Russia - General Discussion.

[Capt. Ironpants]

We have previously touched upon the issue of Russian emigration and the direct and indirect impact of both the war in Ukraine, the Russian mobilization, and also the general move toward a more autocratic society (also causing emigration), have all combined to have a massive negative impact on the Russian labor market. A short analysis related to this: Branislav Slantchev on Twitter: "https://t.co/Jj5D5TjhI2" / Twitter

The number of Russian workers between in the age range 19 -- 35 has decreased by 1.34 million in 2022, the largest decline since the fall of the USSR.

Russia has a "demographic hole" due to economic crisis in the 1990s that cause a collapse in birth rates 1993-2006. However, this does not explain reduction in other age groups, which is most likely explained by a combination of emigration, people killed/wounded in the war, and people mobilized.

The combination of all these factors (demographic hole due to economic crisis in 1990s; emigration; war in Ukraine) is creating a "perfect storm" that will hit Russian production massively. And it is only going to get worse.

Ukraine has a similar problem with emigration, low birth rates and early deaths of males. The "demographic hole" because of the 1990s economic collapse was even more severe in Ukraine and with less recovery than seen in Russia:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=UA-RU

See also these sources for more on emigration from Ukraine before the Russian invasion:

Ukraine’s Quiet Depopulation Crisis

The government is trying to entice its people back, not entirely successfully.

www.theatlantic.com

Losing Brains and Brawn: Outmigration from Ukraine

www.wilsoncenter.org

Neither country can afford to lose a generation in this war.

 

[seaspear]

To be fair not jst Russia and Ukraine have concerns over low birth rates this is an international trend with many causes
Reasons for worldwide decline in male fertility - PubMed (nih.gov)
Certainly America has some concerns
America is looking down the barrel of population collapse (yahoo.com)

 

[Vivendi]

Ukraine has a similar problem with emigration, low birth rates and early deaths of males. The "demographic hole" because of the 1990s economic collapse was even more severe in Ukraine and with less recovery than seen in Russia[.]

Yes Ukraine also has a demographic issue, however there are some huge differences between Russia and Ukraine:
Russia is an aggressive, autocratic country with nuclear weapons. It's a threat to Europe, and the stability of Europe. (The Russian leadership is also a threat to it's own citizens.)

Ukraine is moving towards democracy, it is actively trying to get into both EU and NATO. Ukraine is the opposite of a threat, in my opinion.

In addition: once the war ends (yes I am an optimist ) and Ukraine starts the integration with the EU, we will start to see economic growth in Ukraine (just like the Baltics, Poland, Romania etc.) and I believe many Ukrainians that left, will return to rebuild their country.

Romania’s hot economy is attracting foreign workers

Changing from a country of emigrants to one of immigrants

www.economist.com

Russia on the other hand is moving towards collapse, unless they get new leaders that aim to save the country instead of trying (and failing) to rebuild an empire.

 

[KipPotapych]

Yes Ukraine also has a demographic issue, however there are some huge differences between Russia and Ukraine:
Russia is an aggressive, autocratic country with nuclear weapons. It's a threat to Europe, and the stability of Europe. (The Russian leadership is also a threat to it's own citizens.)

Ukraine is moving towards democracy, it is actively trying to get into both EU and NATO. Ukraine is the opposite of a threat, in my opinion.

In addition: once the war ends (yes I am an optimist ) and Ukraine starts the integration with the EU, we will start to see economic growth in Ukraine (just like the Baltics, Poland, Romania etc.) and I believe many Ukrainians that left, will return to rebuild their country.

Romania’s hot economy is attracting foreign workers

Changing from a country of emigrants to one of immigrants

www.economist.com

Russia on the other hand is moving towards collapse, unless they get new leaders that aim to save the country instead of trying (and failing) to rebuild an empire.

What will likely happen in reality, the emigration from Ukraine will continue. In addition, Ukraine will probably not be a part of EU or NATO for a very, very long time, if ever. If, by some miracle, it joins EU, there will be another big wave of emigration. Some may come back, but most of those who left are not going to if they have an opportunity to stay where they went to over the past 1.25 years or so. They lost about a quarter of their population over this period of time (ironically, close to 40% of those people went to Russia). That is given the fact that many cannot leave the country due to the restrictions put in place due to the mobilization efforts. Once those restrictions are lifted, a good chunk more will leave in a heartbeat. This is likely way more realistic scenario of what is going to happen instead of an economic miracle.

