Russian scholar says US will collapse _ next year

[islenos]

MOSCOW (AP) - If you're inclined to believe Igor Panarin, and the Kremlin wouldn't mind if you did, then President Barack Obama will order martial law this year, the U.S. will split into six rump-states before 2011, and Russia and China will become the backbones of a new world order.

Panarin might be easy to ignore but for the fact that he is a dean at the Foreign Ministry's school for future diplomats and a regular on Russia's state-guided TV channels. And his predictions fit into the anti-American story line of the Kremlin leadership.

"There is a high probability that the collapse of the United States will occur by 2010," Panarin told dozens of students, professors and diplomats Tuesday at the Diplomatic Academy—a lecture the ministry pointedly invited The Associated Press and other foreign media to attend.

The prediction from Panarin, a former spokesman for Russia's Federal Space Agency and reportedly an ex-KGB analyst, meshes with the negative view of the U.S. that has been flowing from the Kremlin in recent years, in particular from Vladimir Putin.

Putin, the former president who is now prime minister, has likened the United States to Nazi Germany's Third Reich and blames Washington for the global financial crisis that has pounded the Russian economy.

Panarin didn't give many specifics on what underlies his analysis, mostly citing newspapers, magazines and other open sources.

He also noted he had been predicting the demise of the world's wealthiest country for more than a decade now.

But he said the recent economic turmoil in the U.S. and other "social and cultural phenomena" led him to nail down a specific timeframe for "The End"—when the United States will break up into six autonomous regions and Alaska will revert to Russian control.

Panarin argued that Americans are in moral decline, saying their great psychological stress is evident from school shootings, the size of the prison population and the number of gay men.

Turning to economic woes, he cited the slide in major stock indexes, the decline in U.S. gross domestic product and Washington's bailout of banking giant Citigroup as evidence that American dominance of global markets has collapsed.

"I was there recently and things are far from good," he said. "What's happened is the collapse of the American dream."

Panarin insisted he didn't wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar.

Asked for comment on how the Foreign Ministry views Panarin's theories, a spokesman said all questions had to be submitted in writing and no answers were likely before Wednesday.

It wasn't clear how persuasive the 20-minute lecture was. One instructor asked Panarin whether his predictions more accurately describe Russia, which is undergoing its worst economic crisis in a decade as well as a demographic collapse that has led some scholars to predict the country's demise.

Panarin dismissed that idea: "The collapse of Russia will not occur."

But Alexei Malashenko, a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center who did not attend the lecture, sided with the skeptical instructor, saying Russia is the country that is on the verge of disintegration.

"I can't imagine at all how the United States could ever fall apart," Malashenko told the AP.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[ponycar17]

I don't agree with how his dividing lines are cast but I do agree that we're all PO'ed!!!!!!

The SE would NEVER merge with the NE, and that's how he has us planned. I guess he didn't do enough research to figure out we're as incompatible as a vegetarian married to Ted Nugent in that respect.

[CampingJosh]

I would very much like to see the map he came up with for this. If the "rust belt" would wise up with their own state laws, they very well could be the new world power on their own. I know of no other region in the world that is both agriculturally self-sufficient (plus a huge margin) and massively industrialized. I'm sure there are some such regions, but they are scarce.

And I doubt that Alaska will go under anyone's control. If the US were to collapse and the governor there obtained certain launch codes, they would be an independent nation until the whole world gets a taste of mutually assured destruction... which probably isn't too far off, anyway.

[glocknut]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

And I doubt that Alaska will go under anyone's control. If the US were to collapse and the governor there obtained certain launch codes, they would be an independent nation until the whole world gets a taste of mutually assured destruction... which probably isn't too far off, anyway.

Yeah...i agree. If Sara Palin gets those codes... NOBODY better mess with Alaska. Only a fool would doubt Palins willingness to defend state and family...

mike
gn

[jacksonco]

Sure sounds to me like some roosky professor has spent just a little to much time in the vodka line.

[358 winchester]

Sara Palin & Pistolenschutze in 2012 or sooner

[TranterUK]

Originally Posted by jacksonco

Sure sounds to me like some roosky professor has spent just a little to much time in the vodka line.

I have to go with this comment! I have met people who like to make long shot predictions on the off chance they come through, they will look good. If this guy is proved wrong, no one is going to remember, but if he is right, which isnt going to happen, he will be running around shouting 'told you so'. Unfortunately I also think these guys can do a lot of damage in the mean time by giving fuel to the nut jobs.

Having said that the US will not be around in 1000 years, as it is now. Look at England. An organised state in one form or another for well over 2000 years but there is no similarity today with its original structure, or even language.

[bluesea112]

He needs to learn that people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.

[Vladimir]

Russia will never collapse like that though because of the culture's desire for a strong state. IF the United States were to collapse, it is much more likely it would collapse into regional sections because of our culture's emphasis on State's Rights.

