-DI vast right wing conspiracy connection: Ben Stein bawling in the background as Nixon said farewell on that podium). Some people out there in cyberspace are clearly destroying themselves with their hatred of me and all things Russian.

    Comment by Charles Ganske — May 2, 2009 @ 1:41 am

66. Oh my! 2100 Russia will be reduced to 92 million give or take a couple million? Interesting, unfortunately that’s a hypothesis, not a statement of fact as some seem to suggest. Pointing to past trends as justification is rather….awkward, because with nearly 90 years in between it’s hard to state with seriousness that everything will function as the past has for the next 90 years. It could get worse or it could become excellent or just mediocre.

    Also I saw a skeptical argument against the statistics and their “credibility” which is rather stupid because that argument comes back in a circle right to originator of the skepticism.

    I realize people have their sentiments, but don’t let it consume your brain entirely.

    Comment by Mr. D — May 2, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

67. @Mr.D,

    Exactly. Forecasting to 2100 is extremely speculative. For all we know by that time Russia could be a post-apocalyptic wasteland with zero people, a burgeoning caste-based empire with hundreds of millions of climate refugees, or inhabited by artilects. Or there could be 142mn humans just as there are now.

    Assuming the “skeptical” comment refers to myself, note that I explicitly admitted to the imperfections of my own forecasts:

    “Ultimately, history will be the judge on whether this forecast fares any better than its peers. I suspect it will be epic fail all around – especially after 2025.”

    My main point really, as with most of my writing on Russia, is to present the neglected and contrarian view, meant to be read in conjunction with the dominant (pessimist) views so as to allow the reader to independently reach a more accurate synthesis.

    @Charles,

    LR is most certainly a woman. Or if it’s a man, the dude certainly has major gender self-identification issues. Whatever the case, its quite obvious he/she/it hasn’t gotten laid in a very long time.

    @rtyb,

    As I said, I feel I’ve wasted enough time on you here in any case – especially since you’ve contributed absolutely zilch in the way of criticism of the article, or even of Russian demography in general. Even though some prolific commentators here (no names) didn’t bother reading it except as part of SWP’s critique, at least they had the courtesy to stay on topic. All you have to offer is shrill rants about my and Charles’ connections with Christian fundies and the FSB. Thanks but no thanks. I don’t see the need to continue.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 2, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

68. Isn’t Front Page Magazine supposed to be conservative? Yet, Christopher Hitchens has appeared there. Alexander Cockburn has appeared in the American Conservative. Paul Craig Roberts has regularly appeared in Counterpunch, Antiwar.com and Chronicles Magazine.

    There are numerous other examples of individuals appearing at venues that whose overall take might not be in line with their own. Should that be discouraged?

    Rock on Sublime Oblivion and Russia Blog.

    Comment by Cutie Pie — May 2, 2009 @ 5:20 pm

69. Uh- No, DR- Boy Ganske’s weirdo cult isn’t in-step one bit with Religious Conservatives who believe, know and have proven Discovery Institute to be fraudulent Putin propaganda-pushing nutbars. See, Boy Ganske’s own link (above) to the Heritage Foundation correctly dismisses Yuri as nothing more than a low-level Kremlin foot soldier. I have no doubt that he showed up one day begging for some sort of position to which they responded, “go spread the good word and get the f*ck out of our faces.” Whatever it is DI wants to do regarding Intelligent Design is their business, whatever they want to believe is their right. I have zero issues with religious diversity. But as you can see from the many links I provided, more than a few in the mainstream, scientific and religious communities have called them out for the blatant deceptive, lying wackos they are. And why are they so deeply indebted to Putin? Hmmmm… I wonder. Why was Ganske a conservative Republican (whose peers were correctly suspicious of Putin) up until a few years ago??? He was actually a rather normal, although extremely conservative, Republican until he was rejected. It’s at this point he found refuge in one wig-wearing wacko in Moscow who promised lonely Boy Ganske an exciting life far beyond his mundane existence in the Dallas suburbs… His lame little ulterior motives are more than obvious… I can only attribute this to too many Ludlum and Clancy novels for Boy Ganske and way too much time on the Risk game board…

    And Boy Ganske, stop showing your ass and behaving as if SWP doesn’t know who many or most of us are outside of the blogosphere. Please- You’re embarrassing yourself. Most of us are known and don’t feel a need to drop names in a weak attempt to establish ourselves as ’someone.’ That’s your pathetic little game. Many of us have worked in Russia, have family in or from Russia, have well-established contacts and have come to know the Professor through such associations. So back off. You know Boy Ganske, you really are a terrible little covert operative. Perhaps you should consider going off grid! LOL. No wonder the US wasn’t interested in your services….

    And DR, I didn’t feel a need to discuss your article on demographics as I think SWP, Michel, etc said everything that needed to be said. I have my own opinion but I’m sure you’d just dismiss it as emotional… you know, since it’s based on my first-hand, personal experience in Russia… Oh yeah and since I’m a GIRL!

    btw DR, you might consider a little therapy to work on your issues with women. There seems to be some very deep hostility there. I’d hate to see such an attractive young man miss out on a fantastic relationship due to some unresolved occurrence in his past.

    But DR, I still think you’re very intelligent. And no, I’m not being sarcastic. You’re much better than one wig-wearing pervy wack in Moscow who fancies himself a Professor of Everything. And you’re much more experienced than one lonely kid who hated his life outside of Dallas. Trust me, DR. You may hate me and we may disagree on almost everything but there is still a fragment of quality within you that is completely absent in the aforementioned individuals. And you know very well that I do not hate Russia. My heart is with my family and with her citizens. I am not interested in my personal access to power, unlike one sad little boy in Dallas pining away for the big life…

    Well- I guess that’s it for now. DR- as always, it’s been a pleasure:) Since Boy Ganske sees himself as some sort of ‘colleague’ to Professor Pirrong because they share um, a state, I guess that makes us ‘colleagues’ as well:)) We share more than the same state… Perhaps I’ll tap you on the shoulder for coffee one day:)) And never forget, ‘everything in Russia is a mystery but nothing is a secret.’ You’re Russian DR. Don’t be so naive about someone who is piling on the praise. I’m beginning to think your time in the UK has warped your Russian senses…. heh:)

    xoxoxo

    paka paka Boy Ganske & Yura!

    Comment by rtyb — May 2, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

70. Note: I don’t think there is anything wrong with living in the Dallas suburbs or anywhere else. It’s Boy Ganske who was so dissatisfied with his own personal experience that he decided to look for an alternate way to gain access to power… even if it meant betraying his own country, his own value system and pretty much everyone in Russia who is without basic rights- Good times-

    Comment by rtyb — May 2, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

71. “Whatever the case, its quite obvious he/she/it hasn’t gotten laid in a very long time.”

    Hey. DR, you hit sewer level with that ad hominem attack on LR. It puts you in my books in the permanent ignore column.

    Your narcissism has worn thin.

    Comment by penny — May 2, 2009 @ 9:30 pm

72. I agree with Penny. It was indeed a new low for DR but I’m hardly surprised-

    Anyway, I need to make a correction to my above post. The quote should read:

    “Everything in Russia is a secret but nothing is a mystery.” Had it backwards….

    Anyway, it was said about Stalin but I think it can be easily applied to Putin… In other words: No one is as stupid as the Russian leaders believe(or as Boy Ganske and DI believe…)

    Comment by rtyb — May 2, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

73. Da Russophile,

    The comments regarding LR were sophomoric and a covertly sexist.

    Michel

    Comment by Michel — May 2, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

74. I don’t know why I keep doing this, but this is too rich…

    @rtyb,

    “And DR, I didn’t feel a need to discuss your article on demographics as I think SWP, Michel, etc said everything that needed to be said. I have my own opinion but I’m sure you’d just dismiss it as emotional… you know, since it’s based on my first-hand, personal experience in Russia… Oh yeah and since I’m a GIRL!”

    Thanks for giving everybody here quality entertainment by condensing so much stupidity, ignorance and conceit into just three lines, amazing even by your standards. You literally made me lol. Let’s go line by line:

    Line #1: You essentially admit to spamming the host’s blog post.

    Line #2: You essentially admit to not knowing what demographics (actually, <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography”demography) is – the statistical study of all populations. Statistical study. Statistical. How “first-hand, personal” experience comes into it I’m afraid only you know.

    Line #3: One would feel that #1 and #2 would be of rather weightier concern to a demographer defending his work than his critic’s gender, no matter how misogynist, but feel free to justify it that way if it makes you feel any better.

    PS. Frankly any-one who reads my blog would know how ridiculous that accusation is. So should you, since you apparently read my About Me page. Does “I support the goals of the feminist and LGBT movements. I support the development of an artificial womb and building incubator factories to further feminism and control the population size”, or from an article a year ago, “We support the goals of the feminist movement and consider that gender equality has not yet been achieved anywhere. Men are still more valued as bread-winners and women-more as home-makers, and changing these social perceptions is one of our goals. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2007, Russia comes 45th out of 128 countries – it scores very well on female economic participation, but must make bigger efforts in political empowerment”, sound like the rantings of a religious fundamentalist? Lol.

    And no, believe it or not, I don’t hate you or even dislike you. I just believe you’re wrong, stubborn to excess and logically challenged, which makes you come off as an irate hypocrite. Understanding is forgiveness, is a tenet I try to follow.

    I also have my problems, like narcissism as penny correctly points out (though her head is far from OK either), as well as arrogance and schizophrenia. I am constantly trying to resolve them, unsuccessfully however.

    @penny,

    Talk of pot calling kettle black re-the ad hominem to LR issue. That said, I fully approve of your attitude – please keep it up.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 2, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

75. @Michel,

    That’s too bad, because I couldn’t care less about the opinion of a lame-ass Canuck ancestor of cheese-eating surrender monkeys, go do something useful for once and get me some furs.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 2, 2009 @ 10:47 pm

76. Again Da Russophile, your immaturity is showing. You are now sinking below sophomoric.

    Michel

    Comment by Michel — May 2, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

77. If I sink low enough I’ll eventually emerge at the top.

    That’s my theory, anyway.

    You dear Michel however are only sinking into your own ass.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 2, 2009 @ 10:55 pm

78. Da Russophile,

    You are clearly showing the intelligence and maturity that I would associate with a child in junior high school. Usually, the novelty of being able to say words such as “ass” dissipates once you reach sophomoric.

    Michel

    Comment by Michel — May 2, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

79. I’m only trying to find common grounds with your folks!?

    Disappointed you don’t appreciate the effort.

    *sulks in corner*

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 2, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

80. Sulks in corner? Terrible twos. At this rate or regression, you will need one of your “artificial wombs” by the end of the evening LOL!!!!

    Comment by Michel — May 2, 2009 @ 11:14 pm

81. Touché!

    So some Canucks actually do have a sense of humor!?

    My world is falling apart.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 2, 2009 @ 11:21 pm

82. List of Canadian comedians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_comedians. Many/most of the most popular comedians in Hollywood are actually Canadian. If it weren’t for Canadians, the United States would be a much duller place Russophile.

    Comment by Michel — May 2, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

83. Nah, you begin to fail again as usual. Citing a list of comedians to prove you’re just as cool as other countries is just lame.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 2, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

84. We don’t have to prove we are cool. Unlike Russia we don’t have an inferiority complex

    Comment by Michel — May 2, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

85. Russia might have an inferiority complex, but it can kick Canada’s punk ass until it comes whining to the US like a little bitch nigga. Then the US and Russia go on a shooting rampage, like the bitch slapperz they are.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 2, 2009 @ 11:40 pm

86. Anyway, this conversation is getting more retarded by the minute. I’m out.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 2, 2009 @ 11:42 pm

87. Good night Da Russophile!

    Comment by Michel — May 2, 2009 @ 11:48 pm

88. “behaving as if SWP doesn’t know who many or most of us are outside of the blogosphere. Many of us have worked in Russia, have family in or from Russia, have well-established contacts and have come to know the Professor through such associations.” If he knows you than I’m sure the Professor wouldn’t mind sharing his thoughts on the identity of my stalker (since he/she uses so many names, kind of like here), when exactly this person lived and worked in Russia, or maybe he can enlighten the world on which 501(c)3 in D.C. or elsewhere pays his or her bills. But I think you’re lying again, and I don’t think the Prof has a clue who you are, he just doesn’t want to be smeared by a professional troll for the rest of his life either.

    “No wonder the US wasn’t interested in your services…”

    Do you care to elaborate on this line?

    Comment by Charles Ganske — May 2, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

89. Sorry Charlie. I have one identity, one email and one ip address. SWP is well aware of all of them;-)

    Nice try. Good night-

    Comment by rtyb — May 3, 2009 @ 12:05 am

90. “I have one identity, one email and one ip address. SWP is well aware of all of them;-)”

    Great, them I’m sure he won’t have a problem discussing what his friend “rtyb” (is that like TCBY?) was referring to by that one little throwaway line. “No wonder the US wasn’t interested in your services…” The U.S. what? You mean that I didn’t get accepted into the Peace Corps?

    Comment by Charles Ganske — May 3, 2009 @ 1:20 am

91. Right now, Russia might have a better men’s national ice hockey team than Canada.

    Comment by Cutie Pie — May 3, 2009 @ 2:04 am

92. Dear Cutie Pie, good for the Russian men’s national ice hockey team. We will see how they fare in the Olympics that will be held in Vancouver in 2010. However, I don’t really define Canada in terms of hockey. If our team wins, great, if they don’t there is always next year.

