http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4757261.stm

In an annual address to the nation, Mr Putin said falling birth rates and the rise in mortality made Russia's demographic situation "critical".

He outlined a national programme to encourage women to have more children, pledging more state help.

Mr Putin also said Russia should follow America's suit and spend more on its army to be able to defend itself.

He described the US as a "fortress", saying its defence budget was "almost 25 times that of Russia's".

We must, at least, stimulate the birth of a second child

Vladimir Putin


Russia looks to its fathers
Putin speech: Excerpts

"Their [America's] home is their castle - well done! It means we should build our own house strongly and reliably," Mr Putin said.

He also warned that it was "premature to speak of the end of the arms race" in the world, saying that in fact it was "going faster" and was rising to "a new technological level".

Mr Putin also touched on several other key issues, including:



Corruption - described by the president as one of the "most serious obstacles" to Russia's growth

Foreign policy - relations with the former Soviet republics remained a priority, he said

Economy - growth remained robust, but further reforms were needed to achieve a goal set in 2003 of doubling the nation's GDP in 10 years.

Mr Putin's address contained few surprises, the BBC's Russian affairs analyst Steven Eke says.

Half-way through his second term in office, the president concentrated on the results of the big strategic reforms he announced after his re-election in 2004, our analyst says.

However, high growth rates propped up by a booming energy sector aside, there were few concrete achievements to list, he adds.

Ten-year plan

Mr Putin said Russia's population had witnessed an annual decline of 700,000 people, because of low birth rates, high mortality and immigration.

He outlined the 10-year national programme to try to reverse the situation.

One of the key elements of the programme, he said, was an increase in childcare benefits to support young mothers, especially those who had a second child.

Russia's population is estimated to be just under 143m people


Does he NOT remember the hundreds of thousands of people that have starved in Russia over the past few decades? That the climate physically cannot support a lot of people???

The whole defense and arms race thing is disgusting as well.

Babies and guns? How about babies with guns?

He also warned that it was "premature to speak of the end of the arms race" in the world, saying that in fact it was "going faster" and was rising to "a new technological level".
Sad, but true.
Does he NOT remember the hundreds of thousands of people that have starved in Russia over the past few decades? That the climate physically cannot support a lot of people??? They didn't have major starvation issues before they introduced "democracy" and capitalism over there. (Well, except for the years under Stalin.) It seems that even if they had problems before with the dictatorship, censorship etc, they are worse off financially now.
The whole defense and arms race thing is disgusting as well.
Yeah. I've been hunting for IT jobs lately, and quite a lot of the ads I've seen are within the defence industry.

Solution: invite alll the desperate illegal immigrants who have no where else to go.

They didn't have major starvation issues before they introduced "democracy" and capitalism over there. (Well, except for the years under Stalin.) It seems that even if they had problems before with the dictatorship, censorship etc, they are worse off financially now.

.

I think either way, asking for an increase in population without a real plan as how to manage it is insane. Just geographically, to me, I think it's unwise considering the majority of Russia's climate isn't made to support a large number of people. The focus should be on improving the quality and stability of life for the people now, and if that happens, and it's possible to viably sustain a larger population, then so be it. I really think he's jumping the gun.

They didn't have major starvation issues before they introduced "democracy" and capitalism over there. (Well, except for the years under Stalin.) It seems that even if they had problems before with the dictatorship, censorship etc, they are worse off financially now.

#1 - That's a pretty big exception, considering Stalin was responsible for mass starvation of a number of people.
In addition, as the USSR was a closed society, no one really knows what else went on up until it became more open in the 80s.
#2 - The USSR was pretty bad off financially all along. Easier to cover up with dictatorship and censorship.
#3 - Can you cite evidence of major starvation issues with Russia now?

I think either way, asking for an increase in population without a real plan as how to manage it is insane. Just geographically, to me, I think it's unwise considering the majority of Russia's climate isn't made to support a large number of people. The focus should be on improving the quality and stability of life for the people now, and if that happens, and it's possible to viably sustain a larger population, then so be it. I really think he's jumping the gun.
Not sure I agree with you wrt. the climatic conditions, but otherwise, yes, you have a point.