In your example, check out what happened (and still is happening) in the Baltic states and Latvia in particular. And those countries haven’t seen war on their land since the WW2. Latvia lost over 30% since the independence (just over three decades) and the process is ongoing. Ukraine lost just a few percentage points less in a few months before the restrictions on men leaving were put in place.

 

[Karl Franz]

Yes Ukraine also has a demographic issue, however there are some huge differences between Russia and Ukraine:
Russia is an aggressive, autocratic country with nuclear weapons. It's a threat to Europe, and the stability of Europe. (The Russian leadership is also a threat to it's own citizens.)

Ukraine is moving towards democracy, it is actively trying to get into both EU and NATO. Ukraine is the opposite of a threat, in my opinion.

In addition: once the war ends (yes I am an optimist ) and Ukraine starts the integration with the EU, we will start to see economic growth in Ukraine (just like the Baltics, Poland, Romania etc.) and I believe many Ukrainians that left, will return to rebuild their country.

Ukraine just as Russia was never a democracy, the best any of the two countries got was some sort of hybrid regime that had both autocratic and democratic characteristics. Ukrainian flirtation with democracy ended in 2014 with the coup d'état, and was buried with subsequent decisions such as jailing the main opposition leader, banning most media outlets that did not align with the government, forbidding the use of language which at least a third of population spoke, etc. Both countries have very similar systems of governance which is best described as oligarchy with one important difference Russia has a strong figurehead, Ukraine doesn't.

Ukrainian biggest problem is going to come after the war (however it ends). The cost of reconstruction are going to be enormous, Ukraine's own estimates are around 750 billion and are just going to keep rising. No one is paying that, I honestly don't think they can gather even the third of that price, and that is just reconstruction (for reference The Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe post WW2 was around $130 billion in today's dollars), as such there is a real danger of Ukraine becoming something of a black hole in Europe with years if not decades needed to restore it to pre-war levels.

 

[Feanor]

Ukraine just as Russia was never a democracy, the best any of the two countries got was some sort of hybrid regime that had both autocratic and democratic characteristics. Ukrainian flirtation with democracy ended in 2014 with the coup d'état, and was buried with subsequent decisions such as jailing the main opposition leader, banning most media outlets that did not align with the government, forbidding the use of language which at least a third of population spoke, etc. Both countries have very similar systems of governance which is best described as oligarchy with one important difference Russia has a strong figurehead, Ukraine doesn't.

Ukrainian biggest problem is going to come after the war (however it ends). The cost of reconstruction are going to be enormous, Ukraine's own estimates are around 750 billion and are just going to keep rising. No one is paying that, I honestly don't think they can gather even the third of that price, and that is just reconstruction (for reference The Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe post WW2 was around $130 billion in today's dollars), as such there is a real danger of Ukraine becoming something of a black hole in Europe with years if not decades needed to restore it to pre-war levels.

The reconstruction costs are estimated on the idea of rebuilding everything. If the war ends with a large chunk of Ukraine still held by Russia, and much of the population not returning due to the poor economic shape, a much more modest reconstruction effort could take place. It's important to note that some of the heaviest damage is to areas now under Russian control. It doesn't matter to Ukraine what the cost of rebuilding Mariupol' is, if Russia is the one doing it. It doesn't matter to Ukraine what it would cost to rebuild Popasnaya, if the population that fled isn't returning.

 

[contricusc]

Seems you are still think that West power to influences OPEC is huge. Again they cannot do it in 70's, why do you think they can do it now. OPEC as always going to cut or increase their production base on their interest and market demand.

The world has changed a lot since the 70s. Back then, there were two superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union benefited from OPEC, as it has always been a resource rich country that benefited from expensive oil. If the West threatened OPEC back then, the Soviet Union would have been very happy to support it.

Now, in the present day, the other big power is China, since Russia has become less relevant. China is a net importer of oil, and has the interests aligned with those of the West. There is no big power to back OPEC. The four biggest power concentrations (US, EU, China, India) are importers of oil (only the US is almost energy independent). If the big four powers colluded to crush OPEC, there would be nobody able to save them.

My belief is that the US is actually happy with OPEC, since high oil prices affect mostly the EU, China and India, because the US is almost energy independent. US oil and gas is also a little bit cheaper because of transportation constraints, so the domestic industry has a comparative advantage because of that. This is why I thing nothing is done to dismantle OPEC. Not because the US can’t, but because it doesn’t want to.