    Speaking of Vancouver, the city is ranked in the top 5 best cities where to live. Mercer’s 2009 Quality of Living survey ranked Vancouver as the 4th best place to live in the world in terms of quality of life. In North America, the five Canadian cities held the top five spots. As for Russia, well Moscow was ranked 169th out of 215 cities and St. Petersburg 164th.

    Sources: http://www.mercer.com/qualityofliving and http://realty.vz.ru/article/2009/4/29/665.html.

    Comment by Michel — May 3, 2009 @ 8:41 am

93. @Sublime Oblivion

    No, I was referring to the point that someone pointed out a site or organization and stated “bias statistics” just because it’s from X or Y or the “self interest” rhetoric. That argument goes full circle right back to the originator. If there are problems with the statistics they have to be shown that it’s a small sample, non-representative sample, conclusions drawn don’t support the data, etc. Not merely, “It’s from Russia/America/Organization X/Whomever so it’s inherently biased.”

    @penny

    That wasn’t an ad hominem. Simply stating an insult towards a person isn’t classification of an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you state a character attack in replace of a reply to an argument. Ad hominem is probably the most misidentified fallacy on the internet.

    Comment by Mr. D — May 3, 2009 @ 10:13 am

94. Mr. D, and you are the sock puppet of whom?

    I’ll rephrase my comment, DR’s personal attack on LR was disgusting and lowlife. Very lowlife.

    Obviously my vocabulary usage stirred a negative response from you rather than his behavior. I’ll let others draw their own conclusions on how pathetic that makes you look.

    Comment by penny — May 3, 2009 @ 11:03 am

95. Good luck Chuck

    Comment by rtyb — May 3, 2009 @ 11:51 am

96. @penny

    Sock puppet of whom?….Logic.

    I’m sorry that I offended your sentiments by pointing out that personal insults are not always ad hominems. Look, now you are trying to imply that I somehow embrace his behavior because I pointed out a flaw in your reply. How you draw this conclusion is beyond me.

    Should people use insults? No, not really. Am I going to act hysterical because someone insulted another person on the internet? No.

    Comment by Mr. D — May 3, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

97. Logic: we have “Sublime Oblivion” who used to call himself “Da Russophile.” All of a sudden we have a Mr. D (short for Da Russophile?) posting to support Sublime Oblivion, aka Da Russophile. It is not a leap of logic to assume that we are speaking of the same person

    Comment by Michel — May 3, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

98. @ Michel

    Unfortunately it is a leap of logic. You’re saying two posters are the same individual because they share the same consonant. Your assumption is that Mr. D is short for Da Russophile which is not only unfounded but incorrect.

    Support Sublime Oblivion? No, not really. I’m stating that these birthrates and population figures are merely descriptive accounts of what has happened and in no way do they justify the future as a concrete fact. So rates could continue as is, or they could increase, or they could decrease, or they could be like a pendulum the next 90 years.

    My point is rather clear cut and simple, if your sentimentalities are offended then I’m sorry.

    Comment by Mr. D — May 3, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

99. I think everybody knows who Anatoly Karlin is and isn’t online. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree about topics other than Russia, which are irrelevant here, Anatoly doesn’t need to hide behind swarms of sock puppets to make his points. Most of his critics in this forum pretend that their online personages are the equivalent of actual persons using real names, split hairs, or just plain make stuff up.

    As with any time you’re talking to the La Russophobe collective, once you get into exactly who they are and who pays their bills, they change the subject back to schoolyard insults or simply disappear. Prof. Pirrong clearly doesn’t want to be publically associated with them, neither does Georgetown U Prof Ethan Burger, who came to World Russia Forum last month, and who hasn’t posted over at La Russophobe in months.

    Perhaps one of the La Russophobers is in a profession that would be negatively affected if their trolling or hatred of Russians were revealed? One way or another, they cannot stand behind what they write. So I think that tells everyone what they need to know.

    Comment by Charles Ganske — May 3, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

100. “Perhaps one of the La Russophobers is in a profession that would be negatively affected if their trolling or hatred of Russians were revealed?”

     That is add statement. Reads somewhat like a veiled threat. However, it is fascinating how any critique of Russia is interpreted as a “hatred of Russians.” Some of us actually want to see the lives of Russians in Russia improve and believe that this can only be achieved with a true democracy that effectively can counter corruption. Perhaps we shall next be labeled as a “враг наров”?

     Comment by Michel — May 3, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

101. My bad. The last sentence should read: “a true democracy that can effectively counter corruption. Perhaps we shall next be labeled as a ‘враг народа’”

     Comment by Michel — May 3, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

102. “Michel”,
     No one is threatening anyone. There is only one side making a disagreement about policy personal here. Only the trolls here are implying that they know something which is not on Google or a matter of public record about individuals.

     My point was simply that if I knew that someone had obsessively smeared another person online for three years on, it would definitely affect my hiring decision, regardless of the reasons for said smears. I mean, how does an employer know that they won’t be slimed in the same way if they decide to part ways with this employee? That’s what I said.

     Comment by Charles Ganske — May 3, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

103. Only a civilization incorrigibly diseased with political correctness would interpret my frankly brilliant psychoanalysis of La Russophobe and her psycho-sexual problems as worthy of condemnation.

     But the problem is really hypocrisy, because as Mr. D pointed out, it wasn’t an hominem because LR had no argument – in stark contrast to penny, rtyb and LR herself, who specialize in substituting smears for reasoned debate and hijacking threads. Michel is a little better (stress on the little), at least he sometimes sticks to the topic.

     I agree with Mr. D that assuming he’s my sock puppet is frankly ridiculous, because by any reasonable criteria I’ve won the (demographic) argument by default here – which is a pity since it would have been nice for it to have been dissected by more serious and intelligent people. There’s nothing more to talk about now, as my demented convo with Michel in #74-86 surely proves. I couldn’t care less where this thread goes.

     So why the f- would I waste my time setting up sock puppets?

     The sheer delusions of the liberast / Russophobe pack never cease to amaze.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 3, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

104. Perhaps one of the La Russophobers is in a profession that would be negatively affected if their trolling or hatred of Russians were revealed?

     Effected. Affect refers to mood. Hey, but, like grammar/usage matters when your content is so compelling. Out of curiosity what profession exactly would oust a member because they are critical of Putin’s Russia? Oh, please, share that with us.

     And, DR, I thought you were out of here. It’s been a repeated pattern of you threatening to leave when comments go against you, it’s getting old. How about surprising us someday, taking your puppet toys of course with you, and going for good.

     Comment by penny — May 3, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

105. @DR–Uhm, don’t flatter yourself re winning demographic argument. I found your responses unpersuasive, and particularly was struck by your failure to respond to the last points in my original post. Also, people living in ad hominem glass houses shouldn’t cast too many stones. And I am quite serious when I say that some of your later stuff sounds like it was written on acid. Perhaps it was just improv, but if so, you should leave that to the professionals. And the hip hop thing really doesn’t work for you. In particular, use of the N-word, or any derivative thereof, is also quite inappropriate, even if used in an attempt at humor. I will delete any further comments from anybody that use that, or other similarly demeaning language.

     Re anonymity in general. There was a big anonymity debate some months back here. I completely respect anyone’s decision to remain anonymous. People can take that fact into consideration when evaluating the probative value of anyones comments. Moreover, anonymity should tend to lead to a de-emphasis on inferences based on “who” and therefore emphasis on what is written.

     @Charles. Where to begin? Re RTYB. Yes, I know her, and am proud to say that I do. Although her “J’accuse!”, intense style is not mine, I know that it reflects an intense passion and intellectual honesty. I also know that she is tenacious in ferreting out information on the many subjects that interest her, and engage her passion. Although she is often accused of Russophobia–as am I–I know for certain that is 180 degrees from the truth. She, like I, detests those who believe that the interests of the state trump the interests of the people; those who seem insanely focused on repeating the same mistakes that have inflicted so much misery on Russia and Russians throughout history. If you want a better understanding of my views on these issues, expressed differently in tone and content than rtyb, but rooted in the same views, I suggest you read my post from last summer titled On Russophobia. (A post, by the way, which I believe first attracted DR to this blog.)

     I have also told rtyb that I think she would make a great research assistant–and should actually say, researcher–because once she takes hold of an issue she holds on with bulldog tenacity and investigates it thoroughly. To mix animal metaphors, you have a tiger by the tail, dude. Watch your six.

     And btw, I think that her reference to US being uninterested in your services related to the AFROTC. Perhaps she’s wrong. Perhaps you, like me, decided the military wasn’t for you. You could readily clear that up with a forthright statement, rather than trying to deflect attention from it with a glib attempt at misdirection about the Peace Corps. That kind of remark, as I will expand on below, is the sort of thing that raises doubts in my mind about you.

     Another thing: the compulsive name dropping is extremely annoying. I am familiar with the MO. Somebody, perhaps not fully aware of the agenda of a particular organization, comes to one of its events, or maybe even says something favorable about it. Then representatives of said organization throw around said somebody’s name with abandon, suggesting endorsement of the organization.

     EG. You mention that the head of the US Missile Defense Agency showed up at your event. Somehow, I seriously doubt that the head of the US Missile Defense Agency is fully aware of, or supports, your/your organization’s adherence to the Kremlin’s risible position on the stationing of missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland. Risible for reasons I’ve set out earlier on SWP, and which you may search for at your leisure.

     That’s why I prefer to remain independent, and avoid entanglements with organizations or individuals whose motives I do not fully understand, or which may have been misrepresented to me. I know only too well how an innocent association, likely made merely out of common politeness, and in incomplete knowledge of the facts, can be highjacked.

     By the same token, you should therefore not draw any inferences–as you attempt to do–from my unwillingness to be “publicly associated with” the “LR collective” (“collective being asserted, not proved–as if it would matter anyways), nor attempt to attribute to me any motives for my decisions to associate with anyone or anything, or not. I speak for myself. Period. I am not a joiner. In the words of Richard Pipes, I am a non-belonger. I want to be judged on the basis of what I do and what I say, not on the basis of my associations. And I am too jealous of my own independence and reputation than to trust it to anyone.

     I should also note that I am old enough to have distinct memories of the operations of various front organizations during the Cold War. In all honesty, I have to say that Russia Blog/World Russia Forum give me a distinct sense of deja vu in that regard. The near perfect correlation with Putin/Kremlin positions is very disturbing, and hardly suggests independence. Maybe that’s wrong. If so, you need to do something to demonstrate otherwise, because that’s the most straightforward explanation. (The name dropping, and the unwitting dupe MO were also quite characteristic of that.)

     DI also raises alarm bells in my mind, as there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the organization is often deeply dishonest in its representations of its agenda and associations. And that brings up another thing. On the one hand you tout your support for feminism, LGBT issues, etc., but you are affiliated with/in part supported by an organization that has deep connections with fundamentalist Christians. It is these sort of things that create tremendous cognitive dissonance, and make me (and perhaps others) deeply skeptical. Similarly, your transformation from Young Reaganaut to an American Наши look-alike does not admit of any straightforward explanations, but instead suggests much murkier and more malign causes.

     You, and the organizations you associate with, seem very chameleon like–kaleidoscopic, if you will. I perceive repeated attempts to change color/shape/form so as to appeal to whomever you happen to be attempting to persuade/recruit at the moment. Again, my skepticism may be misplaced, but the very difficulty that I–and others–have in getting a fix on you, DI, RB, etc., raises serious concerns that there is something deeply dishonest going on here.

     You may not like me. You may disagree with–hate even–what I have to say. But I daresay you know who I am, what I am, and what I stand for. I may be many things, but chameleon isn’t one of them. Like Popeye, “I ‘yam what I ‘yam”–take it, leave it; love it, hate it. But Charles, I have no idea what you, RB, DI really are. And the very fact that you make it so difficult to figure that out, combined with your inexplicable cheerleading for Putin, and other things, make me deeply suspicious.

     Which is why I encourage rtyb to continue her diligent research. And, if you are what you say–what do you have to fear from it?

     Comment by The Professor — May 3, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

106. @SWP,

     “I found your responses unpersuasive, and particularly was struck by your failure to respond to the last points in my original post.”

     I believe I’ve responded to all of them. I have demonstrated that it far from relies on the single data-point (2007). I’ve specifically addressed all your bullet points. Please specify what I didn’t answer in particular.

     The only thing I didn’t cover from what I could see was your assertion that the economic malaise is possibly going to be far deeper and prolonged than currently imagined, and that in general Russia’s economic growth, supposedly entirely derived from resource rents, is fundamentally more unstable than many other countries and more prone to collapse, which will continue shattering confidence repeatedly and breaking any incipient demographic recoveries.

     That is because this is an economic issue and as such delving into it will shift the topic of discussion into another direction. But more importantly I don’t consider this an accurate portrayal of the Russian economy, which is backed up by Goldman Sachs research amongst others.

     Re-”N-word”, the version I used (which ends in -a, not -er) is quite explicitly not racist, being used endearingly amongst members of the African-American community. Still, your constant “glib attempts at misdirection” – to this; to the Ukraine red herring in #51; etc, reveal that you don’t really have anything more substantial to say.