#1 - That's a pretty big exception, considering Stalin was responsible for mass starvation of a number of people.
In addition, as the USSR was a closed society, no one really knows what else went on up until it became more open in the 80s.
Heh, we should have a pretty good idea of what went on *now*. And yes, Stalin was a madman, that's why I left him out. Maybe they had been better off if the Soviets had remained in the union and let Gorbachev continue his reforms.
#2 - The USSR was pretty bad off financially all along. Easier to cover up with dictatorship and censorship.
"Pretty bad off all along"? The question is whether they were worse off than now.
#3 - Can you cite evidence of major starvation issues with Russia now?
Ah, I worded that clumsily. What I wanted to say was: They didn't have issues with starvation toward the end of the USSR era to the same extent that they have now. Here's a link for you: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7071-10.cfm

Heh, we should have a pretty good idea of what went on *now*. And yes, Stalin was a madman, that's why I left him out. Maybe they had been better off if the Soviets had remained in the union and let Gorbachev continue his reforms.

But not raw numbers. Seems like there was food supply issues all along in the USSR, just not something that was talked about.
I imagine the republics that left the union did so because they were ther by force all along.


"Pretty bad off all along"? The question is whether they were worse off than now.

Hard to quantify as we know most economic data was fudged from Stalin until Gorbachev.


Ah, I worded that clumsily. What I wanted to say was: They didn't have issues with starvation toward the end of the USSR era to the same extent that they have now. Here's a link for you: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7071-10.cfm

That's a little better. You need to practice your wording.

But not raw numbers. Seems like there was food supply issues all along in the USSR, just not something that was talked about.Source, please. Thanks.
I imagine the republics that left the union did so because they were ther by force all along.Yeah, that's the same kind of logic used by some people to explain why they refuse to wear seatbelts - because the government forces them to wear it :p But in all fairness, yes, there's no doubt force was involved, so it was obviously their right to leave the union. (As it should also be Hawaii's and Puerto Rico's right to leave the USA, should they so desire.)
Hard to quantify as we know most economic data was fudged from Stalin until Gorbachev.According to wikipedia, the problem was that the data wasn't comparable to Western data because of different statistical concepts, valuations and procedures. Which is not so strange since their methods were developed isolated from science in the West.
That's a little better. You need to practice your wording.
As for the matter at hand: In 2003, 36 million Russians couldn't afford to eat every day - that's about 25% of the population. If that is true, I think that is pretty serious.

Source, please. Thanks.

It may be a day or two. New computer, old bookmarks.

Yeah, that's the same kind of logic used by some people to explain why they refuse to wear seatbelts - because the government forces them to wear it :p But in all fairness, yes, there's no doubt force was involved, so it was obviously their right to leave the union. (As it should also be Hawaii's and Puerto Rico's right to leave the USA, should they so desire.)

Puerto Rico can leave at anytime.
Hawaii, not so much.
Wow. You must really have your head up the behind of Stalin's corpse to a.) think starvation under Stalin wasn't so bad, and b.) question why the republics wanted to leave the USSR.
Are you that upset that your comrades failed so miserably?


According to wikipedia, the problem was that the data wasn't comparable to Western data because of different statistical concepts, valuations and procedures. Which is not so strange since their methods were developed isolated from science in the West.

Wikipedia is wrong. Reaching back to my Russian History and comparative economic classes in college, there was a massive amount of false reporting under Stalin - for obvious reasons - that continued for years afterwards.


As for the matter at hand: In 2003, 36 million Russians couldn't afford to eat every day - that's about 25% of the population. If that is true, I think that is pretty serious.

If true, it is serious. Wasn't that an op-ed piece in Pravda?

Yeah, that's the same kind of logic used by some people to explain why they refuse to wear seatbelts - because the government forces them to wear it :p But in all fairness, yes, there's no doubt force was involved, so it was obviously their right to leave the union. (As it should also be Hawaii's and Puerto Rico's right to leave the USA, should they so desire.)
.
little different scenerio with Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam. One Hawaii is a state and the last I checked we do not have the CIA or the FBI enforcing the gov'ts will on the Hawaiian Islands.

Puerto Rico and Guam both of which are territories of the US were won from Spain after the Spanish-American war. I have lived in Guam and though there is a military presence again the military, nor the CIA or FBI is imposing martial law on the island and forcing anyone to adhere to the US gov'ts desires. As a matter of fact at one point the Chammaro's (sp) were talking about trying to become the 51 st state in the union. Puerto Rico I don't know much about however, it is highly unlikely that there is any form of martial law in that territory either.

However, the former soviet republics were kept in line through fear and intimidation by both the Soviet military and KGB. Very different situations.