The NOPEC bill has been a threat looming over OPEC for a long time, but it has never been signed into law. The further it got was when it passed both chambers of the US congress, only to face the veto threat of G. Bush (who was an oil industry sponsored president) and be dropped. Now the NOPEC bill has strong lobby opponents from both oil and gas industry groups and green energy lobby groups, because both of them want oil to be expensive, but for different reasons.

I believe that it is politics and lobby groups that are keeping OPEC alive. If American lobby groups had the interest to dismantle OPEC, it could easily happen.

 

[Karl Franz]

The reconstruction costs are estimated on the idea of rebuilding everything. If the war ends with a large chunk of Ukraine still held by Russia, and much of the population not returning due to the poor economic shape, a much more modest reconstruction effort could take place. It's important to note that some of the heaviest damage is to areas now under Russian control. It doesn't matter to Ukraine what the cost of rebuilding Mariupol' is, if Russia is the one doing it. It doesn't matter to Ukraine what it would cost to rebuild Popasnaya, if the population that fled isn't returning.

True, depending on how much territory Ukraine loses it's going to reduce rebuilding costs, however I would not count that as a good thing as they are losing their industrial heartland in Donbas which produced significant chunk of Ukrainian GDP, so the cost will be there whether it's directly for rebuilding or loss of value/income from ceded territories. The population loss is probably even worse, sure you don't need to rebuild their homes but the loss of their economic activity is going to be sorely felt, also keep in mind that Ukrainian government (bureaucracy, healthcare, police, education, etc.) was designed to service a population of 40 million, just imagine how many of these people are going to lose their jobs and what social upheavals it will create in a country where only a government job offers any kind of security, on top of that the ones leaving are either young or highly qualified/educated that can compete in European labor markets which creates problems not only for immediate post war period but for a long term reconstruction and development.

 

[Capt. Ironpants]

@

To be fair not jst Russia and Ukraine have concerns over low birth rates this is an international trend with many causes
Reasons for worldwide decline in male fertility - PubMed (nih.gov)
Certainly America has some concerns
America is looking down the barrel of population collapse (yahoo.com)

I read an article in Aeroflot's magazine about the alarming decline in fertility of Russian men back in the late 90s. I wondered whether it was vodka, the water in Lake Lagoda, or what. But it appears to be quite widespread now, no vodka or Lake Lagoda involved in most other countries.

Anyway, as you can see in the World Bank graph I posted both Russia's and Ukraine's fertility rates were already in decline before the troubles of the 1990s. I remember how after hearing how a Russian officer's entire family (him, parents and grandmother) all lived in one room of a kommunalka for much of his childhood, I remarked "no wonder you're an only child". He seemed quite surprised and said "I always wondered why I didn't have any brothers or sisters, but never thought of that! Now I see ... " Can you imagine?

Yes, demographic decline is a looming problem worldwide (with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa). The famous quip by Margaret Thatcher "the trouble with communism is eventually you run out of other people's money" could be modified to "the trouble with a low fertility rate is eventually you run out of other people (including other people to import from other countries as their fertility rates also decline). Iran's chart is quite dire:

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

There are a number of theories as to why the decline: education of women, women entering the work force, children being an economic disadvantage in developed countries vs countries where most still work the land and children are an economic asset -- and as more and more countries become developed, their fertility rates drop, etc. It is probably a constellation of factors.

I see @KipPotapych has weighed in while I was writing this, and sadly for Ukraine, I think he is likely correct. Other European countries dealing with their own demographic decline will be glad to welcome Ukrainians into their labor forces.

@Vivendi -- I thought the subject was strictly demographics, and only commented on that. We'll have to agree to disagree on a number of points. Both Russia and Ukraine have major problems with corruption (hardly conducive to democracy and its necessary prerequisite, rule of law) and this is not easy to root out.. That extra generation under communist rule really does make a difference. The transition from communism is not an easy one and the privatization process rife with opportunities for even greater corruption, and in the cases of both countries, the oligarchs made out like bandits and consolidated their power. As for Ukraine joining the EU, yes, with EU membership would come opportunities, but there is also a price to be paid for EU membership, and that price can be painful. Ukraine already suffered unrest whenever the IMF cracked down on Ukraine's economic policies, most notably winter energy subsidies. It's quite telling that even after the Maidan thing, Ukraine never even got close to EU membership. I suppose we'll see what happens.