     So really what points have you lot made?
     penny = the prominent sock puppet expert
     Michel = who I showed didn’t even read the article apart from SWP’s critique of it
     rtyb = who doesn’t even know what demography is, but can type in “discovery institute exposed” into Google quite well
     SWP = forsakes any semblance of partiality, at least on his own blog, and debates with strawmen and red herrings
     And folks like Randy, Ray, Mr. D, etc, who are cool and contributed positively, but didn’t really refute it as such

     Hence I feel quite justified in declaring a win for myself here. And you are very wrong to say that I “flatter” myself with it – please don’t flatter yourself by considering I think so highly of you as to consider it flattering to win a Pyrrhic victory over opponents of such lower caliber, a victory that has contributed absolutely zilch to advancing any real understanding of the issues.

     “Also, people living in ad hominem glass houses shouldn’t cast too many stones.”

     Coming from you, who spent a good chunk of #103 sucking up to rtyb and her “research” (i.e. what normal people would call trolling) – who BEGAN this whole thread with an implicit ad hominem in #1 and continued in similar style from #13 on – that is truly rich.

     As is the paranoiac obsession about Russia Blog’s roots coming from someone who likes to high-mindedly pretend to not be concerned with associations, but only with arguments.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 3, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

107. Da Russophobe writes: “Michel = who I showed didn’t even read the article apart from SWP’s critique of it”

     Didn’t you read all my posts? I did read your article and summarized my comments in two posts.

     Reread post 36 and 37:

     Okay, I am bored, and I am reading your “article.” I will say, the first part is not bad, but I have reached that section where you veer off into science fiction. You write:

     “Talking of which, we now move on to the fun bit – the Transformation scenario. This is an event or series of events which would induce a demographic paradigm shift. In the previous post, we’ve identified the artificial womb as a revolutionary concept for supply-side demographics, which will make the ‘birth rate’ independent of sociological factors.”

     In other words, your glorious solution for Russia is to develop artificial wombs so the state can produce the babies it needs and bypass women altogether? Presumably women have these nasty tendencies to think about the well-being of their future children?

     Michel

     Comment by Michel — April 30, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

     There, I finished reading your text. I love one of your recommendations. You write: “Convert wine production into a strategic industry and massively fund its expansion. Try to remake Russia into a wine-drinking nation. Aim to turn vodka into an exclusively export industry.” I never knew you were a budding comic Da Russophile Though, I have to say that I am impressed by the combination of science fiction and comedy in one article discussing Russian demographics LOL!

     Michel

     Comment by Michel — April 30, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

     I read the article. The first part is fairly decent when you at least stick to the data. Then it gets really flaky when you start talking about artificial wombs and then propose unrealistic solutions: i.e. weaning Russians off of vodka and having them start drinking wine !?!

     Your article is combination science fiction (artificial wombs), fantasy (the miraculous resolution of a deeply ingrained alcohol problem that became rooted in Russian society in late Soviet times by having Russians start drinking wine) and wishful thinking (that somehow Russian women will start having as many babies as they say the want to have).

     Comment by Michel — May 3, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

108. DR- Unfortunately, I don’t have time right now to respond to you in full, but regarding the N-word: Uh no: you can’t say it. Not even with a friendly little ‘A’ at the end. You are not black. You are not African American. I’m doing you a favor-

     Watch this and learn:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OesOn1yz4ew

     Comment by rtyb — May 3, 2009 @ 10:54 pm

109. “Although her “J’accuse!”, intense style is not mine, I know that it reflects an intense passion and intellectual honesty. I also know that she is tenacious in ferreting out information on the many subjects that interest her, and engage her passion.”

     Nail on the head. She and some others here remind me of those pseudo-intellectual skinheads you sometimes come across on internet forums. Intense passion, no doubt they believe what they say with every fiber in their body and will do/say whatever is necessary to make other people accept their truth as the only truth. Cannot tolerate or respect opposing opinions or those who pose them. And of course a lack of any real knowledge of the subject beyond whatever cherry-picked “facts” fuel their own hatred.

     Hatred…it does amazing things to people. I’m sure she’s not a bad person in real life. I used to know skinheads in highschool who were in all honesty pretty cool people to hang out with when they weren’t ranting about their favourite subject.

     Comment by Bob From Canada — May 3, 2009 @ 11:01 pm

110. Actually Michel I was referring to the Rite of Spring article which was the original subject of discussion.

     I explained in #32 and #34 the reasoning behind my strong suspicions that you either didn’t read it or at best superficially skimmed over it.

     Relevant quotes:

     “The reason as to why Russians in Eastern Ukraine or Estonia would have higher death rates is quite simple: drinking and smoking. Russian men in Russia could easily add a decade to their life expectancy if they drank less. Also, before Da Russophile comes back with official stats “showing” how alcohol consumption is not that high, I will preempt him…” – Michel

     “Many commentators believe that Russia’s excessively high mortality rates preclude a demographic recovery – an example of this line of reasoning appears in Rising Ambitions, Sinking Population by Nicholas Eberstadt. It is certainly true that Russia’s life expectancy is exceptionally low by industrialized-world standards and that death rates for middle-aged men today are, amazingly, no different from those of late Tsarism. This development is almost entirely attributable to the extreme prevalance of binge drinking of hard spirits. Yet their conclusions don’t follow the arguments.” – myself in Rite of Spring

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 3, 2009 @ 11:06 pm

111. To be honest Da Russophile, you write so much verbiage, that I am surprised that you you do not get lost in your own writing.

     Comment by Michel — May 3, 2009 @ 11:09 pm

112. And DR, I could go into a very long explanation of why it’s inappropriate for you to use the N-word regardless of its context or spelling but I figured I’d just offer up a hip hop response to your cool hip hop self thus the Chris Rock link. I’m actually so irritated by your smug response to SWP, I’m having a difficult time containing my rage. You haven’t any right to discuss what is or isn’t racially correct or acceptable in this country. None. It amazes me that you never know when to stop. You continue to reveal more and more about yourself and I can’t help thinking that you will regret much of what you’ve said in the years to come. At least that’s my hope. My hope is that you will grow up and out of this disturbing phase you’re in…

     Comment by rtyb — May 3, 2009 @ 11:12 pm

113. And DR, I will respond to your little demographic swipe tomorrow morning. I’m not going to waste anymore time on you this evening.
     Good night-

     Comment by rtyb — May 3, 2009 @ 11:16 pm

114. @Michel,

     In that case I’d have much appreciated it if instead of wasting mine (and your) time with refuting what I wrote, that you’d just dismissed it as “so much verbiage” from the beginning.

     That said it is certainly indicative that you feel the need to draw attention to this just at the same time as when I confront you with evidence that you didn’t read what you actually criticize – for the SECOND TIME in this discussion.

     @rtyb,

     It is certainly news to me that you’ve been appointed America’s new commissioner on what can and cannot be discussed in this country.

     News. N-word ending in -a is used quite widely amongst young people on friendly terms with each other, condemning folks for using it is just really gay.

     PS. I wonder if I’ve fallen into the homophobic category now?

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 3, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

115. Da Russophile,

     I rereading your article a second time, this is your main point:

     “Considering that Russia’s desired fertility is around 2.5, this means that in the presence of good conditions, its “natural” TFR can be expected be lie somewhere between 1.7 and 2.1 children. It is true that the phenomenally rapid jump in the TFR from 1.3 in 2006 to about 1.5 in 2008 was helped by the pro-natality campaign, but there are deeper factors at work. According to the Levada Center for sociological research, there were a number of positive discontinuities in Russia life from 2006 on.”

     Again, wishful thinking. You main premise is that with the surging “confident conservatism” will bring about a demographic rebound. However, much like your hope for a surging economy, it is not a realistic expectation. You are counting your demographic chicks before they hatch.

     I have one question. Why are you still living in the United States? You should be in Russia doing your part to bring about Green Communism.

     Comment by Michel — May 3, 2009 @ 11:34 pm

116. DR- I’m not a hundred years old. And no, it’s still not okay. Obviously, you have NO black or African American friends. So do me a favor- take BART to the West Oakland, get off and wander around dropping the N word (with a soft A) and see how well that goes over;) Actually, any Oakland stop other than Rockridge will be fine- Go ahead. I’ll check back with you when you’re done:)) Oh and after that, give Davey D of Hard Knock Radio a call and ask him what he thinks- Or just show up at the next Oscar Grant rally and do your own little survey- And btw- there are more than a few Profs on the Berkeley campus who could explain why it’s inappropriate to use the N-word even with a SOFT A! You can always ask one of them. Or are they too old to understand?

     And yes, I get that I said I was done until tomorrow but your latest comment was once again astounding-

     Comment by rtyb — May 3, 2009 @ 11:45 pm

117. rtyb: You haven’t any right to discuss what is or isn’t racially correct or acceptable in this country. None.

     Hah, what the hell? The fascist comes out of the closet. And here I thought the internet was all about freedom of speech. Don’t like that much, do ya…

     Comment by Bob From Canada — May 4, 2009 @ 12:14 am

118. And here DR, even Russians think you’re nuts. This is from last month. By a Russian, in Russia!

     http://www.ekaterinburg.com/news/spool/news_id-300919-section_id-100.html

     I’m not going to get into the demographics debate with you. As I said before, I think Penny, Michel and SWP said everything that needed to be said. But if I took you to task, my debate would focus on the issue of abortion and child abandonment which is severely under reported. Russia has basically stopped trying to terminate the parental rights of parents who dump their kids off at the Baby House or Detsky Dom. There is also the issue of HIV which is completely ignored by the current Russian Putinocracy. It’s getting worse not better. Then there’s the whole issue of ‘family values’ in Russia. Most Russians claim to be Orthodox without a clue as to what that means. They also lack any real desire to apply Orthodox Christian values to anything related to their daily life like marriage and family. What they will do is wear a gold crucifix and hang one on their rear-view mirror… (I’m sure DI wants to fix that… nothing like Christian fascism). So short of giving the entire population lobotomies and creating an artificial womb (uh, that’s your idea DR & that’s just scary), Russia’s population will continue to decline. That’s my short, oversimplified answer to why your post is pure fiction. But based on your promotion of an artificial womb (see DR’s blog bio), I think you should be writing science fiction-

     Comment by rtyb — May 4, 2009 @ 12:20 am

119. And here’s another great take on Russia’s ridiculous baby promoting campaign.

     http://www.slate.com/id/2195133/

     Comment by rtyb — May 4, 2009 @ 12:26 am

120. @ Michel I missed your reference to DR’s article as science fiction. I’m sorry about that. I didn’t mean to repeat you. We’re obviously on the same page. I just can’t decide if the artificial womb theory is hilarious or terrifying- I also can’t decide if DR is trying to be overly ridiculous in search of a reaction or if he really believes what he says? Either way, I’m taking a break from his antics for a while… or forever…

     Comment by rtyb — May 4, 2009 @ 1:28 am

121. @Michel,

     It is a major point, but far from the only one. Another is that the average birth sequence is at 1.6 while the TFR was at 1.2-1.4 during the post-Soviet period, which indicates major birth postponement (unless significant numbers of Russian women plan not to have children at all, but that is not backed up by either survey or prior census data).

     @RTYB,

     Actually Russian patriots acknowledge the usefulness of what I do – http://inoforum.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=478&st=40&start=40

     “Ещё существует блог Da Russophile (http://darussophile.blogspot.com/). laugh.gif Вернее, существовал. Теперь сайт переехал на другой хостинг — http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/dr/
     Правда, как вероятно, и следовало ожидать, автор по происхождению русский.

     А вот ещё похоже тоже наш соотечественник делает освещение свободной западной прессы — http://fkriuk.blogspot.com/”

     Moving onto your articles…

     1. Abortion and child abandonment are social issues / problems that is only tangentially related to demography, which is the STATISTICAL study of populations. HIV is certainly not ignored by the Russian government since around 2006, when it started spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually on the problem. It is only prevalent amongst injecting drug users and shows absolutely no signs of spreading into the general population African-style. I can cite you the relevant research if you want.

     2. The Slate article focuses on one region, Ulyanovsk, and the efforts of an over-enthusiastic, populist and rather incompetent governor, but does not give a reasoned analysis of the effects of the new child benefits on the country as a whole.

     Re-artificial wombs. The vast majority of feminist literature attributes historical low status of women to their biologically necessary greater degree of involvement with children relative to men. Technology increasingly makes this, and the socially oppressive family unit in general, obsolete, if the artificial womb were to be developed. Also, by removing reproduction from purely biological foundations it makes homophobia obsolete too. As such it is a progressive and laudable goal, and only false feminists and homophobes would oppose it.

     Re-n words, b words, g words, etc. That discussion is just gay. Let’s stop it.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 4, 2009 @ 1:45 am

122. “There is also the issue of HIV which is completely ignored by the current Russian Putinocracy.”

     According to UNAIDS: “The Russian Federation has demonstrated a high-level commitment in response to the AIDS epidemic.”

     “A new Federal AIDS Program for 2007 – 2011 was also developed and adopted. Federal funding for the national AIDS response in 2006 had increased more than twentyfold compared to 2005, and the 2007 budget doubled that of 2006, adding to the already substantial funds provided by the main donor organizations.”

     Oh but hey, why look up facts when you can just spout out complete bullshit instead? I won’t stop you.

