Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Role of Russia in the 21st century

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Ponce de Leon View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Lonce De Peon

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
  Quote Ponce de Leon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Role of Russia in the 21st century
    Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 21:50
Here is a role that Russia can play. They can actually help put the pressure on the Lebonanese to give up the captured Israelis, and they can stop giving the North Korean economic deals so that N. Korea will be unable to keep producing bombs. (China too should stop helping N. Korea)
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988
  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 20:57
 A dying out nation can not assert herself as a superpower on the world stage.
 
Demoghraphy has always played a major role in the course of events throught history and will continue so...
 
If the Russian Federation wants to gain the status the USSR had had back in post-WWII, she should start to motivate her women to produce more babies once and for all.
 
But it seems unlikely for now, as  the Russian women tend to resemble their counterparts in Western Europe.
 
It is also worth note down the fact that average life expectancy for a Russian guy is only 60 years of age!!!!!
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 13:42
I agree with TheDiplomat.
Russia in the past had one huge adventage - it had a huge population. But it is changing very fast. In 1926 USSR had 147 mln people while Turkey in 1927 had only 13,6 mln people (11:1 for Russia). Today Russia has about 146 mln people, while Turkey has about 70 mln (2:1 for Russia). In 2050 Russia will have about 80-100 mln people, while Turkey will have over 120 mln people (1.2:1 for Turkey).
This comparison is just an example which shows what was, is and will be position of Russia. You can make comparison to India, China or even Iran.
Back to Top
Kalevipoeg View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
  Quote Kalevipoeg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 14:25
So as Russia mostly ruled with quantity while quality has always been the loser in Russia it only shows dark clouds for good old Rodina? But still quantity enough to bully his European and Caucasus neighbours, so still no good news for us, the little guys.
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
Back to Top
erkut View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Persona non Grata

Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: T.R.N.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965
  Quote erkut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 14:38
There is an old saying '' Umom Rasiyu ne paniat, arshinom ploshat ne izmerit'' means you cant understand Russia with logic, you cant measure her with measurement.Wink 
She is still a great power in ewerything.
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 227
  Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 14:40
Russia has lost some of her most populated territories in the XXth century:
-1920's Poland, Finland, Baltics.
-1990's Ukraine, Baltics again, Belorussia, Central Asian Republics and South Caucasus.
So now it's not the same country like The Imperial Russia before 1917 neither the USSR in 1945-with the lost territories the population is diminished too. The other factor is the low reproduction rate of the population- but it's a problem for the whole Europe. The rapid population growth is a characteristic for the not developed third world countries and has nothing to do with the international position of any country. Other factor is the huge immigration which is also characteristic for all of the East European countries.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 14:49
Originally posted by Desperado

Russia has lost some of her most populated territories in the XXth century:
-1920's Poland, Finland, Baltics.
 
It was before 1926, not after this year. I have given data for population of Russia in 1926.
 
Originally posted by Desperado

 The rapid population growth is a characteristic for the not developed third world countries and has nothing to do with the international position of any country. 
 
Really? So what will you say about India? Do you think that this country means nothing?
And remember that a country might develop its economy very fast (10% per year), while it can't increase its population as fast as economy (2-3% is max and there is no any 'western' country which has such big growth of population). On the other hand, we have a lot of examples that poor countries promoted to 'the 1st league' in a short time (30 years or so).
Russia might develop its economy 7% per year, but it is nothing special if we compare this achievement to the economical growth of India, China or even Turkey and Iran. But opposite to Russia, these 4 countries don't have a problem with a growth of their population (well, China might have some problem in a future too, but by now, it is still a country of young people)


Edited by ataman - 23-Aug-2006 at 15:23
Back to Top
erkut View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Persona non Grata

Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: T.R.N.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965
  Quote erkut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 14:53
Originally posted by Desperado

Russia has lost some of her most populated territories in the XXth century:
-1920's Poland, Finland, Baltics.
-1990's Ukraine, Baltics again, Belorussia, Central Asian Republics and South Caucasus.
So now it's not the same country like The Imperial Russia before 1917 neither the USSR in 1945-with the lost territories the population is diminished too. 
Yes maybe Russia lost territories but she is still the biggest country in the world.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 15:09
Originally posted by erkut

Yes maybe Russia lost territories but she is still the biggest country in the world.
 
Yes, she is. But the bigest wealth of every country is its people not its territory.


