Russia-Europe Energy Thread

Sampanviking

Banned Member
Hey Sampanviking,

Hehe, I think the Bear and the Dragon is rubbish...

It's just that I see that the Far East is the size of Europe, with only 6.7 million inhabitants today and half that mid-century; the border is now open for immigration and there is high connectivity (sea).

It is possible that as the Russians "abandon their fields" the productive and industrious Chinese will see opportunity, and they will come in numbers and not be a small enclave as in the SEA, but rather be the by far largest etnicity and dominate everything from business to ...

And from Moscows view, will those newcomers be most loyal to their new Russian idendity (and the central government) or their ethnicity and ancestry. And how will the the new Chinese/Russian citizens feel when the central governement profits from the resources of their region?
Well no doubt about it, the region is vast and you could easily build a couple of new Chinese Provinces in it and nobody else would ever know! (hey maybe they have already!):D

I think if you look at the kind of deals co-operation between SCO countries and China’s wider overseas Investment deals, you start to see very tangible methodology. You have probably noticed that I keep referring a lot the SCO, this is because it is primarily an Economic Block with a Security aspect, rather than the NATO style organisation that most people seem to think it is.

Two types of deal are at the forefront of Current Chinese Overseas Investment.

1) The concession – which is Hong Kong style development in which Chinese Capital will build a major Development and Infracture project and have sole benefit from the Income for a period of years, before handing it back to the host country. A good example of this is the new Industrial and Financial Districts being built in the Laotian Capital.

2) The payment in Kind Development Project, where China build initial Infrastructure and is paid in a fixed tonnage or value of commodities or Raw Materials accessed by the project. A very good example is the $9Billion Investment project in the Democratic Republic of Congo in which an initial investment in thousands of miles of modern Roads, Highways and Railways, plus Schools and Hospitals will be repaid in a fixed tonnage of Copper and Cobalt, and then continue as joint venture with local partners thereafter.

Russia cannot be stupid, they must realise that the easiest way to lose a vast territory is to leave it empty and unproductive. Developed, it becomes a key asset and further cemented to the center. Eastern Siberia desperately needs bodies to live and work in it, even simply to start proper Geological Surveying and Prospecting. If you see the SCO as a proto form of EU, then you will also see that it is the perfect vehicle for supplying those bodies and the Capital development will require.

This also leads onto your last point and so I would invite you to look at how the EU has changed our European Territorial perceptions in the last fifty years in lands, which have large and long established populations. Eastern Siberia has nothing like and so the scope for new Political Arrangements; over the coming decades, through the SCO are almost limitless.

The incentive for Russia to do this is obvious, to build a new engine for growth that can help diversify the entire national economy and a build a Chinese style long term boom with which to try and tempt former Soviet Republics and Satellites in Europe back to its fold from the EU/NATO.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
If Russia provides them the opportunities to work and live their lives, I don't see much of a problem. After all the number of Mexicans in South California is staggering, yet we don't see people worrying about Mexico reclaiming the territory.
A bit far afield from the topic, I know, just wanted to comment on the above though. Also, not making any judgement on who is right or wrong (or even if there is a right side/wrong side.)

There is concern amongst some people in America about the immigrant situation in parts of southern Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico and Texas. Some are concerned that, with the rising Hispanic populations in some areas, these populations will retain their cultural identity without adopting or absorbing any "American" indentity. In effect, seeing themselves as citizens of country "X", living and working in America, as opposed to being Americans or "X"-Americans themselves. There does not seem to be any real concern about attempts to return any of the effected areas to Spanish and/or Mexican rule, the concern has more to do with who is benefiting overall from having the ethnicities living and working in America.

If a similar situation arose in the far eastern reaches of Russia & Siberia, where there was a dominant cultural/ethnic group that was different than the main Russian culture, I can foresee a similar concern arising.

-Cheers
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
As i understand it is basically number of womens multiplied by fertility rate and multiplied by life expectancy.

Either way, as i showed - Russia is not unique here. EU have about same problem.
Not quite that similar - EU hasn't hit fertility rates of 1.2-1.3 almost 20 years in a row.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I'm not sure I understand where your calculations come from. Could you break it down in detail? I thought that if birthrates continue rising, and the population decline is effectively stopped via re-emigration, then it won't be a problem?
Today around 1.3-1.4 million chrildren are born ervery year in Russia.

Net immigration is less than 0.2 million (2006).

Russia need 2.2 million new citizens every year to have a stable pop of 142 million. Only 1.4-1.5 million is currently added every year from births and immigration.

Inside 5 years new citizens from births will drop to 1.0 million every year at current fertility, IOW Russia will have to attract 1.2 million new citizens every year from outside Russia - that's more than there are born.

In practice I think we'll see a loss of about 1 million/yr in pop - short term, and more in the medium/long term.

So what about say 20-25 million Chinese in the Far East to offset the loss; perhaps a good thing that SCO makes it possible.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Today around 1.3-1.4 million chrildren are born ervery year in Russia.

Net immigration is less than 0.2 million (2006).