     Comment by Bob From Canada — May 4, 2009 @ 3:01 am

123. Professor,

     It’s time to wrap this discussion up. Like you, no one tells me what to write, my views stand on their own. So here goes:

     It’s obvious to everyone who has been watching this discussion that your friends are La Russophobe, even if you are not directly involved. The rhetoric, syntax, instant dirt dug up on myself and Yuri Mamchur, shrillness, it all fits to a T. They obviously don’t want to be outed as such, as that would probably be bad for their business — especially if their business relates to Russia, hence their fury against me — but their initials are well known to many people already who live in Russia (not me). A blogging collective cannot anonymously defame people for three years and not become uncovered. That also goes for any black PR project.

     You let your friends call me a traitor. For the son and grandson of career military officers, those are fighting words. You insinuated that I didn’t join the military for some weird reason. I was 4F’d — I had to have a good chunk of my knee get put back together. You also implied that I drop names to look important. No, I mention the names of people like Thomas PM Barnett who disagree with your views on missile defense to show that my position is entirely mainstream and your implication that only paid Kremlin shills could possibly think it’s the wrong system in the wrong place at the wrong time is patently false. If you accused Barnett of being a Kremlin flack, he’d tell you to f— off. But you can get away with that when it comes to some “twentysomething” from Dallas who doesn’t have tenure. But really now, where does a tenured professor find the time for all this anyway? No wonder you’d like to keep this anonymous.

     You said I deflected a question about government service. I did so to determine if your anonymous friends had access to any non-public information about me. If they did, I was going to report them to the appropriate law enforcement agency for hacking my government records or email account, as fast as you can say run that IPI address.

     You have claimed I am part of something murky, myserious, Trojan horse program bla bla bla. Our donors are all listed there on the Real Russia Project fellows/advisors page, there are only a few millionaires on that page, and they’re all American citizens. I just don’t want them to be harassed, like any other think tank’s donors. God forbid someone, especially a conservative, not think the world is divided simply between anti-Kremlin saints and pro-Kremlin devils.

     So basically, I’ll offer you the same deal Yuri offered Kim Zigfeld (rtyb/penny, Leonard Daulton, Oliver Bronson, et al) when her fishing expedition ended two years ago. I’ll tell you who they are if you list off the Brattle Group clients and whether or not they’ve made out checks to any of your friends for Russia-related PR services rendered. Even Heritage acknowledged we’re “U.S-backed” in a backhanded way, because they know darn well who our major funder is, and he’s an American. And they basically trashed a conference that was founded by one of the same guys, Paul Weyrich, who founded Heritage in the first place. Weyrich founded the Free Congress Foundation but he got tired of the perpetual Cold Warriors a long time before he passed. But the intern who wrote that blog post probably didn’t know any of that. He just did what he was told.

     Our transparency is more than I can say for lobbyists like Randy Scheunemann who tried to drag this country into fighting Saakashvili’s useless war against Russia (while stabbing Sarah Palin in the back, where did he find the time I wonder?), or some of the think tanks you like to cite, which also have a history of hosting CIA defectors, ex-GRU guys spinning old legends and don’t do much to dispel Russian stereotypes that they’re still part of the game. Thanks to their idiotic “legends”, lots of innocent missionaries, aid workers, and young people get the boot from Russia. I know one fiftysomething guy personally who had to pack up with his Russian wife and move to Croatia because some genius thought using his NGO would be a real nice cover. Collateral damage in the service of freedom I’m sure you might say, but what useful intel are they finding in Russia that justifies this human toll? That the Russian economy is in crisis? Some bits of Kremlinology that you pick up around the water cooler? Shouldn’t they be in Pakistan hunting Taliban instead?

     If everyone plays these innuendo games you play, then all the folks you like to cite must be funded by Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Soros (what an odd bedfellow he would be for most conservatives, I think the “Quantum” organization in the James Bond movie was a backhanded reference to his hedge fund), and exiled Chechen warlords. You have said I am a chameleon, actually, it was Glenn Beck who first said “Communist” Chinese and “Putin! Putin!” are warning the U.S. that we are spending and borrowing on an unsustainable course. As for other name dropping, some of the people I know here in D/FW do charter Russian Antonovs that fly bullets and MREs into Kabul. I don’t hide the fact that I know and respect people who do business in Russia. They’ve created jobs for dozens of Russians, something I don’t think you have done. Some of them even have minders, and offer their minders drinks. So what do you really know about me? Nothing, beyond what the no longer so anonymous Zigfeld swarm told you. You presumed and your friends smeared, and I got tired of it. Now I’m done.

     Comment by Charles Ganske — May 4, 2009 @ 6:58 am

124. Once Russians who have been doing business with this person or group of persons find out what they’ve been up to (running a hate site for the past three years) their reaction is probably going to be similar to what members of black Atlanta polite society would do if they found out that one of their best white friends had secretly been writing for the Ku Klux Klan. Sever the relationship. And no one in Lubyanka is going to make a phone call and tell them to do it. People can think for themselves without being a part of some dark conspiracy.

     Comment by Charles Ganske — May 4, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

125. I’ll only say this now because you are so off base, so out of line and have no idea what you’re talking about Ganske. I almost feel sorry for you.

     Anyway, I want to make it clear that I have zero affiliation with LaRussophobe. She has no clue who I am and I only stumbled upon her site a few months ago. Despite Ganske’s paranoid delusions of a conspiracy, there isn’t one. I think the work LaRussophobe does is excellent and I do not wish to undermine it. My work is separate but I was more than a little amused that she shared my same disgust and mindset for DI, RB, Ganske et al. I am not a blogger. I am not part of some blogging cartel nor do I have an interest in such.

     And Ganske, my advice to you is that you should think long and hard before committing such bold statements and veiled threats to the permanence of the internet. Your name is now forever tied to those statements and it’s likely that it will not work out in your favor.

     Ganske, perhaps you’d like to share your views on reconstructionism since DI’s biggest donor is a reconstructionist? Do you also believe that the US Constitution should be burned and replaced with Biblical Law? And please explain how that ties into Russian Democracy. If I used Neo-Nazis to fund a project for the relatives of Holocaust survivors, do you really believe I could claim that there was no connection? Really? Are you serious? Ganske, are you or are you not a Christian reconstructionist who believes in Intelligent Design? And if so, I ask you again: What does that have to do with democracy in Russia? Don’t insult us Ganske. The hole you’re digging is becoming deeper and deeper. It’s fine for me because soon, there will be no way out of that hole for you. But ultimately, I’m human and I’d hate to see you destroy your life at such a young age on a group of people who truly do not give a sh1t about Russia, her citizens, human rights OR YOU!

     Comment by rtyb — May 4, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

126. And P.S. Ganske, since you keep threatening LR- shouldn’t you be busy at work right now? Does Promark know that you’re busy promoting your ID Russia cause instead of seeking new clients for them? And- I would think a young man working as a junior financial planner would be a little more respectful to a Professor with so much knowledge related to finance and economics. Choose your words carefully, Ganske. I would tone down the rhetoric and threats if I were you.

     Comment by rtyb — May 4, 2009 @ 1:22 pm

127. Oh, and I completely forgot. @ Ganske you said: “rtyb” (is that like TCBY?) No, not really. It’s more like DTRA;)

     Comment by rtyb — May 4, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

128. And P.S. Ganske, since you keep threatening LR….

     It’s fascinating that LR must-be-denounced is the common theme by these folks. I noticed today in my daily trip to Robert Amsterdam’s blog that Timothy Post had surfaced in the comments almost as if on command to denounce LR, he hasn’t been around for awhile. Among his usual inane pro-Putin comments was a specific admonishment of LR. That piece in his comments:

     “Actually, I would argue that James’ commentary on Russia, in general, and Putin, in particular, does take potshots. Additionally, I would question why you would promote those commentators whose language gets awfully close to hate speech (read: La Russophobe) by posting links to “their” website in your sidebar and by reprinting blog posts which they have written.”

     That’s a pretty transparent appeal for censorship.

     Is the timing a coincidence or is this an organized cabal or just that paranoid dogmatic minds think alike? Criticism equals hate speech is the common ploy, plus, any anti-Putin dissenter must have a nefarious motive or belong to a sponsored anti-Russia group.

     I’ve followed LR’s blog for years, she serves a useful role in aggregating the worst of Putin’s Russia in her unique style. Hey, it’s her blog, her efforts, her opinions and if at times she is sometimes a little heavy handed with hyperbole that’s her prerogative.

     I’m beginning to admire her more for the enemies that she keeps.

     Comment by penny — May 4, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

129. R,
     Let’s sum this up for the Professor. R, you obviously think being publically associated with what you anonymously write about real people online, falsely accusing them of all sorts of terrible things, is a threat. I don’t. Sooner or later, whether your “Wretchard the Cat” or “Spengler”, we all have to come clean or go away. And as far as the other anonymous posters here present, I do not think you can compare the digust someone who has been libeled for daring to have a different point of view about Russia justifiably feels to how the people behind an anonymous Internet personage feels when their “character” gets attacked by The Exile for her alleged weight, loathing of young Russian women, etc. To constantly accuse American expats living and working in Russia of failing to disclose their business interests when they write something positive about the country is lame. Everybody knows that you say more good things about the place where you operate, ask your local chamber of commerce, I doubt they’ll tell you that your town is a dump. I just enjoy promoting the work of entrepreneurs, both Russian and American, who have actually put Russians to work so that they can afford Internet access and, if they choose, go read Oleg Kozlovsky online if they please. But I think most of them have better things to do, like go to the Bolshoi or make babies. Most Americans don’t care about politics either, and they are right not to obsess over it. States where politics is everything are states on the verge of civil war or collapse.

     I promote U.S.-Russia business and finally burying the Cold War legacy (including pointing out institutions that were set up to operate as anti-Moscow during that conflict and zombie-like, have continued – how else do you explain Jackson-Vanik?) once and for all. I feel that only prosperity from the bottom up will change Russian society for the better, and the same with China. A policy of confrontation and trying to promote internal unrest in these countries would only make them truly fascistic, and lead to another world war. I spent much of my four years at UT studying WWI and WWII, my mentors were professors who specialized in those areas, God knows I never want to see that again even if we’re headed for another Depression. As people’s material situation improves, and yet they remain unhappy, they will start to ask more fundamental questions about their political freedoms, their spirituality, what they value etc. But all the top down strategies, from Peter the Great to Gaidar/Chubais shock therapy, have failed miserably or generated the Soviet tyranny, the likes of which the Mensheviks and those who supported the Bolsheviks before they took power could never have imagined.

     All of this is why I am very shocked as to why the Professor, a man obviously of libertarian inclinations, skeptical of Washington’s ability to fix American banks much less solve the Middle East conflict or stabilize Ukrainian politics, thinks it’s so important for the U.S. to pressure the present Russian government by provoking it in its own back yard rather than let the Russian people solve their own problems. Not counting the collapse of the USSR, which needed to happen and may or may not have possibly had a softer landing, the last time a doddering but slowly reforming Russian political structure was overthrown in 1917, things immediately went from bad to worse. Don’t make that same mistake again by turning liberalism into a kind of neo-Bolshevik faith in the ability of the State, if only angels like Kasparov were running the show with Anders Aslund whispering in their ear, to reform the crooked timber of Russian humanity. I notice that both you and the Professor seem to think their is some closeted religious agenda behind everything I do. Well, I don’t hide the fact that I believe that human beings are prone to error and sin, and that affects politics at the simplest levels, both here and in Russia. My realism is not the Kissingerian type but the Niebuhr type. Conservatism ceased to exist in Washington when the temptations to push things along (“faster please” as Michael Ledeen liked to say) became too great.

     As for this idea that I can’t stand anyone who has a negative view of modern Russia, please. I occasionally read what Robert Amsterdam writes. Although I have sometimes poked fun at his “anybody but Russia, Europe should buy gas from Iran” views on energy, I take what he writes seriously. Amsterdam’s views are fairly mainstream for Washington (even if I think this is unfortunate on many issues). I know he represents Khodorkovsky, but he operates transparently, and I doubt he is Googling me right now trying to find dirt for the next “Neo Soviet Screwball” “Servant of the Beast” — whatever the hate post is for this week. Amsterdam isn’t accusing people he doesn’t like of cross dressing or photoshopping Hitler mustaches on their photos like the childish La Russophobe clan. He has better things to do with his time.

     R, you obviously feel very strongly about Russia after seeing so many Russian kids abandoned by their parents and trying to place them with loving adoptive parents here in the U.S. I sincerely hope these strong feelings did not lead you to join an anonymous collective of cyberthugs that occasionally libels people like me for daring to have a more optimistic point of view about the future of Russia. I think we would agree that falsely accusing a 27 year old guy from Texas of being on the payroll of the Kremlin or being part of some fascist theocratic conspiracy is not doing anything for anyone in Russia. I think we could also agree that the U.S. and Russia continuing the Cold War is pretty silly, unless we want to wage a war to see which side can print money faster and owe the other more debt. I haven’t heard your thoughts on China owning $2 trillion of U.S. debt, but I would imagine that even you might agree with Yuri Mamchur that Kudrin had better things to invest all that oil money into than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paper (here is where we get into the territory of the Professor calling me an ideological “chameleon”, since we’re not supposed to refer to foreigners owning our debt, call it the unpatriotic argument for fiscal conservatism).

