D.I.D.'s Comments
@Gubkin
You evidently have a biased spin towards this situation.
I assume you are Russian. With this, keep in mind that the USA is NOT Russia. The social ethos of these two nations are so profoundly different, that for Panarin or any other Russian to declare doom for the USA on purely Russian standards of disintigration is idiotic.
Panarin sited the lack of 'national' policies in America as a big mover for disintigration. He apparently doesn't understand the decentralized nature of the USA, where the states have, or at least had, a good measure of sovereignty. If a strong centre is essential to the maintanence of a union, my country (Canada) should have disintigrated in the 1980's.
His ethnic enclaves don't make sense either. Unlike Russia, where national/ethnic homelands have long been defined or demarked, The USA is a heterogenous soup of just about everyone and anyone. The Native tribes are spread throughout the country, not just the Midwest. Ditto for the former 'Confederates'. He overestimates the size of the Chinese community on the Pacific coast; big it may be, but not dominant by any means. So sorry, your state-sponsered dellisions of doom by the 'ethnic' groups "pulling a Quebec" on the federal government has no sense.
As for Alaska? By my understanding of world history, the selling of the territory of Alaska from the Russian Empire to the United States for a somewhat tidy sum had no expiry date or lease factor applied. And moreover, if it did, let me remind you that there is virtually no remainder of collonial Russian culture in Alaska.
Furthermore, allow me to remind you that during the height of the cold war, Alaska was in the unenviable position of existing halfway between the two rival superpowers, and thus would likely have been the first target of Soveit attack if push came to shove. Although I have no knowledge to back up this claim, something tells me that this reason would lead to a fair deal of hostile feelings between Alaskans and Russians. Are you willing to shed Russian blood to hold on to yet more land? Methinks Russia already has enough of these types of problems - Chechnya ring any bells?
You evidently have a biased spin towards this situation.
I assume you are Russian. With this, keep in mind that the USA is NOT Russia. The social ethos of these two nations are so profoundly different, that for Panarin or any other Russian to declare doom for the USA on purely Russian standards of disintigration is idiotic.
Panarin sited the lack of 'national' policies in America as a big mover for disintigration. He apparently doesn't understand the decentralized nature of the USA, where the states have, or at least had, a good measure of sovereignty. If a strong centre is essential to the maintanence of a union, my country (Canada) should have disintigrated in the 1980's.
His ethnic enclaves don't make sense either. Unlike Russia, where national/ethnic homelands have long been defined or demarked, The USA is a heterogenous soup of just about everyone and anyone. The Native tribes are spread throughout the country, not just the Midwest. Ditto for the former 'Confederates'. He overestimates the size of the Chinese community on the Pacific coast; big it may be, but not dominant by any means. So sorry, your state-sponsered dellisions of doom by the 'ethnic' groups "pulling a Quebec" on the federal government has no sense.
As for Alaska? By my understanding of world history, the selling of the territory of Alaska from the Russian Empire to the United States for a somewhat tidy sum had no expiry date or lease factor applied. And moreover, if it did, let me remind you that there is virtually no remainder of collonial Russian culture in Alaska.
Furthermore, allow me to remind you that during the height of the cold war, Alaska was in the unenviable position of existing halfway between the two rival superpowers, and thus would likely have been the first target of Soveit attack if push came to shove. Although I have no knowledge to back up this claim, something tells me that this reason would lead to a fair deal of hostile feelings between Alaskans and Russians. Are you willing to shed Russian blood to hold on to yet more land? Methinks Russia already has enough of these types of problems - Chechnya ring any bells?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Dan 22322 is the man. :)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
The Prof must have a degree in Ultra Nationalism and a Ph. D in Propoganda. Regardless of what happens to America in terms of economic and military misadventures, political disollution of the USA is a terrorist's wet dream. Given the hype this has created, I offer one simple question:
- Why are you Americans so worried? Have you become so ignorant not only of others, but of yourselves as well? Have you forgotten your history? :-p
Fortunately, I know your history, and what it entails.
So, I propose my counterargument to why this particular 'death of the USA' scheme cannot and will not happen.
