From Drudge:

RUSSIAN ANALYST PREDICTS DECLINE AND BREAKUP OF USA
Tue Nov 25 2008 09:04:22 ET

A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."

The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.

When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."

When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."

Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.

11/25/2008 9:13:58 AM

Wow wow wow. Alaska is on lease? WTF!

11/25/2008 9:30:01 AM

Quote :

"He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong. "

lol what if this really happened

11/25/2008 9:44:25 AM

he makes some good points (especially with the national debt and spending)...but all-in-all, its just Russian propaganda.

11/25/2008 10:27:47 AM

sometimes i feel like each state is a separate country anyway.

11/25/2008 10:27:59 AM

Quote :

"large Native American populations"

11/25/2008 10:38:03 AM

i've seen this forecast before

i think in the 1930s or 40s

i'll try to dig it up

11/25/2008 11:13:54 AM

when did Baghdad Bob move to Russia?

11/25/2008 11:15:15 AM

lol just add this to the list

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DividedStatesOfAmerica

11/25/2008 11:16:23 AM

if this were to happen, we would pass through a stage that would recall the articles of confederation

it would have to because of the distributed nature of the military and the logistics behind splitting it up

11/25/2008 11:28:45 AM

It seems like this guy is putting WAAAY too much emphasis on minority influence in the US. Sounds like he's basing everything on race.

11/25/2008 11:29:03 AM

Because the racial divides during the age of communism were also very strong. They think we are the same. We are not.

BTW. The EU nations are equally and greater in debt in relations to GDP than the U.S. is. We are far from alone. And China's monopoly on cheap labor, and their surplus, quickly goes out the window if the U.S. and the rest of the developed countries go belly up.

[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

11/25/2008 11:32:06 AM

This is stupid.

What the russians don't realize is that this isn't a forced union, only held together by threat of military force, like their empire was.

Quote :

"sometimes i feel like each state is a separate country anyway."

It's supposed to feel like that.

11/25/2008 11:34:34 AM

Funny, Russia might be in worse shape than us right now with oil dropping to less than $50 a barrel. They had a nice surplus when Oil was over $100, but now they are blowing through money faster than GM.

Quote :

"Russia is now lurching towards a major economic crisis, experts predicted today, following news that the price of oil had slumped to under $50 a barrel. The collapse in the value of oil was likely to have several catastrophic consequences for Russia including a possible devaluation of the rouble and a severe drop in living standards next year, they warned. With oil prices tumbling, and his own credibility at stake, Russia's prime minister Vladimir Putin today insisted that the country's economy was still robust. Speaking at a meeting of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, Putin told delegates in Moscow the country would survive the current global financial turmoil - which he blamed on the US. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/oil-russia-economy-putin-medvedev

11/25/2008 11:41:53 AM

Quote :

""sometimes i feel like each state is a separate country anyway." It's supposed to feel like that."

a million times yes.

11/25/2008 11:53:12 AM

^

11/25/2008 12:00:41 PM

Igor Panarin = Russian Pat Robertson?

11/25/2008 12:00:52 PM

Quote :

"What the russians don't realize is that this isn't a forced union, only held together by threat of military force, like their empire was."

um, i can't entirely agree with your statement. i feel that many actions of the civil war counter your position quite easily. i feel that if states were to attempt succession in today's political climate the same thing would happen.

11/25/2008 12:39:27 PM

Today if a state wanted to actually succeed no one is going to care enough to fight for it.

11/25/2008 12:51:18 PM

i don't see that being the case at all. but its okay if we disagree.

11/25/2008 12:52:59 PM

The civil war was like 150 years ago.

World War 2 was just over 60.

Yet some people seem to expect the first to happen again and dismiss the possibility of the second.

11/25/2008 12:57:27 PM

The way I see it, we need to spend spend spend to get us through the crisis along with the necessary reforms, then cut the federal budget significantly (that means a lot of job losses), and unfortunately increase taxes to help pay for all this shit. I hate raising taxes as a republican, but cutting spending won't do it alone. We have written and will write too many more checks we cant cash, and we are all going to have to chip in to get it back in order.