     I would also agree with you that outing you as a member of the La Russophobe collective isn’t going to help anyone in Russia either, though you might think twice before just making up more stuff about me. There are obviously both men and women writing for LR, whether posing as Zigeld or contributors who don’t exist anywhere else and could be pseudonyms like “David Essel” — hence my confusion about the LR collective’s gender. And obviously for at least one person in the LR collective, it’s more than a hobby. I do think the public has a right to know who would fund such a black PR project — whether they are old fart Cold Warriors in D.C. trying to save missile defense from cancellation, exiled Russian oligarchs, whomever. When someone gets the smoking gun IP address or those donors come forward, I’ll be around.

     But even if none of that happens, I can live with that, since anyone who knows me laughs at all these accusations. They get them in their Google alerts and then email me the posts with smiley faces.

     Comment by Charles Ganske — May 6, 2009 @ 2:22 am

130. DR- it’s true that Russia has been under considerable pressure to step-up its effort related to AIDS but claiming to do something and actually doing it are two very different things. Have you been to an HIV+ Baby Dom ward recently? I have. Nothing has changed.

     Ganske- I have no idea with what you’re going on about. I’ll say this: The only difference between Putin’s Russia and the system in which he was raised is the Church. I think this has something to do with why you think it’s a positive. Don’t be so naive. Putin is decorating with Jesus. Nothing more-

     And Ganske, do you know how many of billions of dollars the US has pumped into Russia in the past 20 years? Do you know how many DOE, DOD, NNSA, DTRA, US Contractors, etc are in Russia working FOR Russia, paying Russia and employing thousands upon thousands of Russians in an effort to upgrade multiple failing nuclear sites among other projects? Are you even remotely familiar with any of these projects? Russia is more than willing to let us do the work, take our money, funnel it out of Russia without providing even the most basic infrastructure to her citizens and then turn around and f*ck the US on Iran and kick us out of Manas… And you think that’s all okay? You talk about your 4-F Classification but I’m fairly certain the Air Force wouldn’t be down with your ideology as it relates to Russia. And I’m with the Professor, I don’t know how you go from Air Force ROTC to Наши. I can only assume it’s related to your religious beliefs and the hope that Russia is headed down a path of Extreme Christian Conservatism. It’s not. Wearing an Orthodox Cross is very different from embracing its teachings. Since they’re still doing liturgy in Slavonic, most Russians don’t even know what they’re listening to… And I know more than a few Russian thugs who went into Church to light candles at their chosen Icon in an effort to sway God’s assistance in their uh, “business dealings”…. decorating with Jesus, wrapping him in a Russian Flag…. nothing more… it will never be anything more. I think the abortion statistics speak for themselves. It’s not a moral issue or concern.

     Grow up Ganske. You are an American and unless you truly believe our Constitution should be burned and replaced with Biblical Law (as your #1 donor believes), there is nothing about our home that is comparable to a country who lacks any decent system of Justice and zero rights for her citizens. What do you know about Russia’s legal system? Not much. Don’t confuse Russia’s moments of content with freedom or democracy. And stop pissing on our Flag Ganske. If you hate the US so much, get out-

     And never ever confuse one’s discontent with Putin’s New Soviet Style of Gov’t with a lack of empathy, respect or love for Russia in general. You are the one with no real ties to Russia. Don’t confuse those of us with a direct interest and connection with those only interested in access to power and personal gain.

     http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=279

     P.S. Ganske, you still haven’t answered my question regarding your view on Reconstructionism and what that has to do with Russia? Well?

     Comment by rtyb — May 6, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

131. RTYB,

     Re-HIV. As usual it comes down to this – statistics and reports on my (and Bob from Canada’s) side, anecdotal evidence from yours. I am not disputing that facilities for HIV+ children may be seriously sub-par across Russia, or that more resources should be spent on fixing them.

     However, this has little bearing on the demographic argument – because I repeat, the HIV epidemic is contained within the injecting drug user population, and shows no signs of breaking out into a generalized, sub-Saharan African-style epidemic (the percentage of pregnant women testing positive peaked in 2002, and has stabilized since at a low plateau) – which is what it would take to have substantial, negative demographic effects on the Russian population.

     You are essentially trying to count your apples (social justice, children’s rights, etc) against my oranges (demography).

     Also, I suggest reading More Questions Than Can Be Answered, or just its first sentence, for a bit of an insight on why Charles does not deign it necessary to answer every one of your “questions” / intemperate accusations.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 6, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

132. For you DR-

     http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/02/window-on-eurasia-russias-hivaids.html

     Comment by rtyb — May 6, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

133. DR, the association of you and Ganske has become comical at this point. You and your defense of communism, artificial wombs and homosexuality compared with Ganske’s world of Intelligent Design, death for homosexuals and women who have abortions and an overall hatred of feminism… okey dokey- Because you are HERE, in the UNITED STATES, you are free to believe whatever you wish and scream it out loud…. I just think the alliance is hilarious- It would make a great reality show. Ganske and DR… like the new Odd Couple-

     Anyway, Ganske- here’s just a tiny glimpse into some of what the US has done and continues to do in Russia. I’m always amazed that Russia fails to acknowledge any of this- Were any of these billions discussed at the World Russia Forum?????

     http://nnsa.energy.gov/news/2046.htm
     http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07404.pdf

     And, I suppose one could argue that we were fools to do so many favors for one very ungrateful Russia but if we hadn’t gone in to assist, what exactly would have happened? Any guesses?

     Comment by rtyb — May 6, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

134. Dear Russophile, repeating something over and over again does not make it true. You write: “However, this has little bearing on the demographic argument – because I repeat, the HIV epidemic is contained within the injecting drug user population,” yet the statistics demonstrate that this is not the case (as I have pointed out a number of times).

     According to Russian stats: as of 2007, heterosexual contact was the reported cause of HIV transmission in 34.4% of reported cases of HIV/AIDS. This number has been growing since 2000 when it represented only 4.2% of HIV/AIDS cases (source: http://hivrussia.ru). This number clearly demonstrates that the epidemic is not “contained within the injecting drug user population” as you continue repeating like a chant to make the truth go away.

     Comment by Michel — May 6, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

135. http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/aids_causes.png

     And it has been at around 30-40%…since 2003. Whereas if it were in fact a full-fledged epidemic it have continued growing exponentially.

     Now why don’t you try to explain these two charts-

     http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/hiv_testing.png
     http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/hiv_pregnant.png

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 6, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

136. RTYB,

     Where exactly has Charles expressed support for “Intelligent Design, death for homosexuals and women who have abortions and an overall hatred of feminism”?

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 6, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

137. Howard Ahmanson, Jr. is DI’s number one donor. Ganske can deny that he supports all things related to Ahmanson if he wishes but so far he hasn’t done that. Nor has he explained how Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute in general have anything to do with promoting Putinocracy.

     So ask him straight up what his opinion on Reconstructionism, homosexuality and abortion are. What’s the big deal? What is he hiding? Does he somehow like Putin’s Russia because it denies homosexuals the right to exist, demonstrate, etc… Is this another reason Ganske prefers Putin’s Russia over his own Country? These are relevant questions DR. I’m sorry if they are in conflict with your beliefs. Perhaps you should dig a little deeper-

     From this article:

     http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/index.html

     “At the root of Ahmanson’s quirky asceticism and ardent conservatism is his rocky path from cloistered rich kid to Bible-believing philanthropist. Ahmanson’s father, Howard Sr., was a savings and loan tycoon whose net worth was valued at over $300 million at the time of his death in 1968. Howard Jr. was only 18 at the time he inherited the fortune. Ejected from his sheltered youth to confront a world suddenly in his palm, the reluctant heir feared that he would never surpass his father’s accomplishments; at the same time, he viewed his inherited fortune as a wall separating him from humanity. After wandering the country and the world searching for peace of mind, he returned home in the mid-’70s still a lost soul.

     It was then that he found his salvation in the church and in R.J. Rushdoony, a prolific author and an influential theologian of the far right. Rushdoony is the father of Christian Reconstructionism, a strange variant of Calvinism that stresses waging political struggle to put the earth, and in particular the U.S., under the control of biblical law. In his 30-some books, he advocated everything from the end of government-administered social welfare and public schools to the execution of homosexuals. For around 20 years, until Rushdoony’s death in 1995, Ahmanson served on the board of his think tank, Chalcedon, granting it a total of $1 million. In exchange, Rushdoony acted as Ahmanson’s spiritual advisor, imbuing him with a sense of order and a mission.”

     Comment by rtyb — May 6, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

138. P.S. DR- If you just spend a little time doing some research, you’ll see that the communists and socialists are TOTALLY not down with the Discovery Institute (well, no one is really). But, your peeps are especially not down with DI’s ID! You know, I’d be feeling a little ‘used’ if I were you. Don’t let Ganske give you any vodka;-)

     Comment by rtyb — May 6, 2009 @ 7:07 pm

139. Oh Jeez, I shouldn’t have to spell it all out and offer you an ORG Chart DR!! It’s pretty obvious! I have given you almost everything there is to know about Ganske. Do I also need to spell out the relationship between Marvin Olansky and Ganske?

     And what is even more obvious was the SOCK PUPPET Cutie Pie’s reference to Christopher Hitchens who just happened to take on one DI LOVING, friend of Ganske, University of Texas Professor Marvin Olansky- http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=nJMlobOesgk Coincidence? I think not. I can’t spell it out more clearly than to make a freaking org chart for you DR.

     Ganske’s interest in Russia is all about DI, Marvin Olansky, and his personal mission from God- It has NOTHING to do with the promotion of democracy, human rights or Russians in general. Got it?

     Comment by rtyb — May 6, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

140. correction: Olasky not Olanksy

     Comment by rtyb — May 6, 2009 @ 7:38 pm

141. Da Russophile writes: “And it has been at around 30-40%…since 2003. Whereas if it were in fact a full-fledged epidemic it have continued growing exponentially.”

     Yes, I will concur that Russia is not in a full-fledged epidemic (yet). However, there are still roughly 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS reported every year and more will have to be done, even as the state will have less money and resources to spend.

     According to UNAIDS: “There are about 400 prevention projects carried out within the framework of the National Priority Health Project. However the HIV epidemic keeps on spreading. While progress has been made in HIV treatment, screening and prevention of mother-to-child transmission other HIV prevention interventions need improvement.”

     So, I agree that Russia has done some things right, the question is whether they could have done more and whether they could have spent more money on the health and well-being of their citizens. I would say yes, they could have done a lot more.

     Source: http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2009/20090310_UARussia.asp

     Comment by Michel — May 6, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

142. Ultimately, how is this relevant?

     Russia Blog, or the Real Russia Project, has never espoused a theocratic agenda. What it does promote, from what I’ve read there, is greater US-Russian understanding and cooperation. I quite support that and I am totally cool with them publishing or republishing my articles, both in service of that noble goal, and to get greater publicity for my own work, because let’s face it, Sublime Oblivion doesn’t have a tenth of the influence and reach RB has.

     Even if they do get funding from DI, it’s pretty obvious that DI’s religious projects are strictly compartmentalized from RB and I for one would have no problems taking money from them should they offer it with no strings attached. (If anything it’s less money for their theocratic propaganda.)

     PS. It is also pretty ridiculous to say RB serves “Putinocracy” because of its unwillingness to take a line on questions such as American NGO’s involvement in color revolutions or the level of US involvement in or prior knowledge of Georgia’s attack on S. Ossetia in August 2008.

     I should stress that what I’ve said is strictly my own, relatively uninformed opinion (frankly, I don’t really care which organizations have associations with which other organizations), and should not in any way be taken to reflect the views of Charles or anyone else affiliated to RB and the RRP.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 6, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

143. Michel, what exactly are you arguing? You admit that Russia has done things right. You also admit that they’re not in a full blown pandemic. You clearly disagree with rtyb’s ignorant knee-jerk comment that started this discussion on HIV/AIDS. So what point are you trying to make other than that they could have done more, which without any context is just substanceles rhetoric?

     Comment by Bob From Canada — May 6, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

144. Bob, do you even give a sh1t as to who is or isn’t dying in Russia? I’ve got a pretty good feeling that you don’t care either way beyond continuing this argument. Anyway, why don’t you actually read the entire thread. I was not the first to bring up the AIDS issue nor was mine a knee-jerk response.

     Here, go argue with Paul Goble-

     http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/02/window-on-eurasia-russias-hivaids.html

     Comment by rtyb — May 6, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

145. Bob, I didn’t say they had done everything right, rather they had done some things right. Doing something is better than doing nothing, but it is still not saying that enough has been done.

     Good link rtyb. An excerpt:

     “First and foremost, 63 percent of the new cases in the Russian Federation last year were the result of sexual contact rather than intravenous drug use, a pattern that means the disease has now passed into the general population where it may spread more slowly but could potentially touch far more people and where an increasing share of its victims will be women.”

     This is a pretty big jump from the previous year (34.4%). And, the leveling off DR’s graph seemed to indicate may have been a temporary gain as Paul Goble’s post highlights: “since 2006, he noted, the epidemic in Russia has ‘again accelerated.’”

     Comment by Michel — May 6, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

146. Michel, you’ve misunderstood something. (Actually the person who wrote that blog post did, and it looks like you didn’t bother to check the original source before repeating his mistake). Those are two different figures, both for 2007. 34% of overall new infections were from heterosexual contact, but for women it was 63%. We do not yet know figures for 2008.

