Russian prof predicts end of US

[southsider2k5]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1230511007...3:c0.0104141:b0

 

MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.

[Prof. Panarin]

 

Igor Panarin

 

In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."

 

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

 

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

 

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

 

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

 

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

 

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

 

Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."

 

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.

 

Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

 

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."

 

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

 

"When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise," he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."

 

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

 

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

 

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

 

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

 

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

 

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

 

The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

 

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.

 

The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.

 

[lostfan]

Yeah, I've heard about this guy before. I don't know about the breakup of the U.S. but I'll say this much, our ridiculous federal deficit and borrowing silly amounts of money from China really concerns me, and there are no mainstream politicians that appear to be taking that seriously.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wow.

 

I'm gonna go with... not gonna happen.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, I've heard about this guy before. I don't know about the breakup of the U.S. but I'll say this much, our ridiculous federal deficit and borrowing silly amounts of money from China really concerns me, and there are no mainstream politicians that appear to be taking that seriously.

Some of his points are definitely salient - the US is showing major cracks.

 

But I see a zero percent chance of the breakup of the US in any sort of near term.

 

[lostfan]

Some of his points are definitely salient - the US is showing major cracks.

IMO a lot of that was caused by prancing around like our s*** didn't stink and acting like the boss of the world since we were the world's only superpower, as if that status would be maintained indefinitely by default (that's the abridged explanation). All of that is really expensive. We really need to be serious about cutting down on our debt, it really leaves us in a position of weakness.

[NorthSideSox72]

IMO a lot of that was caused by prancing around like our s*** didn't stink and acting like the boss of the world since we were the world's only superpower, as if that status would be maintained indefinitely by default (that's the abridged explanation). All of that is really expensive. We really need to be serious about cutting down on our debt, it really leaves us in a position of weakness.

Cutting down our debt, getting off oil, and taking a less invasive approach to foreign policy would all greatly benefit the security of this country.

 

[Kyyle23]

I just could not imagine a civil war within the US like that.

[NorthSideSox72]

I just could not imagine a civil war within the US like that.

Well, it did happen 140 years ago. But now? No. Things would have to get far, far, far worse before that would have even a chance of occurring.

 

[Balta1701]

Cutting down our debt, getting off oil, and taking a less invasive approach to foreign policy would all greatly benefit the security of this country.

On the debt part, right now in particular, I disagree. Just look at the bond markets. Right now, the U.S. can basically take out debt without having to pay interest just because it's the only thing people have confidence in. It makes no sense to try to cut down on debt when you can take on debt for free.

[lostfan]

On the debt part, right now in particular, I disagree. Just look at the bond markets. Right now, the U.S. can basically take out debt without having to pay interest just because it's the only thing people have confidence in. It makes no sense to try to cut down on debt when you can take on debt for free.

Are you talking about individual debt? I was talking about the federal deficit.

[NorthSideSox72]

On the debt part, right now in particular, I disagree. Just look at the bond markets. Right now, the U.S. can basically take out debt without having to pay interest just because it's the only thing people have confidence in. It makes no sense to try to cut down on debt when you can take on debt for free.

Only true if you are starting from a reasonable baseline, which we are not. If you are already in heavy debt, even if debt is cheap, taking on more doesn't make any sense. Its more to pay off later, much later. We are already in far too big a hole to play that game, trying to accelerate out of debt with more debt. That's incredibly dangerous.

 

[Balta1701]

Are you talking about individual debt? I was talking about the federal deficit.

I'm referring to the federal debt also. Right now is perhaps the best time in decades for the federal government to be going in to debt to spend money, for a huge number of reasons, the lack of interest being just the first.

[NorthSideSox72]

Are you talking about individual debt? I was talking about the federal deficit.

He was trying to draw the parallel I think, but it doesn't work in any case.

 

[lostfan]

I'm referring to the federal debt also. Right now is perhaps the best time in decades for the federal government to be going in to debt to spend money, for a huge number of reasons, the lack of interest being just the first.

I see, but i would probably ok with that if our deficit was something like half the size it is now.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm referring to the federal debt also. Right now is perhaps the best time in decades for the federal government to be going in to debt to spend money, for a huge number of reasons, the lack of interest being just the first.

No, no, no. When your debt is already overwhelming your budget with interest such that you can't dent the principal - which is the case here - then taking on MORE debt is dangerous and stupid even if it can be had for very low rates. It just puts you in a far larger hole later.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Only true if you are starting from a reasonable baseline, which we are not. If you are already in heavy debt, even if debt is cheap, taking on more doesn't make any sense. Its more to pay off later, much later. We are already in far too big a hole to play that game, trying to accelerate out of debt with more debt. That's incredibly dangerous.

Well, the other argument I can make is that it'd be dramatically more dangerous to not take on additional debt and just let the economy spiral its way completely down the liquidity trap.

[NorthSideSox72]

I see, but i would probably ok with that if our deficit was something like half the size it is now.

That's what I was saying, partially. If we already have crushing debt levels (which we are approaching), AND we know we are going to have to add even more with these projected deficits as is, then adding more debt is a really bad idea.

 

[Balta1701]

No, no, no. When your debt is already overwhelming your budget with interest such that you can't dent the principal - which is the case here - then taking on MORE debt is dangerous and stupid even if it can be had for very low rates. It just puts you in a far larger hole later.