11/25/2008 1:02:19 PM

Quote :

"i don't see that being the case at all. but its okay if we disagree."

Why would you care? Lets say some state other than the one you live in wants to succeed. Are you willing to go kill people from that state to force them to stay?

11/25/2008 1:04:03 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=542049&page=2

11/25/2008 1:04:07 PM

Quote :

"Yet some people seem to expect the first to happen again and dismiss the possibility of the second."

i don't dismiss the latter, by any means.

Quote :

" Why would you care? Lets say some state other than the one you live in wants to succeed. Are you willing to go kill people from that state to force them to stay"

i don't, but some would. its all a matter of what spin is attributed to it. There are many issues that I wouldn't consider war worthy that others in this country obviously would. the US government would not let it happen and would do whatever was in their power to stop it. the amount of interest they would have in the issue would vary state to state of course. if it were ohio they may not care as much and let it slide since they take 2x in tax revenues when compared to what its raised in federal taxes by the state. however, a state that raises more than it gets in return would cause a financial strain and thus there would be more of an incentive to force them to remain in the union.

11/25/2008 1:09:56 PM

I dont think anyone is going to want to kill other americas over some bullshit like that regardless of spin. Any fight over succession is going to be legal, not military.

11/25/2008 1:16:19 PM

Quote :

"um, i can't entirely agree with your statement. i feel that many actions of the civil war counter your position quite easily."

Prior to the Civil War the south wasn't a sovereign nation that was invaded and occupied by a foreign power only to be liberated and claimed as a satellite state by the USSA. Maybe I'm nit-picking here.

11/25/2008 1:21:57 PM

what makes the willingness in 1860s any more than the willingness now?

and it wouldn't actually have to be a war if it was just one state that wanted to leave. the national guard would be in there in no time and have the place under control.

11/25/2008 1:23:12 PM

Quote :

"he makes some good points (especially with the national debt and spending)...but all-in-all, its just Russian propaganda. "

11/25/2008 1:27:24 PM

Well first off the increased diversity of most states probably means if any one state wants to succeed its for a really good reason and there will probably be more states going for the same reason.

In addition the instant communication of today would make it very hard for the fed to run a campaign against a single state and its population. This isn't the 1860s where people will rarely communicate with people from outside their local environment.

If the fed sends in the national guard their going to do more harm to their cause than good.

11/25/2008 1:28:25 PM

Quote :

"Well first off the increased diversity of most states probably means if any one state wants to succeed its for a really good reason and there will probably be more states going for the same reason."

this still doesn't paint a stark contrast between then and now. many states did also join for the same reason then. 13 in total, iirc.

Quote :

"In addition the instant communication of today would make it very hard for the fed to run a campaign against a single state and its population. This isn't the 1860s where people will rarely communicate with people from outside their local environment. "

A single campaign can be run quite easily. i'm not saying that they could slander the state and its population but they could paint their reasons so secede in a poor light and a significant percent of the remaining US would either go along with it or be indifferent to it since they would view it as extreme, unpatriotic and a potential threat to national security. this would also apply in circumstances where there were more than one state to secede.

Quote :

"If the fed sends in the national guard their going to do more harm to their cause than good."

whats your basis for this statement? if most people outside of the state(s) seceding are either against it for indifferent to stopping it how would more harm come to the US for stopping it. Hell, we just in the past few months openly opposed a province of georgia eceding despite their desires to do so. this didn't do any harm to the gerogia perspective.

11/25/2008 1:37:55 PM

For the love of god stop saying "succeed"

11/25/2008 1:51:56 PM

Quote :

"Prior to the Civil War the south wasn't a sovereign nation that was invaded and occupied by a foreign power only to be liberated and claimed as a satellite state by the USSA. Maybe I'm nit-picking here."

sorry james. i didn't notice your comment earlier i didnt want you to think i was salisburybotting you.

i agree with your point, and i didn't mean to imply that the conditions in the civil war era US and those within the soviet union were exact parallels, but merely wanted to get across that one can note simply say that the united states necessarily a union held together without force and without the threat of military action.