1) America's would be Conquerers are either unwilling or unable to subjugate the breakaway states. Consider the following:
- Although Alaska was once part of the Russian Empire, this colonial heritage has long been lost as Americans colonized the territory. To propose that Alaska, a state nearly entirely populated by English-speaking US citizens, will catipulate to the country that was regarded in the past (and today, to an extent) as the avowed enemy of capitalism and freedom by most Americans, is laughable. Alaska would most likely go it alone or join Canada for trade and political conveiniences. (ie: Ottawa is a closer federal capital than Moscow or even Washington, and Canadian cities and ports are more easily accessable than other American or Russian cities)
- Even if an 'Atlantic America' joins the EU, it is a moot point. The EU is, as of right now still an association of independent states, not a state itself. Atlantic America, most likely headquartered at Washington, D.C, would still be independent in this relationship.
- The very idea of a Communist state taking over a land as obbsessively decadent and self-centred as the Hollywoodic California has no fans in either L.A. or Beijing. Also, some of the more eastern states would never enter this relationship.
- Texas and it's "New Confederacy" would rather go it alone than join Mexico. Why should Texas, a state with great wealth and political stability, willingly bind itself to the country it
forcably seperated itself from before, and the country that is so impoverished and anarchy ridden that the central government would be unable to protect Texas' interests? Plus, Texans are doing their best to keep Mexicans out allready - not a rosy thought for political union.
- The Midwest has a population greater than that of Canada, and Canada is not an imperialistic power. To ask my countrymen to accept thirty five million Americans is something that is not polite conversation in Canada, as this union would spell political suicide. Quebec, alarmed by the quick reduction of it's influence in Ottawa, and of the Ènglish American `Borg` (ie: `Resistance is futile, Frenchy - you shall be assimilated!) taking up shop, would promptly secede. The Atlantic provinces might follow suit. When the dust settles, we would have a Canada that is mostly inhabited by Americans, who would set up a new American republic in place of our Canadian constitution, and we would rapidly become the new United States.
2) Americans are a united people.
To compare America`s proposed break-up to the dissolution of the USSR is a denial of history. The USSR was a highly centralized state, with most political and economic power held by one of it`s sixteen republics. (Russia) The fifteen other, much smaller Soviet Republics were dragged into the union and the domination of Russia against their nationalist desires. The United States, on the other hand, is a decentralized federation where most of the states are on equal footing. There are of course, the large states and the small states, such as California, New York, and Texas versus Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont; but there is no outright abusive of power in the USA by the large states than there was in the USSR. The US Senate, as a matter of fact, was created to stop the tyranny of the majority.
Plus, the USA is a nation of immigrants - everyone who lives in America today is desended from someone who came to the country hundreds - or in the case of the American Indians - thousands of years ago. Many are recent immigrants. Because of this diversity, and the seemingly endless flow of American nationalism, the idea of America dividing on ethnic lines has no merit. The `ìllegal aliens` are in the USA because they love the country, not because they want to conquer peices of it.
It is understandable why the Russian thinks the way he does. Russia`s historic troubles with the Chechens, Ukrainians, and Kazaks makes the idea of ethnic pluralty without violence a confusing notion for Russians, while it is an undeniable reality in the United States.
3) Global Pecking Order
To suggest that America's neighbors and rivals will carve up the defunct USA implies parity of strength and intent between the conquerers. Consider this:
- Mexico is a weak central state, with very little power to exert authority beyond it's borders.
- Canadians neither want nor are capable of taking the American Midwest.
- the European Union is not a nation-state.
- China does have a huge and powerful army (+2,500,000 soldiers, plus tanks, artillery, advanced aircraft, and a sophisticated command structure with well trained generals)
but only a modest navy. Good luck trying to get to California.
4) The Way Out
Although I don`t believe that America will be partitioned and conquered, I do believe that America is in for some hard times. Eventually the 50 trillion $ debt will catch up with them, and then - CRASH! The end of American global hegemony. The United States will continue to exist, but will be so debt ridden that no nation will lend to it. Faced with this, I predict that the USA will be forced to sell all of it`s overseas military establishments to the countries they occupy, suspend military R&D indefinately, scrap it`s costly nuclear arsenal, decommision much of it`s navy, scrap NASA, end all of it`s remaining social services, and reduce it`s homeland army to a smaller, cheaper, more efficient fighting force. (less than 300,000 soldiers)
In other words, an isolationist America will reammerge - Uncle Sam sans the big stick.