Edited by ataman - 23-Aug-2006 at 15:11
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 227
  Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 15:30
"...Really? So what will you say about India? Do you think that this country means nothing?"-I'll repeat it once again: the influence and the economic power of a country in the XXIth century are not proportional or directly linked neither to it's population numbers or the population growth. The countries with fast growing population are not the most developed countries, but just the opposite. In China and India (which are developing countries) the governments are trying to diminish the population growth with a vast campaigns of family planning and even forcefull sterilisation-so it's a not the factor that leads them to progress.

"..It was before 1926, not after this year. I have given data for population of Russia in 1926."- I see, but nevertheless you're comparing USSR with the Russian Federation, which is almost the same as to compare the UK with the British Empire: a different territories, even in the geographical meaning.

The population diminishing in Russia was because the overall economic regress of the country compared to USSR, but not the population diminishing was the reason of Russia's decline.

Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 16:04
Originally posted by Desperado

"...Really? So what will you say about India? Do you think that this country means nothing?"-I'll repeat it once again: the influence and the economic power of a country in the XXIth century are not proportional or directly linked neither to it's population numbers or the population growth. The countries with fast growing population are not the most developed countries, but just the opposite.
 
So, I will explain my opinion in other way - every country which wants to be a superpower (like Russia wants to be) must be economicaly developed AND must have huge population. Russia (or USSR) was a superpower in the past because had huge population and was enough developed (although its developing per capita was always lower than western countries). Today Russia is developing its economy quite fast (the newest data from Niezawisimaja Gazieta/23.08.2006 - the growth of economy in Russia in the first half of 2006 is 6%), but population of Russia is decreasing very fast (about 700 - 800 000 per year). Therefore, if we talk about a future of Russia, my opinion is that Russia will be an important country, but it won't be a superpower any more. In the period 1708 - 1990 Russia and later USSR were in the 1st world league. Today Russia is in the 2nd league. In the future Russia might lose even this position which it has today.
 
Originally posted by Desperado

"..It was before 1926, not after this year. I have given data for population of Russia in 1926."- I see, but nevertheless you're comparing USSR with the Russian Federation, which is almost the same as to compare the UK with the British Empire: a different territories, even in the geographical meaning.
 
I know, but I think that this kind of simplification is admissible in this case.

 
Originally posted by Desperado


The population diminishing in Russia was because the overall economic regress of the country compared to USSR, but not the population diminishing was the reason of Russia's decline.
 
well, as you can see, Russia is developing its economy quite fast (thanks to its oil), but population of Russia is decreasing. The best scenario for a future of Russia is that Russia will be highly developed, but middle populated country. Even in this - the best for Russia - case, it won't be a superpower.
Worse scenario for a future of Russia - it will be a source of raw materials for more developed neighbours. With its 80-100 mln people, Russia will have a position in the 3rd league.
 
Originally posted by Desperado

The other factor is the low reproduction rate of the population- but it's a problem for the whole Europe.
 
Therefore, IMHO whole Europe is loseing its position. In the begining of 20th c. European countries (GB, France, Russia) were in the '1st league'. Today there is no European country in the 1st league. Only EU might be classified to the 1st league, but IMO EU is not a country but only a federation of countries.
 
Originally posted by Desperado

The rapid population growth is a characteristic for the not developed third world countries and has nothing to do with the international position of any country.
 
European countries had rapid growth of population in 19th and in the begining of 20th c. And they were in the '1st league' in that time. So, if you sugest that a country which has a rapid growth of population can't be highly developed, I can't agree with you.
Single, but a very good example that a rapid growth of population not only doesn't disturb but it helps to create a superpower is USA. USA in 1800 had about 4 mln people. In that time USA had position in the 4th or 5th world league. But after 100 years, I mean in 1900, USA had 76mln people. In that time USA already was in the 2nd world league. 38 years later, USA with its 138mln people was by no means in the 1st world league. And it keeps this position till now. BTW, today USA has about 300 mln people.


Edited by ataman - 24-Aug-2006 at 00:45
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 227
  Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 05:35
Then which are the current "1st league" countries if there are no European and more interesting why?
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 06:52
Originally posted by Desperado

Then which are the current "1st league" countries if there are no European and more interesting why?
 
IMHO today only USA is in the 1st league. Close to this league is China and Japan. But opposite to China which is on a good way to promote to the 1st league in a close future, Japan will lose its to-day's position. There is also India which has a big chance to promote to the 1st league, but India needs more time than China.
 