I wish I could be as sanguine as you as to Ukraine's future, but again, I think @KipPotapych has it right. Far be it from me to predict how this war will turn out, but at the moment it appears to me that a frozen conflict is most likely.

 

[Feanor]

True, depending on how much territory Ukraine loses it's going to reduce rebuilding costs, however I would not count that as a good thing as they are losing their industrial heartland in Donbas which produced significant chunk of Ukrainian GDP, so the cost will be there whether it's directly for rebuilding or loss of value/income from ceded territories.

Decrepit late-Soviet industrial remains are not exactly a very valuable asset. And to top it off, it's not the territory that produced the GDP, it's the population. Much of the Donbas industry was lost back in 2014, and there is little chance of getting it back. A generation has grownup in Lugansk and Donetsk for whom Ukraine is the enemy and Russia is the ally. They're unlikely to be happy with Ukraine returning. Many would leave with retreating Russian troops. Many would fight against Ukraine. Plus the damage to the city would likely be severe. Russia withdrew from Kherson without fighting but that city is functionally dead. There have been reports about areas in northern Ukraine where Russia withdrew but the local economy remains in shambles. And these are areas that haven't seen the kind of heavy fighting we see in the Donbas today. Rebuilding Mar'inka or Artemovsk/Bakhmut is basically the construction of a whole new town. For which it is far from clear that there would be people.

The population loss is probably even worse, sure you don't need to rebuild their homes but the loss of their economic activity is going to be sorely felt, also keep in mind that Ukrainian government (bureaucracy, healthcare, police, education, etc.) was designed to service a population of 40 million, just imagine how many of these people are going to lose their jobs and what social upheavals it will create in a country where only a government job offers any kind of security, on top of that the ones leaving are either young or highly qualified/educated that can compete in European labor markets which creates problems not only for immediate post war period but for a long term reconstruction and development.

This is a completely separate discussion though. You were talking about the cost of rebuilding. Now you're talking about the shape of the Ukrainian economy. Nobody is going to claim that this war is good for Ukraine's economy (at least nobody in their right mind). Of course it's bad. But the direct costs of reconstruction could be quite a bit lower when considering the realities of the situation.

 

[swerve]

Ukraine just as Russia was never a democracy, the best any of the two countries got was some sort of hybrid regime that had both autocratic and democratic characteristics. Ukrainian flirtation with democracy ended in 2014 with the coup d'état, and was buried with subsequent decisions such as jailing the main opposition leader, banning most media outlets that did not align with the government, forbidding the use of language which at least a third of population spoke, etc. Both countries have very similar systems of governance which is best described as oligarchy with one important difference Russia has a strong figurehead, Ukraine doesn't.

Bloody hell! You've swallowed Putin's propaganda whole! You're claiming that the current president of Ukraine isn't allowed to speak his first language. Don't you realise how crazy an idea that is? He used to do stand-up comedy in Russian, & shortly before the Russian invasion last year, the five most-watched Ukrainian TV channels were transmitting more entertainment in Russian than in Ukrainian. The government office in charge of encouraging the use of Ukrainian complained about it, but had no power to stop them.

I now know not to believe anything you say unless it's independently confirmed.

 

[Karl Franz]

Bloody hell! You've swallowed Putin's propaganda whole! You're claiming that the current president of Ukraine isn't allowed to speak his first language. Don't you realise how crazy an idea that is? He used to do stand-up comedy in Russian, & shortly before the Russian invasion last year, the five most-watched Ukrainian TV channels were transmitting more entertainment in Russian than in Ukrainian. The government office in charge of encouraging the use of Ukrainian complained about it, but had no power to stop them.

I now know not to believe anything you say unless it's independently confirmed.

Well this is what I have in mind, from the article

The state language law requires that Ukrainian be used in most aspects of public life. The law was adopted and signed by former President Petro Poroshenko in 2019, as he was leaving office, with several provisions scheduled to come into force in subsequent years.

Witch was poorly received, from the article

Galyna Lekunova, a veterinarian in the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, was left fuming by a new law in January mandating the use of Ukrainian in the service industry.

I think most got what I was alluding to, although I apologies for poor/misleading wording.

 

[swerve]

You misrepresented that law. "be used in most aspects of public life" does not equal "Russian is banned". You said it did. That's more than poor wording. It's completely untrue.