After this painful transistion, US debt should contract enough to allow some form of economic reconstruction to prevent a similar fiasco from ever happening again. During this time I also recommend that America do some soul-searching - rediscover it`s old hatred of imperialism and it`s former love of liberty for all.
5) Finally...
I'd like to get rid of some of the stupid misconceptions I have read in other comments.
- Russians are not Communist anymore. The Soveit Union ended eighteen years ago.
- Texans are not hillbillies. I met a Texan who was visitting Canada once, and he was a great guy with a funny accent.
- Gog and Magog are references to two great alliances of nations, not nations themselves.
- Canadian health care does not fall from the sky. We pay through the nose for it.
- Americans aren't cowards or wimps. The economic crisis was largely caused by rich Americans taking crazy gambles in the financial industry. The American nation as a whole is one of risk-takers. Also explains the over-abundance of firearms.
- Mexican immigrants aren't intentionally destabilizing the USA. They come for work conditions and livelihoods they could not possibly have enjoyed in rural Mexico.
- Canada does have an army; a good efficient army of about 100,000 total persons. But where the US army is akin to a massive, cumbersome broadsword that is difficult to manage and more difficult to swing, Canada's army is more like a small, sharp dagger that is easy to manage and quick to deploy. The American army is designed for long, massive offensive wars, while Canada's army is designed for internal security and international peace keeping. Whether one style is better than another is debatable
- There is absolutely no Scriptuaral reference to the United States, except in the Mormon faith.
- Why are you Americans so worried? Have you become so ignorant not only of others, but of yourselves as well? Have you forgotten your history? :-p
Fortunately, I know your history, and what it entails.
So, I propose my counterargument to why this particular 'death of the USA' scheme cannot and will not happen.
1) America's would be Conquerers are either unwilling or unable to subjugate the breakaway states. Consider the following:
- Although Alaska was once part of the Russian Empire, this colonial heritage has long been lost as Americans colonized the territory. To propose that Alaska, a state nearly entirely populated by English-speaking US citizens, will catipulate to the country that was regarded in the past (and today, to an extent) as the avowed enemy of capitalism and freedom by most Americans, is laughable. Alaska would most likely go it alone or join Canada for trade and political conveiniences. (ie: Ottawa is a closer federal capital than Moscow or even Washington, and Canadian cities and ports are more easily accessable than other American or Russian cities)
- Even if an 'Atlantic America' joins the EU, it is a moot point. The EU is, as of right now still an association of independent states, not a state itself. Atlantic America, most likely headquartered at Washington, D.C, would still be independent in this relationship.
- The very idea of a Communist state taking over a land as obbsessively decadent and self-centred as the Hollywoodic California has no fans in either L.A. or Beijing. Also, some of the more eastern states would never enter this relationship.
- Texas and it's "New Confederacy" would rather go it alone than join Mexico. Why should Texas, a state with great wealth and political stability, willingly bind itself to the country it
forcably seperated itself from before, and the country that is so impoverished and anarchy ridden that the central government would be unable to protect Texas' interests? Plus, Texans are doing their best to keep Mexicans out allready - not a rosy thought for political union.
- The Midwest has a population greater than that of Canada, and Canada is not an imperialistic power. To ask my countrymen to accept thirty five million Americans is something that is not polite conversation in Canada, as this union would spell political suicide. Quebec, alarmed by the quick reduction of it's influence in Ottawa, and of the Ènglish American `Borg` (ie: `Resistance is futile, Frenchy - you shall be assimilated!) taking up shop, would promptly secede. The Atlantic provinces might follow suit. When the dust settles, we would have a Canada that is mostly inhabited by Americans, who would set up a new American republic in place of our Canadian constitution, and we would rapidly become the new United States.
2) Americans are a united people.
To compare America`s proposed break-up to the dissolution of the USSR is a denial of history. The USSR was a highly centralized state, with most political and economic power held by one of it`s sixteen republics. (Russia) The fifteen other, much smaller Soviet Republics were dragged into the union and the domination of Russia against their nationalist desires. The United States, on the other hand, is a decentralized federation where most of the states are on equal footing. There are of course, the large states and the small states, such as California, New York, and Texas versus Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont; but there is no outright abusive of power in the USA by the large states than there was in the USSR. The US Senate, as a matter of fact, was created to stop the tyranny of the majority.