Why?
I take into account: an economy and a demography. These 2 factors are the most important for me. Follow them is a military power (depended also on an economy and a demography), resources and something what is difficult to define - a will of society (and its leaders) to pay costs of playing in the 1st league. I think that it will be the best to write some example. Japan (or Germany) for example has still powerful economy, but Japaneses (and Germans) are pacifists and don't want to involve in any war or even only conflict. Therefore they won't play in the 1st league. Their societies don't want to pay a costs (here I think about killed people, but also monay) of wars.


Edited by ataman - 24-Aug-2006 at 07:32
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 227
  Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 09:42
My classification:
1st class "Global factors": USA, Russia, China
2nd class: UK, Germany, France
3rd class: India, Japan, Italy, Spain
Local "Great powers": Iran, N. and S. Koreas, Brazil, Pakistan, Turkey, and Israel

To be a first class World power, the country must have self-sufficient military industry, big territory, to control a lots of natural resources and posses advanced technology. The China doesn't answer on some of this requirments but possess a huge army and industrial might, which are big factors.
I'll not agree with you about Japan : it's only advantage is the economy, but with its slowing growth in the the last decade it's not sufficient enough to promote her as a first class power. Also it doesn's possess any nuclear weapons and has weak military industry.
For the military power in the Modern world the demography isn't a big factor-Israel is a good example for that. Even without weapons of mass destruction to be in use, Israel managed to beat the many times more numerous by population Arab countries.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 10:30
Originally posted by Desperado


I'll not agree with you about Japan : it's only advantage is the economy,
 
Japanese economy is far above Russian one, its technology is still among the best in the world and Japan has population almost as big as Russia. 
 
Originally posted by Desperado


but with its slowing growth in the the last decade it's not sufficient enough to promote her as a first class power.
 
Therefore I have already written that Japan is losing its very high position.
 
Originally posted by Desperado

Also it doesn's possess any nuclear weapons and has weak military industry.
 
Do you know what is Japanese military budget? The second in the world (after the American one). Japan doesn't have big army, but it has industry and technology which permits to create one of the the most modern army in a very short time.
I see other factors which don't permit me to promote Japan to the 1st league.
- pacifism of society
- demogarphical stagnation
- economical stagnation
 
Originally posted by Desperado


For the military power in the Modern world the demography isn't a big factor-Israel is a good example for that. Even without weapons of mass destruction to be in use, Israel managed to beat the many times more numerous by population Arab countries.
 
I don't agree with you that demography isn't an importan factor. It might be less important if a conflict is local one or short one. But if any war involves full potentail of a country and lasts for a long time, demography is one of the most important factor.  
 
As far as Israel is concerned. Israel didn't fight for years with enemies, but led only short campaigns with poor quality armies. And remember that Israel had and has constant support of USA.
 


Edited by ataman - 24-Aug-2006 at 10:38
Back to Top
Desimir View Drop Down
Earl
Earl

Suspended

Joined: 13-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
  Quote Desimir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 12:29
Russia really has problems with population but things can change in the next years.Predictions that their population will be only 100-120 millions in 2050 are only predictions.The fact that russia is the greatest nuclear power shows that it still remain a great military power.With the time russian economy will grow very fast and may become the europe biggest.Dont forget that Russia has the biggest natural resources in the world and one day it may become a member of european union, it is an option.In fact this is the only wat to make europe the most important factor in the world.
Back to Top
Kalevipoeg View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
  Quote Kalevipoeg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 03:33

Russian policy is too different from EU's. It is much more power oriented in the sense that it wants to gain either some political or economical control over irs bordering areas while EU just wants to strengthen intself from the inside. Russia is still a type of an empire or yurns to be one with its medieval political moves and arrogance, the EU looks much like a little boy with no aggressive tendencies, just has a lot of money.

And anyway, Russia couldn't tolerate all the restrictions of EU bureaucracy and "orders" and so forth. Russia would be in control of EU or not at all is what i suppose. Maybe blackmailing Europe with gas or oil would be an option aswell.
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
Back to Top
John Lenon View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 14-Aug-2006
Location: Latvia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
  Quote John Lenon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 04:32
I think in case of joining Russia to EU, EU will became a part of Russia LOLLOLLOL And we will got EUR (European Union of Russia) LOL
Back to Top
Desimir View Drop Down
Earl
Earl

Suspended

Joined: 13-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
  Quote Desimir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 16:18
EUR(European Uniion of Russia)-that is very good idea.
Back to Top
Kalevipoeg View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
  Quote Kalevipoeg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 09:11

Looking at the arrogance of proud of nations like Russia, we would all be speaking Russian on a daily basis in a union with such dominant Russian influence. No thank you!!!

There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.