As to seat belts, that is a crock, forcing adults to wear them. It has nothing to do with saving lives, it does however keep internal organs from being severly damaged; so when an organ donor does die in a crash his/her organs will probably still be healthy enough to be harvested.

If Sarajane isn't going to step up to the plate here on this history/social studies lesson, I will.

Hawaii asked to join the union and become a State will all rights and responsibilities.

The others are territories/protectorates. I don't know about any of them except Puerto Rico. My friend was born and raised in PR and returns to visit family yearly. There is no martial law. And for the record, they don't particularly want to become a state. They would rather be an independent nation. (Gee, I wonder why?) She says her hometown looks like any American city only Spanish is spoken by most people even though many there do know English.

Every so often, they have a vote to determine if the majority wish to join the union, and it has not yet won as a decision of the people, which is what it will take.

Puerto Rico can leave at anytime.
Hawaii, not so much.
And what makes you think the US government will let Puerto Rico leave? Or are you saying that they just have a moral (and not a legal) right to leave? If so, why doesn't Hawaii have the same right?
Wow. You must really have your head up the behind of Stalin's corpse to a.) think starvation under Stalin wasn't so bad, and b.) question why the republics wanted to leave the USSR.
Are you that upset that your comrades failed so miserably?
a) Wow. And where did I say that? :rolleyes:
b) I did not question why they wanted to leave. I was speculating whether they might have been better off in some respects if they had stayed. The USSR was the second strongest economy in the world.
Wikipedia is wrong.
Yes, of course, it will have to be, since you think it doesn't agree with you :)
Reaching back to my Russian History and comparative economic classes in college, there was a massive amount of false reporting under Stalin - for obvious reasons - that continued for years afterwards.
How many years? Sources? I think you are right that there was false reporting under Stalin, but I'm not convinced this went on all the way until Gorbachev.
If true, it is serious. Wasn't that an op-ed piece in Pravda?It was take from Pravda online (pravda.ru).

little different scenerio with Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam. One Hawaii is a state and the last I checked we do not have the CIA or the FBI enforcing the gov'ts will on the Hawaiian Islands.I think you are misunderstanding my point. Let's say the people on any of those islands organised a poll and voted to become independent nations. Do you think the government would let them go just like that?
As to seat belts, that is a crock, forcing adults to wear them. It has nothing to do with saving lives, it does however keep internal organs from being severly damaged; so when an organ donor does die in a crash his/her organs will probably still be healthy enough to be harvested.Ah, I knew it would have to be some kind of conspiracy! :) This would be an interesting subject for a separate thread.

During my brief stay in Russia a couple of years ago, I got the impression that the average and richer people are better of now then during the sovjet times, and the poorest people are actually worse of. Only the poorest people where looking back at the sovjet times and said that those where better times.

I also got the impression that Russia is still very much corrupt, and government still has more influence on the press then most people would consider 'democratic'.

And what makes you think the US government will let Puerto Rico leave? Or are you saying that they just have a moral (and not a legal) right to leave? If so, why doesn't Hawaii have the same right?

Puerto Rico has a different standing than Hawaii. It's a little complicated, but no, a state that joins the union does not have the right of secession (source: the Civil War.)
Puerto Rico is a protectorate, and yes, if Puerto Rico asked for full independence, they would get it.


a) Wow. And where did I say that? :rolleyes:
b) I did not question why they wanted to leave. I was speculating whether they might have been better off in some respects if they had stayed. The USSR was the second strongest economy in the world.

2nd largest. Not strongest. Check their growth rates through the lates 70s to the 80s. Not sure if staying with a body that had oppressed you for decades would be a better idea.

And "a", well, you have implied that quite often.

Yes, of course, it will have to be, since you think it doesn't agree with you

And, it's wrong.


How many years? Sources? I think you are right that there was false reporting under Stalin, but I'm not convinced this went on all the way until Gorbachev.
It was take from Pravda online (pravda.ru).

It's with my other sources. I'm working on it, but give me some time. Kicking you in the nads is way down on my priority list right now.

I also don't consider Pravda a source for unbiased information. Still a communist rag.

Hawaii asked to join the union and become a State will all rights and responsibilities.