Plus, the USA is a nation of immigrants - everyone who lives in America today is desended from someone who came to the country hundreds - or in the case of the American Indians - thousands of years ago. Many are recent immigrants. Because of this diversity, and the seemingly endless flow of American nationalism, the idea of America dividing on ethnic lines has no merit. The `ìllegal aliens` are in the USA because they love the country, not because they want to conquer peices of it.
It is understandable why the Russian thinks the way he does. Russia`s historic troubles with the Chechens, Ukrainians, and Kazaks makes the idea of ethnic pluralty without violence a confusing notion for Russians, while it is an undeniable reality in the United States.
3) Global Pecking Order
To suggest that America's neighbors and rivals will carve up the defunct USA implies parity of strength and intent between the conquerers. Consider this:
- Mexico is a weak central state, with very little power to exert authority beyond it's borders.
- Canadians neither want nor are capable of taking the American Midwest.
- the European Union is not a nation-state.
- China does have a huge and powerful army (+2,500,000 soldiers, plus tanks, artillery, advanced aircraft, and a sophisticated command structure with well trained generals)
but only a modest navy. Good luck trying to get to California.
4) The Way Out
Although I don`t believe that America will be partitioned and conquered, I do believe that America is in for some hard times. Eventually the 50 trillion $ debt will catch up with them, and then - CRASH! The end of American global hegemony. The United States will continue to exist, but will be so debt ridden that no nation will lend to it. Faced with this, I predict that the USA will be forced to sell all of it`s overseas military establishments to the countries they occupy, suspend military R&D indefinately, scrap it`s costly nuclear arsenal, decommision much of it`s navy, scrap NASA, end all of it`s remaining social services, and reduce it`s homeland army to a smaller, cheaper, more efficient fighting force. (less than 300,000 soldiers)
In other words, an isolationist America will reammerge - Uncle Sam sans the big stick.
After this painful transistion, US debt should contract enough to allow some form of economic reconstruction to prevent a similar fiasco from ever happening again. During this time I also recommend that America do some soul-searching - rediscover it`s old hatred of imperialism and it`s former love of liberty for all.
5) Finally...
I'd like to get rid of some of the stupid misconceptions I have read in other comments.
- Russians are not Communist anymore. The Soveit Union ended eighteen years ago.
- Texans are not hillbillies. I met a Texan who was visitting Canada once, and he was a great guy with a funny accent.
- Gog and Magog are references to two great alliances of nations, not nations themselves.
- Canadian health care does not fall from the sky. We pay through the nose for it.
- Americans aren't cowards or wimps. The economic crisis was largely caused by rich Americans taking crazy gambles in the financial industry. The American nation as a whole is one of risk-takers. Also explains the over-abundance of firearms.
- Mexican immigrants aren't intentionally destabilizing the USA. They come for work conditions and livelihoods they could not possibly have enjoyed in rural Mexico.
- Canada does have an army; a good efficient army of about 100,000 total persons. But where the US army is akin to a massive, cumbersome broadsword that is difficult to manage and more difficult to swing, Canada's army is more like a small, sharp dagger that is easy to manage and quick to deploy. The American army is designed for long, massive offensive wars, while Canada's army is designed for internal security and international peace keeping. Whether one style is better than another is debatable
- There is absolutely no Scriptuaral reference to the United States, except in the Mormon faith.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Last I checked, the Afghans, particularly the Pashtun majority, have a long and feircely proud tradition of defeating any foreign empire stupid enough to dare invade their land. Georgia, on the other hand, is a small country with a very corrupt and self serving elite horribly mismanaging it. This country also suffers from extreme political fragmentation; one third of the country is Georgia in international law only, dominated by de-facto independent separatist republics.
So your logic that Russia is stronger than the USA rests on the grounds that the USA is struggling with the Graveyard of Empires thousands of miles from its territory while Russia is able to handily defeat a very weak and indefensible country on its immediate border? Oh yes, Russia is a 'big man'. (sarcasm)