map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Commentary

Challenging The Assumptions About Russia's Future

Some projections expect Russia's population by the year 2030 to have fallen to 124 million, about one-third of the expected U.S. population.

January 02, 2009
By Josh Calder
When setting goals for the future, it is important to question one's assumptions. Russia today faces some crucial geopolitical and social tipping points, and so Moscow might do well to rethink some ideas that seem to be common currency in Russian political circles.

First, does a "strong" government mean a strong Russia? Under former President Vladimir Putin -- and now under President Dmitry Medvedev -- the Russian government has seemed obsessed with being "strong." Paradoxically, however, a government bent on controlling everything risks creating a hollow state.

Diminished democratic decision making reduces the feedback Russian society can give to the government, increasing the likelihood that popular and elite interests will diverge. Centralized, secretive processes also give scope for corruption, which in turn hastens the alienation of the people from the state and causes great harm to the country's developing business sector.

Softer Power

The state's domination of the media amplifies the trend of alienation at home and undercuts Russia's ability to tell its story beyond its borders, reducing its "soft power."

Securing direct or indirect government (elite) control over resource industries has been a leitmotif of the last decade in Russia. But a state that relies on resource extraction can easily lose the inclination to attend to other aspects of economic strength that are more stable and promising over the long term.

In addition, disruptions to business by a government demonstrating its power -- from leaning on foreign energy companies to Russia's overreaction to Georgian provocations this summer -- strike at the core of Russian economic competitiveness, undermining a key component of national strength.

Second, where do the real threats to Russia come from? In the face of NATO, EU, and U.S. encroachment on the former Soviet sphere of influence, Russia seems fixated on threats from the West. But this sense of danger is misplaced.

Although Western countries may be skeptical of various Russian choices and policies, there is no genuine hostility toward Russia. A military attack on Russia from the West is almost inconceivable.

Western Reality

Russia faces much more plausible security threats from the south and east. To the south, it has numerous possible points of collision with the Islamic world, from the Caucasus into Central Asia. Moscow's past actions in Afghanistan and Chechnya have brought it the active hostility of Islamic radicals. If they escaped state control, Pakistan's and North Korea's nuclear weapons -- and possible Iranian nukes -- are more likely to threaten Russian cities than are U.S or French weapons.

In the east, Chinese power will eclipse Russia's to a greater degree with each passing year. Even though they have resolved their border issues, the two giants will face each other across potentially unstable Central Asian states and along a vast Siberian frontier, whose Russian side is demographically empty and resource rich.

In the face of these longer-term threats, closer relations with the West are clearly in Russia's interest. In future crises, Russia will need global powers that view it sympathetically rather than indifferently or suspiciously. Nonetheless, Moscow is devoting resources to petty sparring with the United States: while China is following the money toward new markets and building relations with rising powers such as Brazil, Russia is preoccupied with geopolitical stunts with countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Finally, what is the real greatest threat to Russia? The country is losing nearly 1 million people a year as death rates exceed birthrates by a wide margin. No foreign power is likely to do Russia as much harm as its dire demographic decline.

Not Adding Up

Russians -- especially men -- are dying at younger and younger ages of heart disease and other complications of drinking and smoking, as well as of diseases like tuberculosis that have been virtually eradicated in the West. Economically strapped young people are having few or no children.

Stated starkly, these trends portend the disappearance of a crucial component of national power -- a growing and healthy population. Russia's population is currently about one-half that of the United States. By 2030, according to some projections, Russia's population may have fallen to 124 million, about one-third of what the U.S. population is expected to be.

The government has paid some attention to this issue, offering subsidies to new parents and other enticements to have more children. But its basic priorities are open to question, as its actions clearly do not match the gravity or complexity of the problem. Demographer Murray Feshbach noted recently that Russia's defense budget is rising rapidly -- up to 26 percent per year -- but one-fifth of Russia's tuberculosis hospitals lack running water and some 70 percent of newborns suffer complications at birth because of prenatal deficiencies.

Long-range planning demands asking hard questions like the ones posed above -- and honest answers to them. A sober look at the driving trends in Russia's future casts serious doubt on many of the Kremlin's basic policies today. And Russia is a country that cannot afford to be shortsighted.