     Comment by Bob From Canada — May 7, 2009 @ 3:33 am

147. rtyb, this sock puppet game is over. Every “have you stopped beating your wife lately” question you ask and weird conspiracy theory you espouse about people’s supposedly evil motivations is identical to La Russophobe, because you are Kim Zigfeld — at least the part of the collective that handles the personal libels. The fact that you’re being outed as LR is why you have become ever more shrill and desperate as this discussion has dragged on.

     I may have met Olasky once for five minutes when I was a freshman at UT-Austin, that was it. I don’t know any of those other people, have never talked to them, never heard anything about some theocratic conspiracy, and have obviously never promoted anything like that on Russia Blog or anywhere else. The only “Evil Empire” that has ever cut me a paycheck was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation/Microsoft. You might as well next demand to know if I am or have ever been a member of the Communist Party like Joe McCarthy did back in the day — wait, you already did that, at least for Anatoly!

     This is all pure made up character assassination trash, and AK has pointed out every other falsehood you have presented here.

     Comment by Charles Ganske — May 7, 2009 @ 11:37 am

148. Congratulations on your ability to use Timothy Post and facebook- And who exactly is the sock puppet? I have never used anything beyond my initials?? I still have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not putting forth any weird conspiracy theory other than I don’t think you’re being completely straightforward with your intent or interest. And this confuses me and frankly, it pisses me off. I actually don’t agree with LR regarding any sort of grand influence from DI or RB. It’s minimal at best. At the same time, you greatly overestimate this idea of a black PR campaign. You have created a war where none exists. The idea that it is black or white, that one is either Pro-Putin or Anti-Russia is just asinine. I don’t like Putin. I’m hardly alone. But this doesn’t make me anti-Russia. Far from it. And this is what a small group have decided to make this. You, along with a few others, take any call against Putin as some sort of personal attack. It’s not. I do not tie my ego to a leader nor should anyone else. I know Russia well. There are those who pretend that all is well and everything is perfect. It is not. And pretending that Russia’s infrastructure is being maintained (or even exists) and that a justice system exists is not doing anyone in Russia any favors. Russians deserve better. Charles- if you are interested, I would be more than willing to take you to Russia and show the side that I have come to know. I suspect it’s a side of Russia for which you have never been exposed.

     I do not like organizations who are not completely transparent. I do not like organizations who do not appear to allow different views or opinions. I have zero issues with one’s personal beliefs but it’s one’s desire to use draconian measures to force those beliefs on others that concerns me. The continued silencing of those who speak out against Putin is unacceptable and you, of all people, should understand that it is extremely un-Christian.

     Regarding Olasky, it’s hard to ignore the overlaps. He was a communist, American Jew who converted to Christianity while he was in the Soviet Union. He is connected to the Discovery Institute via the number one funding source and his personal friend, Howard Ahmanson. In addition, he is a Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas and editor of several publications for which you are connected. Call me crazy, but those are some very strong links. You name drop people for whom you have no real connection and then step aside and dodge questions about those who are directly involved with the Discovery Institute and Russia. Charles, this continues to raise red flags in my mind. Again, I don’t understand why you will not be more straightforward about why the Real Russia Project was started. Until you decide to be more transparent and honest, I will continue to have my doubts.

     In the meantime, I suggest you open your mind to the vast amounts of information related to Russia. You are an intelligent man, Charles. You can start with the links from NNSA and GAO that I provided. All is not as it appears in Russia. Step beyond your circle and continue to learn. Stop concerning yourself with whom you may or may not know and who you think may or may not be closer to power. Some of your associations are not as respected as you think or as they represent themselves to be… I recommend that you choose a more independent path and seek a deeper understanding of the issues. You will benefit greatly from this approach. Professor Pirrong is a great asset to you and I suggest you continue to use his knowledge to further your own. The greatest teachers will always call you out and challenge you to debate.

     Charles, you were challenged here. And I think that’s actually a good thing. I believe you should stick around and continue to broaden your scope and associations. That’s my honest opinion. You’re too young and too intelligent to limit yourself-

     R

     And regarding my identity. I’m not trying to hide myself but I’m also not trying to make a ‘name’ for myself. I, like Professor Pirrong, wish to remain independent of any specific organization or affiliation.

     Comment by rtyb — May 7, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

149. P.S. Charles- I’ve never said that DR was or is a member of the Communist Party but he does defend communism and claims to be a Green Socialist of some sort right now…. So maybe you need to work that out with him. I don’t care what he is but I know I’m not into artificial wombs and I’m pretty sure you aren’t either;)

     Comment by rtyb — May 7, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

150. Michel, the comment I made last night has not appeared yet. I don’t know what’s up, so in case it’s lost forever I’ll recap what I wrote. (if it does appear SWP can feel free to delete it or this one).

     The blog article you quoted from made a mistake. If you check the source that he cites, it says that 63% of new female infections are through sexual contact, while 34% of overall new infections were through heterosexual contact. Both figures are for 2007, and the article was written last year. That’s why you should never use a blog as a source.

     I made a polite comment on his article correcting his mistake, now lets wait and see if he allows the comment or admits/fixes the error. My guess is he will do neither.

     And I agree that they haven’t done everything right. I don’t think any government can make a claim to doing everything right.

     Comment by Bob From Canada — May 7, 2009 @ 3:12 pm

151. @Charles- your comment about the Gates Foundation was a bit of an overstatement. Unless you’ve been employed by Bill and Melinda personally, The Gates Foundation, no one from the foundation has paid you anything. Bill and Melinda Gates have also made it clear that the grant they awarded was for the EXCLUSIVE use of DI’s Cascadia Project:

     Here are the specific details of the grant:

     Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated US$1 million in 2000 to the Discovery Institute and pledged US$9.35 million over 10 years in 2003, including US$50,000 of Bruce Chapman’s US$141,000 annual salary. According to a Gates Foundation grant maker, this grant is “exclusive to the Cascadia project” on regional transportation, and it may not be used for the Institute’s other activities, including promotion of intelligent design.

     http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation

     So are you working on the Cascadia Project Charles? Are you employed by Gates Foundation or did you receive a grant directly from them? Care to clarify?

     Charles, I’m a reasonable person but I have major issues with people who misrepresent themselves. It’s also why I despise Putin-

     One can read about the Gates Grant to DI’s Cascadia Project here (it was quite a controversy):

     http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/26/gatesfoundation/index.html

     Charles- Now that you’ve claimed to have been paid by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I really hope you’re prepared to back that statement up.

     Comment by rtyb — May 7, 2009 @ 3:32 pm

152. Charles–

     1. I have edited your earlier comment b/c rtyb indicated that she did not want her name used. I will respect requests for anonymity from anyone who requests it.
     2. Future uses of her name–or anyone else’s–will be similarly edited. I was contemplating announcing that I would delete any such comments, but upon consideration decided that editing was preferable, and the least intrusive way of handing this situation.
     3. I decided not to delete, to be honest, in part because that would be doing you a favor. To be honest, the less exposure some of your writings get, the better it would be for you.
     4. In particular, your obsession with LaRussophobe is bizarre. I was going to call it “funny,” but I don’t consider what appears to be a clinical disorder to be humorous. I am completely serious. She’s just a blogger, for crissakes. Black propaganda programs? Come on. Moreover, your obsession with her only elevates her status and attracts attention to her. Take a deep breath. Put things in perspective. And then consider whether you might not have better things to do with your time than to obsess over someone who is so obviously and deliberately shocking. Real black propaganda programs are far more subtle than LR, btw. Her very style is a tipoff that LR ISN’T such a program.
     5. RTYB=LR. Now that is funny. Some correlation in belief and style does not go anywhere near to proving identity. I think you are so desperate to solve the Great LR Mystery that you will grasp at anything. I have no clue who LR is (nor do I care): I can state with metaphysical certainty that it ain’t rtyb.
     6. Re Anatoly/DR/S-O and the Communist Party. Nobody–not me, not Penny, not rtyb–ever accused him of being a Party member. I can say that the thought never crossed my mind. He has said, on numerous occasions, however, that he is sympathetic to communism, considers himself a communist/green socialist. He has ridiculed anything he considers “bourgeois.” Running joke with me–I consider being called bourgeois a compliment (Deirdre McCloskey’s The Bourgeois Virtues is a very good read, btw.) Your accusation that rtyb or penny or whomever somehow outed DR is completely off base. Your accusation of McCarthyism is particularly baseless and loathsome. rtyb is just asking both you and Anatoly about how it is at all possible to reconcile your seemingly reconcilable beliefs. Anatoly has been quite open about his on this blog. You are very, very strange bedfellows, is all that she is saying. And she’s right. Is this just another example of your attempt to twist something to make it appear disreputable? Or are you just ignorant of a long-running conversation here at SWP in which DR/S-O/Anatoly (1 more and we’re at Quadrophenia!) has been quite clear about his beliefs–beliefs which appear orthogonal to, if not perfectly negatively correlated with, those of DI. The only thing it appears that you could possibly agree on is Russia. And that’s what’s so freakin’ weird.
     7. Back on LR. Why would LR need a sockpuppet? She’s already anonymous. And why would somebody who is anonymous comment using real initials that she knows some people who you are likely to know know? I mean, your conspiracy theory isn’t even remotely sensible.

     Comment by The Professor — May 7, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

153. Some quick replies:

     1) LR has been proven to use sock puppets in the past – Kim Zigfield/Oliver Bronson/Lenard Daulton – beyond reasonable doubt. Thus it is quite reasonable to assume it’s a modus operandi of hers. And the reason why is pretty obvious and has nothing to do with anonymity. Rather its because the vast majority of folks are conformists and if they see 10 people (instead of a single kook) arguing for a certain viewpoint, then that viewpoint will acquire a much greater degree of legitimacy. It’s the same principle on which “web brigades” are supposed to operate on.

     2) Re-my Communism. Just to clarify what I mean. I view it as a historical end stage of socio-political evolution, where the state dissolves away as do social classes because of economic super-abundance. The vast majority of people should have no problems with that, except the (bourgeois reactionaries j/k ?) who are too emotionally invested in the present state of affairs based on hierarchies and exploitation. I also think that in the presence of adequate environmental conditions, this goal is achievable within the next 50 years because of (accelerating) technological progress. For instance, if “mind uploading” and “full-immersion virtual reality” is developed, we won’t even have to create Communism on Earth to experience it.

     However it’s also pretty obvious that the world faces very real limits to growth, in energy resources and ecology, which in turn will threaten a catastrophic systematic collapse. Therefore resources will have to be diverted to mitigating the effects of resource depletion and of climate change, and resources will have to be maintained to R&D and technology. By necessity this means there will be fewer resources for consumption, which augurs badly for social stability. Social instability can result in wars and the rise of strongmen, who will not do much for solving these problems. To prevent this and to preserve the legitimacy of states without relying on excessive coercion (which has its own problems), there needs to be a greater degree of egalitarianism and populism. They are necessary survival mechanisms. The recent trends seen in the US up till now, 2001-9 – greater coercion and greater populism, will only intensify, I think. Hence my approval for something that could be called “green socialism”, which is the difficult transition phase to Communism.

     I’m not sure why RTYB ties this to mean that I support genocide, of which she explicitly accused me a while back. If anything this a blueprint for avoiding them.

     3) “Real black propaganda programs are far more subtle than LR, btw. Her very style is a tipoff that LR ISN’T such a program.”

     Or it could be a cunning cover.

     4) I think Charles is completely correct to investigate LR, considering the low-life way in which “she” tries to besmirch the reputations of folks who’ve done nothing illegal and haven’t wronged her. If I ever get hold of her “true name”, or the names of the others in her collective, rest assured I will have no problems with publishing them on my blog. Because I find what she does, smearing real people behind an anonymous mask, absolutely despicable.

     5) That said I believe RTYB has nothing to do with LR, yet I very much question her motives for associating herself with someone who goes very, very far beyond merely attacking Putin, but delights in simply sticking it to Russia and to Russians using rhetoric reminiscent of Nazi propaganda, rabidly attacks any commenter who doesn’t 100% agree with her and on several occasions said Russians would have been better off if conquered by Nazi Germany (of course when I pointed out the contents of Generalplan Ost to her she had the typical LR response ready about neo-Soviet psychopaths and the like). Way to make friends and influence people! The only Russians who would support her are the 1% of weirdos who hate their own country.

     Here’s an entertaining account of LR’s bigoted mendacity:
     http://littledoor.blogspot.com/2009/03/biggest-hypocrite-in-blogosphere.html
     http://littledoor.blogspot.com/2009/03/kazakhstan-not-to-be-admired.html

     So yes, while I doubt RTYB or SWP have anything to do with LR, I can only seriously question their judgment for their apparent respect for it and of course it also seriously lowers my opinion of them and respect for what they have to say on other matters. That would not be so much the case for someone like, say, Robert Amsterdam, who although I don’t agree with much at least communicates in a civil manner.

     PS. And also RTYB, talking of strange bedfellows, I should point out that penny certainly doesn’t share your liberal beliefs. She hates Obama and supported Larry Summers’ comments regarding women in science.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 7, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

154. PS. I decided to check up what’s going down in LR nowadays, seems “her” commenters have sunk to new lows. Seems LR or the rest of her pack have no problems with statements like (from “George”):

     “Rasha did not pay enough for that. The end is near for the present bunch. Too bad that the real guilty moscals are not there, but already sent their children to the West. The Americans had “Operation Keelhaul” to send the defending nationalities back to Stalin. I am sure that this kind of treachery still exists today. I support the war of attrition against Moscow in the Caucasus. If it has to be Muslim in nature, because there are no other real allies to count on, then fight on brothers. Moscali killed millions and have paid very little. But the end is near. I am proud of what these young Chechens are doing to the Filthy Moscali. The Chinese when they come, will not accept the surrender of Armies “European Style” but this will be a war of annihilation. Too bad that innocent, if any will suffer more than the real guilty.”