In other words, if Russia collapsed the people would still look to the national government (what's left, what's up and coming, etc)... where as if the United States collapsed we would look first to our local and state governments.

[glocknut]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Russia will never collapse like that though because of the culture's desire for a strong state. IF the United States were to collapse, it is much more likely it would collapse into regional sections because of our culture's emphasis on State's Rights.

In other words, if Russia collapsed the people would still look to the national government (what's left, what's up and coming, etc)... where as if the United States collapsed we would look first to our local and state governments.

Ukrane and Georgia(sp)? are still looking up to mother russia?

mike
gn

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by glocknut

Ukrane and Georgia(sp)? are still looking up to mother russia?

mike
gn

No. But neither is Poland or half of Germany. Those were never Russian people, only people under Russian control for some time.

I agree with the point that the United States would likely never form back into a single, unified country of fifty provinces (as we pretty much have now), but I also don't see us as six or seven independent nations.
I can see something kind of like our original confederation starting up again.

[308 at my gate]

Just another wack job that probably got an education from harvard, and just another conspiracy theory.

[RunningOnMT]

We are so polarized right now I can hardly imagine a resolution that doesn't ultimately involve conflict. Our economy is a shambles, individual liberties threatened, and our institutions of government corrupt. People are mad as hell and the fuse is lit. All these things are true.

However, Russia would be wise not to plan anything agressive to speed up our demise. Nothing would unite us more than an external threat.

[358 winchester]

ROMT SAYS

However, Russia would be wise not to plan anything agressive to speed up our demise. Nothing would unite us more than an external threat.

I don't think that they would but they may come in wearing blue helmets and do clean up after we destroy our own country.

[ponycar17]

This is the Russian's idea of how we would divide. I was wrong when I said the SE would merge with the NE. That's only partially true in his prediction.

I still don't buy the breakup lines, and I don't know how Mexico would gain any control over a portion of the US. I see what the guy calls the "Texas Republic" but I think it would include SC, NC, VA, WV, TN and Kentucky as well.



From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

[islenos]

Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana would become their own county.
Form a Oil, Natural Gas and Coal rich Nation.

[fmacsin1]

I'm thinking that we have a lot of people espousing his/her opinions and if we, as a people, choose to believe these opinions of our country's demise, then we do so at our own peril; these opinions become a "self-fulfilled prophecy" and we will lose our dominance in the world. Thomas Paine was correct when he said, "These are the times that try men's souls."

[308 at my gate]

Originally Posted by fmacsin1

I'm thinking that we have a lot of people espousing his/her opinions and if we, as a people, choose to believe these opinions of our country's demise, then we do so at our own peril; these opinions become a "self-fulfilled prophecy" and we will lose our dominance in the world. Thomas Paine was correct when he said, "These are the times that try men's souls."

Very Good.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

This is the Russian's idea of how we would divide. I was wrong when I said the SE would merge with the NE. That's only partially true in his prediction.

I still don't buy the breakup lines, and I don't know how Mexico would gain any control over a portion of the US. I see what the guy calls the "Texas Republic" but I think it would include SC, NC, VA, WV, TN and Kentucky as well.



From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

Yeah, this was drawn up by someone who really doesn't understand the cultures of the various states.
To be sure, I think we're nowhere near the breakup of the United States. However, the stuff Pony pointed out about the southern part of "Atlantic America" is also true with respect to "the Californian Republic." Utah and Idaho join California? No way. Probably even most of Nevada would go to the Central.
I also think that it would more likely be even smaller than these. Ohio, Indiana, Illiniois, Michigan, and Wisconsin would be separate, because no one west of the Mississippi River would accept Chicago as the capitol.

The absurdity of his new countries (especially the part where he thinks the new California will be a republic) just serves to highlight the absurdity of his whole claim. We're not near this yet. We're perhaps moving in this direction, but I really don't think we're all that close.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

This is the Russian's idea of how we would divide. I was wrong when I said the SE would merge with the NE. That's only partially true in his prediction.

I still don't buy the breakup lines, and I don't know how Mexico would gain any control over a portion of the US. I see what the guy calls the "Texas Republic" but I think it would include SC, NC, VA, WV, TN and Kentucky as well.



From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

A fractured United States wouldn't look any more like that map than if you let a 1st grader choose the boundaries.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by fmacsin1

I'm thinking that we have a lot of people espousing his/her opinions and if we, as a people, choose to believe these opinions of our country's demise, then we do so at our own peril; these opinions become a "self-fulfilled prophecy" and we will lose our dominance in the world. Thomas Paine was correct when he said, "These are the times that try men's souls."

I have to agree.