For a personal set of incomes, that is true. The reality with the government though is that it doesn't work like that. When the governments revenues go down and the government borrows more, the additional government spending can also work as a stimulus to pull the economy back out of the down times that it's gotten itself in to. An economic downturn is the case where treating the government's spending like you would your own bank account is a bad thing, because of the feedbacks.

 

If the government right now does not take on significantly increased amounts of debt, then there's going to be nothing left to keep the economy from collapsing completely. That's the logic behind the stimulus package we'll hopefully be passing in a couple weeks.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, the other argument I can make is that it'd be dramatically more dangerous to not take on additional debt and just let the economy spiral its way completely down the liquidity trap.

Certainly this is the issue - the economy is stalling, and needs huge attention. But you need to attack this is a smart way - by prioritizing spending, cutting waste, and making sure your grants and tax breaks are targeted in a way that makes sense.

 

By the way, I am not saying that right now is the time to pay down debt either - as you say, the economy needs money. I am saying, we need to do better with the spending levels where they are already at. And we also need to be better at collecting due revenues, and finding REAL waste to cut.

 

 

[lostfan]

I've pretty much accepted that the government is going to spend more in the next couple of years, it would've been the same for a McCain/Republican administration, for as much as those kinds of differences are exaggerated during the election cycle. Right now isn't what I'm so concerned about, I'm concerned with how we got here and our long-term strategy from here on.

[NorthSideSox72]

For a personal set of incomes, that is true. The reality with the government though is that it doesn't work like that. When the governments revenues go down and the government borrows more, the additional government spending can also work as a stimulus to pull the economy back out of the down times that it's gotten itself in to. An economic downturn is the case where treating the government's spending like you would your own bank account is a bad thing, because of the feedbacks.

 

If the government right now does not take on significantly increased amounts of debt, then there's going to be nothing left to keep the economy from collapsing completely. That's the logic behind the stimulus package we'll hopefully be passing in a couple weeks.

I strongly disagree. People feel that government spending has to go up now because the danger of that debt is something that hasn't come home to roost yet. The risk you take on is big, people just don't see it in front of them. But if you look at the projections for CURRENT spending levels, in 10 years the interest on our debt is going to be a pretty big chunk of the budget. That is a dangerous spiral that you cannot easily escape, and I fear that spiral more than I fear the current economy going into depression. Ironically, you need less debt now to give you the flexibility to take on more in situations like this one. We just can't at this point without huge risk.

 

I guess this all depends on whether or not you feel we've reached the point of too much debt risk yet. I feel we have, especially when you look at other financial and energy risks hanging over us. Others may not feel that way.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I've pretty much accepted that the government is going to spend more in the next couple of years, it would've been the same for a McCain/Republican administration, for as much as those kinds of differences are exaggerated during the election cycle. Right now isn't what I'm so concerned about, I'm concerned with how we got here and our long-term strategy from here on.

That is what I am most concerned about. I am afraid we are short-terming ourselves into a very bad place.

 

[Balta1701]

Certainly this is the issue - the economy is stalling, and needs huge attention. But you need to attack this is a smart way - by prioritizing spending, cutting waste, and making sure your grants and tax breaks are targeted in a way that makes sense.

 

By the way, I am not saying that right now is the time to pay down debt either - as you say, the economy needs money. I am saying, we need to do better with the spending levels where they are already at. And we also need to be better at collecting due revenues, and finding REAL waste to cut.

Cutting waste does absolutely nothing to help you out of the current economic mess. Intelligent spending or intelligent tax cuts yes, but the key is they need to be BIG.

 

I could see a return to these spending levels in a couple years as a reasonable thing, but right now, a major infrastructure investment package taking advantage of the low interest rates and at the same time serving as a major economic stimulus is the only choic.e

 

You want to talk long-term...yeah, then we might be able to come to some measure of an agreement. I'd say it was quite shameful that we failed to take advantage of the last economic expansion to pay off some of the federal government's debts, but then people would just discard my statement because of the man who made the decision to stay in debt then.

 

And on the waste issue...this is constantly talked about, but the reality is...there are only a couple ways we're going to actually clean up waste in the government, because every administration comes in and tries to do it. Either we're going to have to make major cuts to the war department (and remember, spending on wars is not real spending, or at least that's how it's been treated the last 30 years) or we're going to have to perform a major overhaul in the health care sector (hopefully coming in a few months). It would be nice to have some measure of competence appear in government at a number of levels in terms of "reducing waste", but again, that's going to be an attack on the people currently making the decisions. There's a ton of useful, productive programs that simply get squeezed out because of the focus on "reducing waste." The reality winds up being that you can save small bits here and there by dropping things like abstinence-only education or various other projects, but the only real waste that will actually matter is the DOD and Health care.

[southsider2k5]

Cutting waste does absolutely nothing to help you out of the current economic mess.

 

What?

[Balta1701]

What?

Cutting waste does not help you out of the economic mess. It can improve the budget situation long-term, but it is unrelated to getting out of the economic mess. To fix the economic mess, I'm willing to tolerate some measure of waste, because waste can do things like keep people employed (i.e. the automobile bailouts, continued DOD spending on weapons programs we don't need, etc.)