Among the provisions of that law is that in certain contexts at least 50% of printed text displayed must be Ukrainian. Yeah, that means that it's illegal to use Russian. Obviously. Doh! What I wrote about Russian on TV was over two years after that law was passed, & was legal.

 

[contricusc]

There are a number of theories as to why the decline: education of women, women entering the work force, children being an economic disadvantage in developed countries vs countries where most still work the land and children are an economic asset -- and as more and more countries become developed, their fertility rates drop, etc. It is probably a constellation of factors.

I think it has to do mostly with education. The more educated a country becomes, the lower the birth rate. Of course there are other factors as well, but education is probably the most important.

Here are the PISA rankings, from 2018:

1.	China (Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang)	578.7
2.	Singapore	556.3
3.	Macao	542.3
4.	Hong Kong, China	530.7
5.	Estonia	525.3
6.	Japan	520.0
7.	South Korea	519.7
8.	Canada	516.7
	Taiwan	516.7
10.	Finland	516.3

And now the fertility rates:
China - 1.7 (probably lower in the cities that were ranked)
Singapore - 1.2
Macau - 1.07
Hong Kong - 1.4
Estonia - 1.6
Japan - 1.4
South Korea - 1.1
Canada - 1.5
Taiwan - 1
Finland - 1.4

So basically all the countries in the top 10 have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world, well below the 2.1 rate needed for replacement.

At the same time, the highest fertility rates are in countries with a very high illiteracy rate, such as Niger, Somalia, DR Congo or Mali.

 

[Ananda]

the big four powers colluded to crush OPEC, there would be nobody able to save them.

the West threatened OPEC back then, the Soviet Union would have been very happy to support it.

I believe your discussion already moving from Russian and West more to OPEC-West. If you want to discuss more on OPEC you can create another thread. Mods will not like we discuss something out of topic of one thread.

So I just reminds you two thing:

1. No powers in this geopolitical order historically will agree all together. It is only happening in theoretical realms, not reality. That's why I say if OPEC can't be dictate in 70's how they can be dictate now. 70's was cold War which's Bipolar order. Now global politics increasingly move into Multipolar order. More emerging powers playing in. If US threatens OPEC what make you think China or India or even BRICS going to help US cause with OPEC? Perhaps even easier to see US and USSR agree on something, then in current multipolar world.

2. Your talk on OPEC as if OPEC is at mercy of buyers. Hydrocarbon market is again a finite thus make a highly inelastic market favor to producers. In fact after OPEC existence all other big producers including Russia and US themselves realize more that power is in producers and not buyers. So talking about buyers/importers dictate market is just another theoretical realm and not base on realities of Hydrocarbon market.

 

[contricusc]

I believe your discussion already moving from Russian and West more to OPEC-West. If you want to discuss more on OPEC you can create another thread. Mods will not like we discuss something out of topic of one thread.

Agree. We’ll stop the discussion about OPEC and the oil markets here.

 

[Feanor]

You misrepresented that law. "be used in most aspects of public life" does not equal "Russian is banned". You said it did. That's more than poor wording. It's completely untrue.

Among the provisions of that law is that in certain contexts at least 50% of printed text displayed must be Ukrainian. Yeah, that means that it's illegal to use Russian. Obviously. Doh! What I wrote about Russian on TV was over two years after that law was passed, & was legal.

I think we can say that the Ukrainian government is passing laws that limit public usage of Russian language. Russian isn't banned exactly, but it's being treated in ways that a native Russian speaker who nonetheless was born, raised, and lives in Ukraine might consider problematic.

 

[Vanquish]

I think we can say that the Ukrainian government is passing laws that limit public usage of Russian language. Russian isn't banned exactly, but it's being treated in ways that a native Russian speaker who nonetheless was born, raised, and lives in Ukraine might consider problematic.

When this war is over and provided Ukraine wins I doubt to many people will want to speak Russian anymore.

 

[ngatimozart]

When this war is over and provided Ukraine wins I doubt to many people will want to speak Russian anymore.

Why? People still speak German after Nazi atrocities during WW2. Same with Japanese. Look at how the French treated their colonies and people still want to speak French.

I suggest that you debate the issue, not the people. In Australasia we have a saying; play the ball not the player.

 

[seaspear]

I believe that the E.U has legal requirements on language access by its members , article 21 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of language ,although the treaty of Lisbon has been described as lacking in this context for minorities
Language policy | Fact Sheets on the European Union | European Parliament (europa.eu)
Language Rights in the Treaty of Lisbon | SpringerLink