There is talk of resolving this thing by conflict. Absolutely nothing good could come from that. I've been a small unit advisor, combat advisor, liaison (name changes but the job is the same) for several small civil conflicts, supporting the side aligned with our interests. People who get ahead in civil wars are not the moderates; they are the far left-right extremists of the factions. Even if our cause won, how would we better off under the rule of a conservative dictatorship? If we lost, it all but promises a more leftist ruler!

People ready to take up arms. Heed this...those involved in civil conflicts, even if their side wins, rarely see anything that they fought for come to pass in their lifetime. Best case scenario, the next few generations benefit if they don't get off track.

Civil war is not like other wars. There's no going away to fight in the other guys' towns. It always comes back to yours. In civil war, the "battlefield clutter" is your own family.

Forces opposed to federal forces always either concede to their own government eventually, or to further their campaigns they seek and accept foreign assistance/resources (adviors!) just to maintain a war. Nobody eats for free though. If a cause gets that aid, the cause will be a whore to a foreign master in relatively short time. And if success occurs, members of the cause usually find the master's terms hard to oblige.

In a war against a foreign aggressor, combatants have a cultural disconnect from some of the cost. In a civil war, not so. In this type of combat, combatants are fully connected to every tragedy in their sight. Even when you win you still lose. The cost, pound for pound, man for man, roof for roof, is many fold higher for participants in a civil war.

It is always easy to convince causes that civil war is the answer. They celebrate the opening of conflict! But both sides discover as time goes by that enough blood washes the face off all lies. It's not your enemies lies that hurt you. It's the lies of your own cause that led you into this type of catastrophe that you hate in the end.

The US already fought its civil war 150 years ago. It was not necessary then and it isn't necessary now.

If we keep asking for clouds, eventually it may rain, and we'll all be left out in it. And that rain is the coldest one. There is no such thing as a quick civil war. Unless you let in the UN.

Just my thoughts tonight.

[artabr]

Great post, Delta, well said!

Not that it would happen, but I would have to agree that the "Texas Republic" would be a bit bigger by the inclusion of the states Pony mentioned.



Art

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

I have to agree.

There is talk of resolving this thing by conflict. Absolutely nothing good could come from that. I've been a small unit advisor, combat advisor, liaison (name changes but the job is the same) for several small civil conflicts, supporting the side aligned with our interests. People who get ahead in civil wars are not the moderates; they are the far left-right extremists of the factions. Even if our cause won, how would we better off under the rule of a conservative dictatorship? If we lost, it all but promises a more leftist ruler!

People ready to take up arms. Heed this...those involved in civil conflicts, even if their side wins, rarely see anything that they fought for come to pass in their lifetime. Best case scenario, the next few generations benefit if they don't get off track.

Civil war is not like other wars. There's no going away to fight in the other guys' towns. It always comes back to yours. In civil war, the "battlefield clutter" is your own family.

Forces opposed to federal forces always either concede to their own government eventually, or to further their campaigns they seek and accept foreign assistance/resources (adviors!) just to maintain a war. Nobody eats for free though. If a cause gets that aid, the cause will be a whore to a foreign master in relatively short time. And if success occurs, members of the cause usually find the master's terms hard to oblige.

In a war against a foreign aggressor, combatants have a cultural disconnect from some of the cost. In a civil war, not so. In this type of combat, combatants are fully connected to every tragedy in their sight. Even when you win you still lose. The cost, pound for pound, man for man, roof for roof, is many fold higher for participants in a civil war.

It is always easy to convince causes that civil war is the answer. They celebrate the opening of conflict! But both sides discover as time goes by that enough blood washes the face off all lies. It's not your enemies lies that hurt you. It's the lies of your own cause that led you into this type of catastrophe that you hate in the end.

The US already fought its civil war 150 years ago. It was not necessary then and it isn't necessary now.

If we keep asking for clouds, eventually it may rain, and we'll all be left out in it. And that rain is the coldest one. There is no such thing as a quick civil war. Unless you let in the UN.

Just my thoughts tonight.

Not to dispute the accuracy of your points but it seems to me there are times when there are only two choices; either accept tyranny, or fight it with armed resistance. Remember, as it relates to our current circumstances there is no desire to change the form of government or the tenets of it's founding, rather it would be fighting to preserve the government and it's constitution. So what is the minority to do when they have not the strength of numbers to effect change through the political process and the majority has broken faith with the principles upon which the nation was founded? When the majority has elected representatives that pass laws at odds with the constitution then those who refuse to comply become by necessity either criminals or rebels.

[cycloneman]

well if you can read between the lines. The problem our country has is our toilet is overflowing. There are many good people spread all over this great land. The toilet just needs to be flushed.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by artabr

Great post, Delta, well said!

Not that it would happen, but I would have to agree that the "Texas Republic" would be a bit bigger by the inclusion of the states Pony mentioned.



Art

All the static nuclear weapons are in the midwest.