     “Anyway it is going this way, because the Moscali are backing down. They have no other choice, and do not have the balls to stop them. They can’t draft Ukes, or others to fight for them as they did in Finland. The Chinese “Slow Ascent” is working. Later Chinese will have the power to deal with the “worthless moscali” or whatever ever is left. Be sure of one thing if, Pootin could Moscali would murder as many as they could to extract slave labor for Savokian Rasha to turn them into a Rooskayi Cheloveky or something like that. Hell nobody would know anyway, till it was too late. They would be killing their own mangy kind. Not many “good” Russians left anyway.”

     I wonder what SWP, Michel, penny, RTYB, etc, will have to say on this.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 7, 2009 @ 6:44 pm

155. Da Russophile writes: “I wonder what SWP, Michel, penny, RTYB, etc, will have to say on this.”

     I don’t know, did not see these comments.

     Comment by Michel — May 7, 2009 @ 9:48 pm

156. @DR Um, Penny and I post on SWP. That does not equal bedfellows. She may very well be more conservative than I but mostly, I don’t care. She’s very intelligent and I enjoy reading her posts. As far as LR goes, I don’t have an association. An association would imply that I associate with LR. I do not. There has been no occasion for association;) From the very little I know, it appears LR is dedicated, hard-working and respected. I think LR has posted some very valuable information and if someone wishes to dispute any of LR’s allegations, I’m certain they are more than able to do so in a US Court of Law. Of course, that would require the plaintiff to disclose a great deal of information… prove said statements were false, etc…

     And regarding the comment from LR you posted above… HUH? What does that have to do with anyone or anything? If it bothers you, deal with it at LR. I don’t agree with everyone. Just because someone is anti-Putin doesn’t mean I will agree with them. What part of that do you not understand? But again, it’s from another blog so I’m not sure how bringing it over here is relevant? I could do the same thing to you and we would be here for eternity. I just saw the most ridiculous comment on RB. It was the ONLY comment and it was pathetic. And it certainly wasn’t a comment in which you would have been in agreement, DR. So give this tactic a rest-

     Anyway, I have a question for Charlie: Does RB allow negative comments to be posted? Will you post any and all negative comments???? Because the general consensus is that RB does not allow it…. just wondering-

     Comment by rtyb — May 7, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

157. One final thing DR, if you are implying that the comments that you allege on LR are extreme, I would cite your own words to me earlier in this thread: “That’s too bad, because I couldn’t care less about the opinion of a lame-ass Canuck ancestor of cheese-eating surrender monkeys, go do something useful for once and get me some furs. ” Given that you live in a glass house, you should not be throwing any stones dear Russophile.

     Comment by Michel — May 7, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

158. @Michel,
     That is not really at all comparable because I was doing it in an obviously jocular way and even added a at the end for to make that crystal clear to all but the most dim-witted. I don’t mind being called a Moskal if it’s in the spirit of jest, and same goes for the cool hohols and the cool blacks (n…-az). On the other hand “George” (linkie) was quite obviously not screwing around and instead urging on what reads like genocide of “Moscali” (Russians).

     @RTYB,

     “it appears LR is dedicated, hard-working and respected”
     The first two are certainly true and indeed makes one conclude that LR is a) a paid project, b) “Kim” has no life or c) LR is a collective. Should “she” claims c) is true, I doubt it because of the constant and over the top praise / sucking up to “Kim Zigfeld”, and think that a) or b) is much more likely.
     The idea that LR is “respected”, however, is utterly risible (outside of a narrow crowd of anonymous Russia-haters). She is dismissed among the vast majority of Russia watchers, including those who disapprove of Putin, and even the most openly Russophobic like Lucas, RA or SWP himself don’t make any particular efforts to associate themselves with her.

     Re-George’s comment. It is entirely typical of LR, in particular “Andrew” seems just as bigoted and the others are little better. I’m not going to deal with it at LR because doing so will be completely pointless and I have no desire whatsoever to wade into that muck, something you just can’t seem to understand.

     RB certainly allows negative comments. See first two comments on Charles’ Moldova article (http://www.russiablog.org/2009/04/twitter_madness_in_chisinau_wh.php#comments), or the demented drivel from LR at my Chinese immigration article (http://www.russiablog.org/2009/04/post_15.php#comments).

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 7, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

159. Ok Professor, I get it. This is your madhouse, and you can let the inmates run it any way they want. If there’s one thing we can agree on, it’s private property rights. If some of your friends want to be able to write whatever crazy stuff they want about real people who use their real names online while remaining anonymous — well, as you said, there are plenty of other forums where people can ask why this person would rather not be publically associated with what they write and name their names. And the initials which tipped me off indeed aren’t so anonymous anyhow, thanks to Facebook. Perhaps the only things your friend and La Russophobe have in common is the same annoying habits of asking me “have you stopped beating your wife lately” questions and obsessively Googling me. But she darn near had me convinced. Anyway, how did they miss all those articles I wrote for Cascadia and the Puget Sound Business Journal back in 2006? And why would she expect me to say more about my experiences in Russia, both good and bad, when there are freaks like LR out there ready to spin it into some dark conspiracy theory?

     For what it’s worth, I have not had time to digest Anatoly’s blog, as with his April Fool’s Day spoof of La Russophobe hacking his blog, I take some of what he writes with a grain of salt. On the topic of strange bedfellows, I find it equally bizarre that you or the Heritage Foundation could all merrily agree with George Soros about Russia (and incidentally, Georgia and Ukraine). But there it is. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a tenured faculty member at a major Texas university to gleefully tell people to “watch their six” then accuse them of being the ones who are obsessed. One of my mentors from UT Law School (and no R that wasn’t Marvin Olasky, I never saw or talked to him after my freshman year at Texas) said that’s called “don’t piss on my boots and tell me it’s raining.”

     Comment by Charles Ganske — May 8, 2009 @ 3:04 am

160. Charles–

     Re “watch your six,” and the other histrionics. Don’t be such a drama queen. Sheesh. Only sayin’ that you are in a real battle here.

     And I am glad to see you acknowledge, albeit indirectly rather than by a manned-up admission, that your sock puppet/rtyb=lr theory is nonsensical.

     Re Soros. Soros is the hard one to figure out. Not me. My views on Russia and its politics on the one hand, and the US and its politics on the other, I am pretty consistent, with a classical liberal take on most issues. Read my On Russophobia post from last summer for more detail on that. Soros, on the other hand, is wildly inconsistent, talking all about “Open Society” initiatives in E. Europe, and then supporting hard left causes in the US that are inimical to a true open society. And with somebody like Soros, you have to suspect that there is a mercenary/power motive (concealed) that is the real consistency that explains the surface inconsistencies; no such ambitions or abilities on my part. And inconsistency is what makes me look askance at DR sometimes; it seems very hard to square his views on Russia with his other positions.

     And I have no problems agreeing with people on some things and disagreeing with them on others.

     Comment by The Professor — May 8, 2009 @ 9:42 am

161. Those interested in actual facts about Russia’s demographic crisis as reported by internationally recognized Rusisan experts may want to read their nearly 200-page report:

     http://www.undp.ru/documents/NHDR_2008_Eng.pdf

     Published by the UN, it’s shall we say a little bit more compelling than the silly nonsense being spouted by the Russophile trash jabbering crazily on this thread.

     Comment by La Russophobe — May 8, 2009 @ 9:45 am

162. Dear Russophile,

     Yes, I understood that it was your lame attempt at humour, but it goes to show that a comment taken out of context can be easily misconstrued. It is hard to judge the comments without seeing them in their context. Likewise, I empathize with Ukrainians and other former peoples of the USSR who call Russians “Moscali.” Given their history with Russians and the decades of Russian chauvinism they had to endure, it is evident that this leaves some bitterness. The problem is that Russians have never truly acknowledged their past wrongs (notably the Holodomor) and instead continue to treat the countries around them as colonial subjects. Hardly a way to make friends and influence people.

     Michel

     Comment by Michel — May 8, 2009 @ 2:45 pm

163. OK Michel

     1) I quoted the entire “George” quote and even linked there – http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/in-putins-russia-they-free-the-rapist-murderers-and-jail-the-mothers/. Arguing its out of context is utterly ridiculous and wrong.

     2) So I presume you’d then be just OK with old farts from the KKK calling for the lynching of n–ers (with an “er”)? Presumably, they too would have quite a bit of bitterness against blacks what with post-1960’s civil rights and political correctness …

     3) OK, perhaps 2) was over the top but your attitude – that apparent “Russian chauvinism” (hard to comprehend given that 90% of Ukrainians have a positive view of Russia and a majority would be willing to enter into an EU-like confederation with it and Belarus) – excuses racism from them is pretty vile. And no, George was quite clearly not joking – he was anticipating his little fantasy of a Chinese genocide of Moskali (and as such was in fact bigoted not only against Russians, but Chinese as well).

     4) I wonder if you’ll go off about my glass houses like a broken tape again…

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 8, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

164. Dear Da Russophile,

     1. Yes, arguing that it is out of context makes sense. I prefer to read the comment in its entirety and in the thread.

     1. No, because the old “farts” were the oppressors or the descendants of the oppressors or at some point benefited from the oppression. When they are calling African-American rude epithets they are seeking to maintain inequalities. Their bitterness comes not from the oppression they suffered, rather it comes from the anger of believing they are losing their privileged status as oppressors. I have no sympathy for them. However, I do have greater empathy for the African-Americans who were truly oppressed and some of whom are likely to feel some bitterness. It is understandable. Likewise, I would understand the anger of the Jews (and others) who survived the Holocaust and the Tutsi who survived the Rwanda genocide. For the same reason, I can understand the continued anger and frustration of some people from the various populations that were colonized in Imperial Russia and the Imperial Soviet State.

     3. Again, you are once again exaggerating the facts. You interpret wanting to having trade ties and not closing the border between Ukraine and Russia as supporting a “EU-like confederation.” Again, twisting facts to suit your agenda and repeating it ad nauseum does not make it true.

     4. Speaking of broken tapes, you repeat the same information over and over as fact.

     Da Russophile, you have yet to answer my question. Why are you still living in the United States? Why aren’t you living in Russia?

     Michel

     Comment by Michel — May 8, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

165. “Don’t be such a drama queen”. That would actually be your friend, but maybe she’s the type who calls everyone with a Hope and Change bumper sticker on their car a Commie traitor before breakfast, and so I shouldn’t take it personally. As for the rest here, presumably they’ll be out at the next Cinco de Mayo rally yelling at everyone present why they haven’t gone back to Mexico…

     Comment by Charles Ganske — May 9, 2009 @ 9:55 am

166. Who and what are you talking about Charlie? And my apologies that I missed your brilliant writing for the Cascadia Project…. more proof that I am not an associate of LR since LR was well aware of this. It’s too bad… I lived in Seattle at the time- we could have met… Anyway, working for a project that received a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not the same as having been paid directly by them. Many many many organizations around the world can claim the same thing. Yours is not so special. A friend of mine is a scientist (among quite a few other scientists) working on the development of vaccine for malaria. His project is funded by Gates and yet, he never mentioned it. I only realized the connection when I read an article about his organization… An article he never mentioned. He’s into his work not self-promotion. Humility is a powerful testament of character. Maybe you should look into it-

     Comment by rtyb — May 9, 2009 @ 11:13 am

167. @Michel,

     You are a broken tape on all your 5 points. And a loathsome propagandistic reptile to boot.
     Bye.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 9, 2009 @ 12:36 pm

168. Dear Da Russophile,

     Your true colors are showing. When one does not accept your false premises you start with the ad hominem attacks.

     Michel

     Comment by Michel — May 9, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

169. Michel, I’m not going to speak for DR here, but why would he leave behind his family, friends, job, girlfriend(?), education, and entire life to start from scratch in a country half-way across the world just for the simple fact that he was born there? I’ve never seen DR claim that Russia was a better country than where he lives. Your question is nonsensical and no better than an ad hominem attack. The fact that you keep harassing him about it every time you get defeated in an argument is annoying even for me. At least come up with something new.

     And why haven’t you responded to my previous post re AIDS? You were wrong again, at least man up and admit it.

     Comment by Bob From Canada — May 9, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

170. Why should Da Russophile go live in Russia? Quite simply. It is some hypocritical to preach the coming glory of Russia when you do not want to live there yourself. As for your comment, I answered all issues. If there is anything that you thing that I overlooked, please ask again. I am not going to read through 169 posts to find something that I may have missed. Feel free to enlighten us once again.

     Comment by Michel — May 9, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

171. Funny how you didn’t address any of my points. Just because I don’t move to Sweden doesn’t mean I don’t want to live in Sweden. It means I’m happy in Canada, because this is where my life is. And if I want to make a blog and argue about how amazing Sweden is, or more accurate to this situation, how Sweden isn’t the scum of the universe facing every known catastrophe to man, that would not make me a hypocrite.