Russia need 2.2 million new citizens every year to have a stable pop of 142 million. Only 1.4-1.5 million is currently added every year from births and immigration.
Are all your numbers from 2006? Because I recall an article from this year that gave projected population decrease of under 300 000 for the year (first quarter drop was 60 000). So something must have changed about the numbers.

Inside 5 years new citizens from births will drop to 1.0 million every year at current fertility, IOW Russia will have to attract 1.2 million new citizens every year from outside Russia - that's more than there are born.

In practice I think we'll see a loss of about 1 million/yr in pop - short term, and more in the medium/long term.

So what about say 20-25 million Chinese in the Far East to offset the loss; perhaps a good thing that SCO makes it possible.
Can you cite your data please?
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Are all your numbers from 2006? Because I recall an article from this year that gave projected population decrease of under 300 000 for the year (first quarter drop was 60 000). So something must have changed about the numbers.



Can you cite your data please?
The fertility rate is the most recent UN TFR Ranking (Table 2):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

It says 1.40, it is actually 1.39, but that is minor.

Net migration at 180.000 in 2006 - the most recent I could find:

http://www.euromonitor.com/Russias_new_immigration_policy_will_boost_the_population

It also highlights why migration from the pool of Russians abroad is not a strategy - there are to few and they're also getting fewer.

Link to number of births has been posted earlier in this thread.

The reason why decline has slowed down right now, and I have said this before, is because life expectancy has increased. Life expectancy in Russia hit a low in the immediate years after the collapse of the USSR. And it was bad, from Wiki on life expectancy:

The major exception to this general pattern of improvement has been in countries most affected by AIDS, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, which have seen significant decrements in life expectancy. Another exception is Russia and some other former USSR republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union - in 1999 life expectancy of men dropped to 59.9 years (below the official retirement age), and the life expectancy of women dropped to 72.43 years. The commonly offered hypothesis for this decrease is not related to AIDS/HIV but rather to an increase in alcohol and drug abuse.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Now, IIRC life expectancy has improved by c. 5 years since then, and as long as life expectancy increase, the impact of fewer births is less - but this is only a short term effect - because life expectancy is not going to increase forever, if much more at all.

EDIT; Apparently my memory can fail me. :D It's 1.5 years the life expectancy has improved with. But still significant.

Life expectancy at birth:[7]
total population: 67.7 years
male: 61.5 years
female: 73.9 years (2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#cite_note-gov-6
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
So life expectancy increases have been minor, and so has chinese migration (or at least net migration). The only explanation we are left with is an increase in the birth rate (to account for improving demographic trends).
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
So life expectancy increases have been minor, and so has chinese migration (or at least net migration). The only explanation we are left with is an increase in the birth rate (to account for improving demographic trends).
It wasn't I who argued that immigration has increased.

The increase in life expectancy 1.5 actually translate into 3.2 million. ;) However there is potential on this parameter to improve on total pop.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
So 1) there is a lot of room for improving life expectancy and 2) the birth rate is steadily rising. In my (rather non-professional opinion) this is one of the few negative trends that may be close to reversing itself.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
So 1) there is a lot of room for improving life expectancy and 2) the birth rate is steadily rising. In my (rather non-professional opinion) this is one of the few negative trends that may be close to reversing itself.
I'll agree on the life expectancy part, however the birthrate looks set to drop like a rock in the coming decade even if fertility improves - that is because the size of the reproductive part of the population is about to take a hit (the post- Sov generation is coming of age). And fertility is still low.
 

merocaine

New Member
So 1) there is a lot of room for improving life expectancy and 2) the birth rate is steadily rising. In my (rather non-professional opinion) this is one of the few negative trends that may be close to reversing itself.
Russia has never been ethically homogeneous, what is more important than reversing the birth rate, is increasing russiafacation of ethnic minorities within the State, and Russian minorities in the border regions.
The most important thing for Russia is to have a well defined sense of nationhood. Those emigrants from the former soviet union have to be turned into Russians pretty sharpish. They are the best bet for reversing there population decline.

Trying to reverse the decline of ethnic Russians is a very long term project. It has meet with limited success when state lead. Its very hard to increase birthrates using policy. Sweden and France are two counties where it has worked, Sweden the more so. But they are the exception.
The best thing though seems to be 2 working parents, who share the burden of child raring equally. That way women don't view getting pregent as a one way ticket to becoming a baby moma.
The US out of all the Industrial countries has managed this best, ruthless P.C behavior has lead to an increased birthrate! who would have thunk it...

For Japan a falling population seems vaguely depressing. For Russia arresting population decline is a strategic imperative, to do that effectively they must have an emigrant population that is willing to buy into a Russian identity. Considering the size of that emigrant population, this is a must.
I guess that's why the Russian government likes issuing all those Passports!:D

This link sums it up nicely
http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/
scroll down to the second post
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'll agree on the life expectancy part, however the birthrate looks set to drop like a rock in the coming decade even if fertility improves - that is because the size of the reproductive part of the population is about to take a hit (the post- Sov generation is coming of age). And fertility is still low.
Birth rate is birth per woman. That is steadily increasing, and it depends on, in large part, the amount of money people have. Raising a child is expensive, hence why people prefer to have a single child. The amount of reproductive age population is set to drop, but the birth rate is liable to continue rising if the economy doesn't sink.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Birth rate is birth per woman.
Number of births per female is fertility - which is probably still on the rise, albeit low. Birth rate is the average annual number of births during a year per 1,000 persons in the population at midyear; also known as crude birth rate, which is set to fall.