11/25/2008 2:11:30 PM

Secession is success.

11/25/2008 2:13:38 PM

11/25/2008 2:24:08 PM

Quote :

"Shaggy: Today if a state wanted to actually succeed no one is going to care enough to fight for it"

Quote :

"Shaggy: Well first off the increased diversity of most states probably means if any one state wants to succeed its for a really good reason and ... it [would be] very hard for the fed to run a campaign against a single state and its population. This isn't the 1860s where people will rarely communicate with people from outside their local environment."

oh, my god.

are you TRYING to score the title of most ignorant TSB poster?

the Federal govt. would put that shit down faster than you can say 'Waco, Texas'. can you say "US Constitution"? you know, that document that describes how every state's National Guard has a Federal mission that supersedes the state mission? And can you say "martial law"? Because that would be the style of federal government that would clamp down on your state's sorry ass as it tried to mobilize a militia of any sort.

by the way, Shaggy, the verb is "secede" . the noun is "secession" . so, maybe you could learn to use them correctly?

i'm just sayin', because your consistent inability to do so only underscores the embarrassing fact that you don't have the slightest fucking clue about what your talking.








[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2008 2:29:00 PM

Quote :

"i agree with your point, and i didn't mean to imply that the conditions in the civil war era US and those within the soviet union were exact parallels, but merely wanted to get across that one can note simply say that the united states necessarily a union held together without force and without the threat of military action."

Yeah, totally understandable. Reflecting on that statement and the causes of the Civil War, I wonder if a republic can survive if the option of secession exists without some threat of military force. Under majority rule theres always the possibility that a minority will get pissed off enough to declare themselves independent. EUPHALO comes to mind.

Flame on.

11/25/2008 3:24:13 PM

So a Russian thinks we're going to collapse huh?


...takes one to know one I suppose!

11/25/2008 3:24:33 PM

yea where was he in 1980

11/25/2008 3:29:39 PM

^^couldn't agree more.

11/25/2008 4:13:06 PM

Quote :

"the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong"

i'm not too personally familiar with people from north dakota or northern minnesota, but i don't think canada really influences too much in the united states

11/25/2008 4:35:53 PM

Yea but if the US broke apart, then we'd have to negotiate who held the superbowl and we're just not down with that, lets be serious.

11/25/2008 4:37:47 PM

^ Yeah, there's a big difference between putting a rebel flag sticker on your car and working with peers to form a new federal government that justly reflects the dreams of all of the citizens of your new nation. Frankly, I don't see many people turning off NASCAR and WWE to be a part of this political process.

11/25/2008 4:40:34 PM

like joe quoted

Quote :

""large Native American populations""

clearly this annalist doesn't know the US very well

11/25/2008 4:48:16 PM

The United States is unified by an idea, not an ethnicity. That's why this guy's crazy idea won't happen. Sure we have lingering racism, but let's be honest here. There's no ethnic group in the US that is unified, motivated, and angry enough to try and secede like they're the freaking Serbs or something.

11/25/2008 4:52:01 PM

Quote :

"clearly this annalist doesn't know the US very well"

I think it's reasonable to say states like Oklahoma have large Amerindian population. While they might be only ten percent or so, that's considerable relative to other states. And they're politically and culturally significant.

11/25/2008 6:06:25 PM

.

[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 6:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2008 6:08:13 PM

Quote :

"And they're politically and culturally significant."

small pox would lead you to believe differently

11/25/2008 6:13:44 PM

Quote :

"There's no ethnic group in the US that is unified, motivated, and angry enough to try and secede like they're the freaking Serbs or something."

Give it a few years, maybe.

http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm

11/25/2008 6:17:54 PM

Quote :

"Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said."

riiiiggght. electoral pressure? so?

[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 6:20 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2008 6:19:23 PM