     And just how hard is it to do a page search for “Bob From Canada”..? I told you it was my previous post. Maybe if you spent more time reading and fact checking and less time trying to think of ways to undermine people’s arguments with personal smears regarding their real life (while staying anonymous like a true coward) you wouldn’t constantly be coming off as a total simpleton by citing blatantly wrong statistics and botching simple grade school math (Ruble devaluation anyone?)

     Comment by Bob From Canada — May 9, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

172. Bob, at the end of the day, the ruble was devalued, Russia’s GDP is being hit quite hard. As for personal smears, well you and DR are the experts in that department. I bow to your expertise.

     Comment by Michel — May 10, 2009 @ 1:18 am

173. You’re spot on Bob. Thanks for sticking up for me. Arguing with religious Russophobes might be a Sisyphean task, kind of like arguing with convinced flat earthers, but company is good.

     You got my reasons spot on and I’ve given the same answer to RTYB’s/Michel’s same incessant question about why I continue living in the US about five times already. Plus quite frankly, its irrelevant. I have no intention of delving into my personal details with anonymous folks whose only use for the information will be as bait.

     His hypocrisy argument is truly stunning. I wonder if he’d like to exile like half the Canadian international relations analysts to China. I mean the current consensus seems to be that it has a pretty bright future and will soon overtake the US in purchasing power parity GDP.

     PS. I don’t really hate Canada, in fact I quite liked it. Michel just wound me up.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 10, 2009 @ 5:30 am

174. Listen to Russia experts discussing Russia’s population crisis here:

     http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/05/05/tune-in-online-radio-show-on-russias-population-in-peril/5279/

     Comment by La Russophobe — May 10, 2009 @ 7:11 am

175. Da Russophile,

     The point is quite simple, if someone is from country X, speaks the language of country X and presumably has the citizenship of country X, I cannot understand why they would want to live in country Z if they believe that country X’s future is so much brighter. You have described to us the coming utopia of a prosperous Russia fueled by nanotechnological innovation. If you truly believe what you say, again why would you live in the United States? Reason dictates that you would seek to live in Russia. At least Timothy Post talks the talk and walks the walk as he chose to live in Russia. And, just for Bob, if I were a citizen of Sweden, spoke Swedish and believed that my future would be brighter in Sweden, I would already be living in this fine Scandinavian country. I am neither a martyr nor a great Canadian nationalist, if I thought that my life and that of my future children and grandchildren would be better in another country, I would do everything in my power to live in that country.

     You write: “I wonder if he’d like to exile like half the Canadian international relations analysts to China.” Well, the fact of the matter is that I would not exile them, but I would certainly ask them the same question. If they believed that life would be so much better in China in the future, if they spoke the language, if they were citizens of China, it would be rational for them to go live where life would be presumably better for them and their families. This is the case of a number of Canadian immigrants from Hong Kong, they became permanent residents and citizens in the years prior to the transfer of Hong Kong to China. Many returned to work in Hong Kong, leaving families in Canada, as they could earn more money in Hong Kong. This was a perfectly rational choice, and I believe they are doing the right thing, and commend them for doing it. It is a much better and understandable choice to me than if they were to live in Canada whining about how it is better to be in Hong Kong.

     However, you choice of words, Da Russophile is intriguing. Why did you choose the word “exile.” Would you consider living in Russia an “exile”? I did not say that you should be arrested and shipped back to Russia, rather I simply asked why you choose not to live there. Quite the emotional response to a straightforward question. Choosing to live in the wonderful country you describe should not be understood as an exile, so I would wager that your choice of words reveals the ambivalence that you yourself feel towards Russia. So, who exactly are you trying to convince as to the present and future state of Russia, us or yourself?

     As for Bob and the issues you brought up, they have been more than adequately answered by the links provided by rtyb and La Russophobe. What I believe is quite simple: Russia did some things that were helpful, but they could have done a lot more. It would be equivalent to handing someone who just suffered a terrible car accident a few bandages. Yes, it is better than nothing, but the severity of the injuries require a lot more than those few bandages. Hundreds of billions were stolen or spent frivolously (to support the ruble for example) that could have been invested in the health and well-being of the population. This would have saved countless lives.

     However, Bob, you have never answered my question either. Have you ever been to Russia?

     Comment by Michel — May 10, 2009 @ 9:13 am

176. You read far too deeply into something I dashed off in a couple of minutes. As I said the main reason is that it is wholly irrelevant. You don’t give out anything other than your first name (?) and that you live in Canada, there’s no reason for me to divulge anything more than I deem necessary.

     And Bob has refuted the (factual) errors in the quoted Paul Goble article in a post above. I can understand his reasons for not bothering to retrieve it when it is so easy for you to just press Ctrl-F, type in “Bob from Canada” and find it yourself within one or two minutes.

     Comment by Sublime Oblivion — May 10, 2009 @ 2:13 pm

177. Michel: “Bob, at the end of the day, the ruble was devalued, Russia’s GDP is being hit quite hard. As for personal smears, well you and DR are the experts in that department. I bow to your expertise.”

     At the end of the day you read some bullshit that a conspiracy theorist said, took it as fact, forgot how to do grade-school math and came out looking like a total fool.

     And I have never once resorted to making attacks against a SWP’s real life identity/personal situation. Not once. And the rest of you post anonymously so that would be impossible. But you can still bow to me if you’d like.

     “they have been more than adequately answered by the links provided by rtyb and La Russophobe.”

     You mean those links that cite incorrect statistics, probably on purpose, for chumps like you to eat up like candy? Believe what you want (as you clearly do), but I won’t poison my own mind with that sort of manipulative propaganda.

     “Hundreds of billions were stolen or spent frivolously (to support the ruble for example) that could have been invested in the health and well-being of the population.”

     So preventing the ruble from crashing like it did in 1998 (which is exactly what they did) wasn’t an investment in the health and well-being of the population? You once again show your ignorance on both economics and how an economy effects the health of the people (something that has been a focal point surrounding the causes of demographic decline in Russia and Eastern Europe). Even if there was no financial crisis, they would never have spent that reserve money on AIDS or anything else. The AIDS budget is entirely independent of what happens with the foreign reserves, and it has been increasing exponentially over the past few years, including this year despite the financial crisis.

     And yes, I have been to Russia. Or maybe I haven’t. Then again maybe I live in Russia and my real name is Ivan. people have been known to lie on the internet. A better question is why an anonymous poster is so interested in the real lives of people he’s arguing with on the internet. Could it possibly be that you can’t argue without making personal attacks and smears?

     Comment by Bob From Canada — May 10, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

178. Bob from Canada writes: “A better question is why an anonymous poster is so interested in the real lives of people he’s arguing with on the internet.”

     Quite simple: having a discussion about Russia with a Russophile who has never been to Russia is a pretty pointless exercise.

     As for Da Russophile, call it an exercise to better understand his psyche. What we write is shaped by our life experiences, and yes I am trying to probe into Da Russophile to know what makes him tick. Me bad LOL.

     But, given that I am always accused of “making personal attacks and smears” I will henceforth not reply to either of you. You and Da Russophile can go play in your little sandbox together and build ideal little Russias in the sand.

     Comment by Michel — May 10, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

179. DR,Bob,Charles:

     Let me explain LR’s agenda:
     she is part of the neo-con greater Israel crowd. They percieve Russia as the only
     entity capable of sandbagging their agenda, henceforth the vitriol. She is a fanatic
     of the first degree and a pitiful person.

     Russia’s population:

     there are 2 outcomes possible

     1:) as Putin/Shuvalov/Kudrin et al continue the developement/diversification of Russia’s economy the population will bottom out and rise from there. Where it will bottom who knows.
     The decreasing population will not effect Russia’s GDP and growth prospects for the following reasons:
     1. Russia productivity still has not caught up to the west. Productivity per worker is anywhere from 2/3 to half of that in the west.
     2. Many towns founded during the Soviet era are economically unfeasible and thus depopulating.

     2:) As illustrated in this 1 minute video population growth has moved lockstep with the exploitation of fossil fuels. For millenia population barely creeped up but with
     the advent of the steam engine powered by coal pop began to explode reaching a frenzied pace with the exploitation of oil.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz2UY4n4las

     the advent of peak oil will lead to a general population decline with Russia being the least affected due to its abundant resources:
     the best soil, most fresh water, most gas, and lots of oil. However Russia would probably have to deal with massive migration from Europe.
     The outcome of peak oil is murky for Russia.

     Comment by djp — May 10, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

180. @Charles–re “my friend” (rtyb, I presume you mean) and “drama queen.” In fact, she freely admits it. LOL. This reminds me of a line from Patton (I quote from memory): “Hell, I know I’m a prima donna. I admit it. What I can’t stand about Monty is that he won’t admit it.”

     Comment by The Professor — May 16, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

181. [...] is a hilarious example from the commentator rtyb at Streetwise Professor’s blog: DR [i.e. me], the association of you [...]

     Pingback by Responses to common Russophobe “Arguments” | Sublime Oblivion — June 28, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

182. [...] 14.5 / 1000 this year, changed from 12.1 / 1000 and 14.8 / 1000 in 2008″ were dismissed and ridiculed by some (not by everyone [...]

     Pingback by Russia’s Demographic Resilience II | Sublime Oblivion — September 26, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

183. Bob Post Nr177:

     “You mean those links that cite incorrect statistics, probably on purpose, for chumps like you to eat up like candy? Believe what you want (as you clearly do), but I won’t poison my own mind with that sort of manipulative propaganda.”

     Michel is an expert at this. S/He has attempted to calculate Russia’s reserves were like below $200bn and attempted to claim there were no forex reserves (at robertamsterdam.com, can’t be bothered to find link). The most amazing thing that when confronted s/he insisted until me and someone else provided links from western media and institutions (Bloomberg included) that showed the reserves at over $300bn at the time (can’t remmmber exact amount) and then gave us the pleasure of disappearing in grace. S/He is a systematic and pathologica liar perhaps to a greater extent than LaRussophobe itself. Don’t be at all surprised.

     “And yes, I have been to Russia. Or maybe I haven’t. Then again maybe I live in Russia and my real name is Ivan. people have been known to lie on the internet. A better question is why an anonymous poster is so interested in the real lives of people he’s arguing with on the internet. Could it possibly be that you can’t argue without making personal attacks and smears?”

     No, s/he can’t. (S/he can’t even when s/he does make personal attacks but anyway.)

     Larussophobe:

     “It’s a pity you seem to have missed my blog’s recent post on this subject”
     It is never a pity when anybody misses a post on your blog on any subject. It is luck.

     “Michel you and your fine Russian language skills…
     Since when were “fine” language skills evidence in favor of one’s argumentation? What do they have to do with the topic? It’s a pity Michel’s English “skills” are not so fine, after all it’s the language s/he predominatly gives his/ her performances in? E.g “Even women who had planned to their pregnancy are deciding to go for an abortion.” Most normal people plan something, michel is obviously a case that plans TO something. I’m

     are truly the bane of the insane Russophile.”
     Really, next thing you know they’ll all be jumping out of windows unable to cope Michel’s Shakesperean English….

     “It’s almost like you were put on earth just to drive them out of their “minds”. ”
     Well Michel might have a purpose in life (although it’s more likely he came out of the sea and was not placed upon earth), it’s indeed considerably more than what can be said of you.

     “But this silly little goat goes on bleeting,”
     The lattershould be meant self-referentially.

     “asking the world to ignore what is happening and consign the people of Russia once again to the dustbin of history.”

     Ignoring what is happening is what you do best Larussophobe and hopefully the blogosphere will consign you to the dustbin of history (more than a priviledge in your case)for it.

     My own relevant contribution:
     Those intelligent life forms that have posted comments may want to seek Russia’s demographics for August. It’s not much but it is probably quite a bane for Larussophobe and its followers.

     Comment by gdp — November 8, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

184. [...] a renewed fertility collapse and higher deaths from alcoholism (which I challenged in the face of heavy opposition), Russia saw its first two months of natural population growth for the last 15 years in August and [...]

     Pingback by Official Russia | Ten Myths about Russia’s Demography — January 19, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

australian customs import antibiotics viagra, Viagra For Sale
Cheap gerneric viagra cheap herbal herbal viagra viagra viagra 888.

• 
• Pages
  • Bio
  • Odd Sights, Rio Edition

• Exchanges

  • Chicago Board of Trade
  • Chicago Mercantile Exchange
  • Intercontinental Exchange
  • New York Board of Trade
  • New York Mercantile Exchange
  • New York Stock Exchange

• News

  • Financial Times
  • Futures Industry Association News Links
  • Wall Street Journal

• Regulators

  • CFTC
  • Futures Industry Association
  • U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission

• Russia

  • De Rebus Antiquis Et Novis
  • Edward Lucas
  • Future of Russia
  • La Russophobe
  • Robert Amsterdam
  • Russia Economy Watch
  • Russia Profile
  • Sublime Oblivion
  • WindowOnEurasia
• Categories:
  • Clearing
  • Climate Change
  • Commodities
  • Derivatives
  • Economics
  • Energy
  • Exchanges
  • Financial crisis
  • History
  • Military
  • Music
  • Politics
  • Russia
  • Sports
  • Uncategorized
• Search:
  
  
• Archives:
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • December 2006
  • October 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
• Meta:
  • Register
  • Log in
  • RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • Valid XHTML
  • XFN
  • WP