That is steadily increasing, and it depends on, in large part, the amount of money people have. Raising a child is expensive, hence why people prefer to have a single child. The amount of reproductive age population is set to drop,
Yes, correct...

... but the birth rate is liable to continue rising if the economy doesn't sink.
Nope, you're thinking fertility.

Life expectancy impacts numbers like crude death rate, which is why population growth/decline numbers currently does not give a correct picture wrt long term predictions.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
My apologies, vocabulary mix up. So with fertility on the rise, you think the drop in child rearing age women will outpace the growth in fertility+immigration?
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
My apologies, vocabulary mix up. So with fertility on the rise, you think the drop in child rearing age women will outpace the growth in fertility+immigration?
Yes, and the Russian govt thinks the same as well... they predict 80-100 million pop mid-century. I'd say that's a wee bit optimistic - I'd guess a bit lower than this - even if fertility continue to rise. However, it is multiparameter, so many things can happen.

Anyhow, it looks as if I'm bashing Russia, so better stop this topic; it's just that my assessment is that pop is a greater issue than diversification - but they're of course interlinked (as you also pointed out).

I just don't understand why the former WarPac countries also had/have those low fertility rates...
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
In a nutshell, excessive Drink, Drugs and Depression - in other words a collective PTS, only now being slowly recovered from, but not in all regions.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I just don't understand why the former WarPac countries also had/have those low fertility rates...
Cramped urban housing (rural birthrates were higher - one of the proofs of Ceausescus stupidity is that he simultaneously sought to move the rural population into flats in "agri-towns" & keep the birthrate up), most women going out to work but expected to do most housework . . . and then the state support network (creches, etc) which compensated to some extent for those difficulties ran out of money when the communist system & economies fell apart at the same time at the beginning of the '90s.

Other communal stuff also ran out of money. I've seen former state, factory & union-run holiday centres crumbling away, deserted, in prime locations. They were near the bottom of the priority list for funding. Stayed the night in a Bulgarian writers union hotel once, & that was decaying - but unlike the abandoned riverside Latvian holiday camp I once hiked through, it still had customers. The Latvian camp seemed to be associated with a factory or factories, from what was left of the signs. The large-scale state factories that ran such places for their workers had all closed down by then - taking with them creches, clinics, canteens & much else, not just holiday camps.
 

Tudor

New Member
Cramped urban housing (rural birthrates were higher - one of the proofs of Ceausescus stupidity is that he simultaneously sought to move the rural population into flats in "agri-towns" & keep the birthrate up), most women going out to work but expected to do most housework . . . and then the state support network (creches, etc) which compensated to some extent for those difficulties ran out of money when the communist system & economies fell apart at the same time at the beginning of the '90s.
It was a lot of propaganda in the late 80’s regarding this subject too. Anyway the “experiment” was limited to a few rural villages mainly around the capital Bucuresti which are now part of the metropolitan area.
In Romania was a coup d’état not a revolution; it is too easy and untrue to blame the economical situation.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
1. Not quite. That was just the last attempt. None of the previous grandiose plans had amounted to much, but a lot of effort was spent (or rather, wasted) from the early 1970s onwards on planning the replacement of thousands of villages by new settlements, & a few projects actually began. Plus, of course, the biggest of them all, the destruction of much of central Bucharest. I saw the incomplete palace & grand avenue in the early 1990s; I would have liked to have seen what was there before.
2. Nobody has said it is purely economic, but economics are certainly a major factor.
 

Tudor

New Member
1. Not quite. That was just the last attempt. None of the previous grandiose plans had amounted to much, but a lot of effort was spent (or rather, wasted) from the early 1970s onwards on planning the replacement of thousands of villages by new settlements, & a few projects actually began. Plus, of course, the biggest of them all, the destruction of much of central Bucharest. I saw the incomplete palace & grand avenue in the early 1990s; I would have liked to have seen what was there before.
2. Nobody has said it is purely economic, but economics are certainly a major factor.
1. We cannot talk about thousands villages not even hundreds.
Speaking about central Bucuresti (Bucharest/Bucarest) is more a question of taste at the end. I was not living in capital but influenced by propaganda I was complaining about that to one of my cousins that was born there. He asked me if I know what was there before. He end up brutally saying if you don’t know do not talk. Apparently that part of Bucuresti (Bucharest/Bucarest) had nothing interesting from architectural and historical point of view. The churches have been either repositioned entirely, either surrounded by (relatively) tall buildings/condominiums (terrible, the same thing with a historical building in central Boston) and only one probably was not saved. After the emotions will settle down definitely Casa Poporului (House of Parliament now) will become the symbol of the city.
2. I am not sure if I agree entirely.
 
Top