Josh Calder is an analyst at Social Technologies, a Washington-based foresight consulting firm. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 2
by: gdp from: USA
January 22, 2009 10:49
"The country is losing nearly 1 million people a year as death rates exceed birthrates by a wide margin."

nearly 1 million?
1)I have an idea: why don't you brush up on the facts once or twice in a decade just in case they (God forbid) change a bit.
2) Do you actually have a source that confirms this? Rosstat doesn't and I would like to know your alternative source.
3)By the way when you say nearly "nearly" would you care to elaborate? Perhaps 300,000. Because to my knowledge the decline was at most about 700,000-750,000 some years ago.

Too much of a cliche analysis to even start to comment but debunk the obviously inaccurate.

by: Rollx from: Sweden
January 09, 2009 00:03
Link everything to how many children a person has. Lower incometax and better pension to familys with "many" children. There are a number of things they can do to boost the birthrates. Just think outside the box. ;)

by: Anton from: Auckland
January 07, 2009 18:36
I am a bit surprised that this article was taken by some as "anti-russian", as it simply highlights the really existing problems and processes, the same time assessing it from the traditional "Western" point of view, which may of course differ from the approach, popularized in Russia itself.

It is a fact, that social environment in Russia is not encouraging the population to breed - in order to have children, people must be confident in their future for at least a couple of decades ahead, while the Russians instead are de-facto forced to live only "today", as their personal future is always uncertain. Unfairness of the legal system and frequent abuse from those "richer and stronger" makes their living goals to be either to become these abusers themselves or to just survive, staying as far as possible from all social activities (and here alcohol is a little helper, allowing to forget temporarily about the horrors outside of their dwellings). The life in Russia is uncomfortable - the housing is expensive and hardly accessible for the young couples who earn their living, the medical help is also priced with no relation to the salaries level, food of high quality is a luxury, cold climate is forcing to overspend on clothing, there is a little chance to fight any unfairness etc, so the personal surviving is hard enough job for them to think on top of it about procreation or even own health. Hence demographic crisis.

National mentality also adds to the above destructive factors, as for some reasons Russians are very maximalistic - if they purchase something, this must necessarily be the best of the best, they would rather buy nothing than something of a second grade, as they are scared to look "cheap" - mainly because this would affect their appearance in society. Due to this shift in social values, a successful thief there is more respected than an honest worker and honesty stops to be respected by itself. No wonder they are saving on children!

by: NB from: TA
January 05, 2009 21:48
@rkka

Russia demographic crisis will take another turn in the next decade as the number of women entering childbearing age will startdeclining. There was a certain recovery in birth rates after the last government stimulus package, but the experience of many countries shows that such measures mostly produce short term effects as they influence the timing of births peaking out after a few years.

Estonia's demographic indicators are closer to Scandinavian countries and not Eastern Europe. This division exists inside Estonia too with the native population living longer and giving more births than the Russian minority.

by: Jake from: Wisconsin
January 05, 2009 10:00
Wikipedia always comes with a big asterisk, but this is very well sourced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Declining_population

Bottom line: Russia's demographic "recovery" only began in 2005, so let's check back in a year after the recession has (hopefully) played itself out.

More importantly, not only are births still well below replacement level, but life expectancy continues to fall. Even if Russia sees a baby boom next year (it won't, but let's pretend), it will still be eighteen long years before this surge of young Russians enters both the work force and, as importantly, the conscript pool. Perhaps the only benefit over Europe or Japan is a lack of pensioners to support: they'll be dead already.

Another point: what Russia truly needs is families having many children rather than a smattering of people having individual children. For an explanation of why that matters both economically and demographically, check Paul Goble:
http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2008/06/window-on-eurasia-population-decline.html

A final point (sorry to ramble, Josh) there is, of course, the delicate matter than most Russian citizens having children are non-Slavs. But that's a whole other issue in itself.

by: NB from: TA
January 05, 2009 07:11
@rkka

Russia demographic crisis will take another turn in the next decade as the number of women entering childbearing age will startdeclining. There was a certain recovery in birth rates after the last government stimulus package, but the experience of many countries shows that such measures mostly produce short term effects as they influence the timing of births peaking out after a few years.