It's a subject for a different thread, but I want to say that this isn't entirely true. There is still a VERY strong sovereignty movement which considers Hawaii to be an independent nation, occupied by the USA.

here's a brief intro to the argument:

http://www.reinstated.org/HTML/intro-1.html

It's kind of difficult (impossible) to measure the economics from the Russia during the Sovjet time. Not only because of the propaganda, but also for a large part because their ecomomics worked in an entire different way from the rest of the world. A history teacher once explained to me that they didn't consider recources like coal or iron to be very valuable: you can dig them out of the ground for free, they don't cost anything!
Even when I was there in Februari only a couple of years ago (-20 degrees Celcius outside:p), they heated the houses so hot that I walked inside with light T-shirts, and at night I slept with the window open because the heater had no 'off' button...
They even abolished money for some time (not very long, obviously), so I'd say that it would be near impossible to find accurate figures for the economic strenght of the USSR.

It's a subject for a different thread, but I want to say that this isn't entirely true. There is still a VERY strong sovereignty movement which considers Hawaii to be an independent nation, occupied by the USA.

here's a brief intro to the argument:

http://www.reinstated.org/HTML/intro-1.html
They had to take it to a vote of the people, didn't they?

Puerto Rico has a different standing than Hawaii. It's a little complicated, but no, a state that joins the union does not have the right of secession (source: the Civil War.)
Yeah, I'm sure that is what the Soviet leadership told the republics too. Once a republic, always a republic. No rights!
Puerto Rico is a protectorate, and yes, if Puerto Rico asked for full independence, they would get it.
Riiight.... Seems at the moment they prefer to stay a Commonwealth to enjoy the economic advantages, but that they don't want to become a state because then they won't stand a chance legally to become independent in the future. The US government hasn't been keen on the Puerto Rico independence thing in the past, so I'm just not convinced.
2nd largest. Not strongest. Check their growth rates through the lates 70s to the 80s.
Let's read what your favourite encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union) says:
"As weighed growth rates, economic planning performed very well during the early and mid-1930s, World War II-era mobilization, and for the first two decades of the postwar era. The Soviet economy became the largest and the strongest after that of the United States. The Soviet Union became the world's leading producer of oil, coal, iron ore, cement, and steel; manganese, gold, natural gas and other minerals were also of major importance.

Growth slowed after 1960, but this was considered characteristic of a mature, industrialized economy at the time. However, the planning ministries had failed to loosen their control of the enterprise level in time to stem the prolonged stagnation of the 1970s and 1980s, which showed signs of a chronic problem."

So it was the second strongest (at least for quite a while, perhaps later too for all I know). Although it was late, Gorbachev was trying to address the problems mentioned. That is why I'm speculating what the USSR might have been if it had still existed.

Not sure if staying with a body that had oppressed you for decades would be a better idea.Puerto Rico did, even if they were oppressed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayuya_Uprising).
And "a", well, you have implied that quite often.
Again, where? It seems you are imagining things now :p
It's with my other sources. I'm working on it, but give me some time.I'm patient.
I also don't consider Pravda a source for unbiased information. Still a communist rag.Pravda online is actually more of a nationalist thing these days. So yeah, I'm not entirely convinced myself.

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1651.cfm
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/siberiancurse.htm
Russia’s population is declining at a rate of close to a million people a year and may shrink by 30 percent from today’s 145 million to 101.9 million by the end of 2050, according to the State Statistics Committee. The country needs millions of foreign workers from the former Soviet republics to keep the economy ticking. However, in no other part of Russia has there been such a massive influx of migrants from such a powerful neighbor. Experts predict that the Chinese community in Russia will swell at least to 10 million by 2010. Interestingly, Beijing’s main condition for supporting Moscow’s bid to join the World Trade Organization is to give Chinese labor free access to the Russian market...

...The history of Chinese territorial claims to Russia feeds Russian fears of a demographic invasion. Former Chinese leaders Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping are both on record as saying that Russians had taken too much territory and that Vladivostok and Khabarovsk by right should be Chinese.There is increasing racial violence in Russia, they have moved away from communist aspirations toward a kind of nationalist socialist fascism that evokes past soviet glory (much of it dubious). In twenty years time there will be a war between China and Russia centered on the Amur river valley. Russia feels threatened by the growing Chinese population of Siberia and I don't see how increasing population will lead to Siberian economic viability (without gulag slavery it wasn't under the late soviet system either, see Brookings article). The Amur River and Spratley Islands are ripe apples ready to fall into PRC irredentist hands and Russia feels emasculated.