The World as I See It: Russia

On September 9, 2018 By Brandon J. Weichert  posted the article, "Putin is Here to Stay, and the Russian State Will Die with Him" saying: 

Vladimir Putin arose to power in Russia when he was 47 years old.  He is now 66.  Putin's first two terms in office were generally successful:  he presided over an expansion of the Russian economy; the military was modernized; and he even – more controversially – had successes in Russia's longstanding conflict with Chechen rebels and with NATO observing member Georgia.  All of these actions, taken together, made Putin a leader among the Russian electorate.  He was, to play on a popular phrase, making Russia great again after the chaotic decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union..........Putin temporarily removed himself from the presidency to become prime minister.  But this was less out of a Washingtonian sense of fidelity to the constitution and more of a Machiavellian move to trick foreign observers, and to allow for him to rewrite the constitution..........

When the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia emerged with a new leadership and a "Constitution" the world thought this will be wonderful for Russia.  The problem with Russia is what it always has been.  Russians have a tolerance for brutal authoritarians as leaders going back to the beginnings of the Russian Empire and Ivan the Terrible.  It simply is a historical societal paradigm, and Russia reverted to character.

The author believes without Putin's strong autocratic hand Russia will disintegrate saying:

Russia will likely break up along its constituent parts.  It will become a chaos state, armed with stores of nuclear – and other – weapons of mass destruction. Not only are the younger Russian leaders likely incapable of keeping all of Russia's constituent parts together in a post-Putin political system, but the older generation is as well.  They are either too brutal or will simply be too old when Putin leaves office.

I think Russia's collapse is inevitable no matter whose in power, because Russia has some serious internal problems, as a result with or without Putin.  The author also believes that Russia's collapse will create a very real and potentially unstoppable superpower out of China saying:

Meanwhile, Asia will have to brace for the time when China takes the lion's share of natural resources and land from Russia's Far East. At that point, China will not only be an economic juggernaut, but will overnight become a natural resources superpower, thereby making it a true challenger to the United States.

While I'm in agreement with much of what he's saying in this article, I have serious misgivings about China's emergence as the great unstoppable superpower.  Why?  Because when Russia collapses, China will be at the precipice right along with them.  Furthermore the author apparently assumes these regions won't set up their own form of government and won't use the military presence left there to defend against any aggression from China or anyone else.  Both assumptions are very broad.

Neither of these countries are natural capital generators.  Neither of these countries have been able to create a capital generating internal market.  Russia only has energy to sell, and China only exists if it can export massive amounts of manufactured goods. 

Furthermore, China is soon facing a major economic downfall, and if they're really reforming their banking system - that will expose them as an economic paper tiger.  Their ability to influence or intimidate anyone will evaporate.   Russia and China are churning cauldrons of demographic, economic and underlying social paradigms that will soon overwhelm both Putin - Russia's newest Commie Czar -  and China's latest Commie Emperor - Xi Jinping.  

We have many of the same demographic, economic and underlying social problems.  But America is a natural capital generator that can fuel itself, arm itself, feed itself and defend itself no matter what's going on in the rest of the world. 

It's often been reported that Maggie Thatcher once observed that the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.  Socialism in any of it's forms is cannibalistic.  It can only survive by eating it's own.  Venezuela is a perfect example of socialist cannibalism.  China and Russia have been doing it for centuries.

Socialism always turns into a form of monarchy.    It doesn't matter whether you call an autocrat Emperor, Chairman, President or King.  An autocrat is an autocrat and invariably they cannibalize the societies they control.