Estonia's demographic indicators are closer to Scandinavian countries and not Eastern Europe. This division exists inside Estonia too with the native population living longer and giving more births than the Russian minority.

by: rkka from: USA
January 04, 2009 14:13
Russia's birth rate bottomed out in 1999, and is now significantly higher than it was then. Infant mortality is also significantly lower than it was in 1999, yet there is no note of these factors that are improving Russia's demographics.

And I do wonder what the author has in mind as a solution for Russia's remaining demographic problems, considering that Western-oriented countries like Ukraine, Latvia, and Estonia all have a much greater excess of deaths over births per thousand population than Russia has.

I'm afraid that, factually, this article is more appropriate for Yeltsin's time, than now.

by: Josh from: Washington
January 03, 2009 21:58
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I address some of them here:
http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/03/my-russia-commentary-on-radio-free-europe/

by: Richard Mimna from: www.herbalindex.com
January 03, 2009 15:02
The soviet union threatened the U.S. for decades. But, when it collapsed, we gave them aid and soon begain trade agreements. Joint military exercises and the like were common in recent years. But, as russia begain making money and showing some successes they again begain making silly threats and alienating themselves from the world. Now that they are again broke and falling to their doom, they blame everyone else for their situation. No one has hurt or threatened russia except for it's current leaders. Putinism is just another failed russian 'ism. It's time to join the rest of the modern world and give democracy a fair shake.

by: Jake from: Wisconsin
January 03, 2009 11:39
Vadim, please explain what the US/EU/NATO did during the 90s that alienated Russia more than Russia alienated the West by embracing Milosevic and Lukashenko. What vital national interests could Russia have that were worth supporting such clowns? You are correct that the failure of Russia under Yeltsin is obvious. But what Putin/Medvedev are doing now is not a "new tack" but rather the same old reflexive Soviet-era negativity. If Washington issued a statement that cyanide is poisonous, Vladimir Vladimirovich would be obligated to declare that cyanide is the basis of a healthy breakfast (or polonium perhaps). National interest no longer has any relevance to Russian policy; it has become an arena for being seen as "strong" and "independent" no matter what the issue.

I know that Russians see the Color Revolutions as Western projects, but we're simply not that bored or crazy. Saakashvili is clearly insane, Yuschenko would rather pander to crypto-fascists in Western Ukraine than negotiate with true democrats who happen to be Russian-speaking easterners, and frankly nothing has changed at all in Bishkek. But you hurt yourselves by pretending that Russia carries no blame for the Color Revolutions. Most Georgians and many Ukrainians hate and fear Russia, and no sinister CIA/Zionist/alien conspiracy was necessary to provoke their revolts. Yes, like anything rooted in history, their hatred and fear isn't completely rational (if only Saakashvili's poor necktie could talk). But that only means that Russia, a great power with a long history in its Near Abroad, is obligated to take a genuine new tack and assure its small neighbors that Russia wants partners and not colonies. If Putin/Medvedev have taken any such measures, please point them out to me. Because now even Belarus and Armenia are reluctant to line up at CSTO and CIS meetings, and now even the butcher Karimov is leaving the EEC. Such clumsiness on Moscow's part takes effort.

And finally, please (and I swear I'm not being sarcastic) please share your thoughts on the demographic crisis. No Russian will ever discuss this with foreigners. I'm not mocking you or insulting you. Please tell us that ordinary Russians know and care about this, discuss it in private amongst yourselves, and understand that your survival as a great nation and civilization are at stake, even more than in 1941. Thank you.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 2
TEXT SIZE - +

Follow Us On Twitter

Keep up-to-date on all the latest news from RFE/RL's broadcast region by following us on Twitter:
~ You can find our instant news feed at @RFE_RLNEWS.
~ An obsessive Kremlin watcher? Follow our blog at @PowerVertical.
~ Human rights abuses chronicled at @RightsWatchdog.
~ News, comment, and the odd silly dictator story at @TransmissionRFE.

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile