Putin’s Demographic Revival Is A Pipe Dream

Rogue Valley · Jan 25, 2020

Putin’s Demographic Revival Is A Pipe Dream

The latest proposals laid out by the president are simply too little, too late.

1/23/20
The Kremlin is once again attempting to fix Russia’s dismal demographics. In his January 15th address before the Federal Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin devoted the bulk of his remarks to the country’s protracted pattern of population decline – a trend which he said it is his administration’s “historic duty” to reverse. Putin plans to do so by spending billions of rubles on new subsidies designed to provide support for struggling families and encourage greater procreation (and therefore a hike in the national birth rate). But it’s already abundantly clear that these measures are entirely insufficient to pull Russia out of its downward demographic spiral. To understand why, it’s necessary to grasp the extent and persistence of Russia’s population problem. The country’s population began to decline as long ago as the 1960s, and by the 1970s total fertility had dropped to below “replenishment” — or just over two children per woman, on average — in almost all of the Soviet Union’s European republics. These statistics, however, were at odds with the U.S.S.R.’s image of itself as a great power, so Soviet leaders choose to ignore or minimize the problem. Perhaps the most notorious example of this myopia took place in early 1991 when, just months before the U.S.S.R.’s collapse, the prestigious Soviet Academy of Sciences announced triumphantly that the number of ethnic Russians within the U.S.S.R. would grow by as much as two million over the next half-decade, and would reach 158 million by 2015. That, of course, didn’t happen.

On the contrary, over the next two decades, Russia’s population decline deepened — and accelerated. The drivers of this decline were numerous, from inordinately high mortality rates to a rampant culture of abortion to a sub-par national health care system. But the results were nothing short of ruinous. In his Jan. address, President Putin admitted that Russia’s birth rate, which had been temporarily buoyed by the social measures enacted by the Kremlin in years past, is “falling again.” The country, he stressed, is entering “a very difficult demographic period.” The centerpiece of Putin’s new plan is to provide new monthly payments to young children in families with subsistence level incomes, and to expand incentives associated with the “maternal capital” campaign. But an even bigger problem is that the scope of the Kremlin’s plan is much too modest. Putin’s proposal calls for a hike of Russia’s fertility rate to 1.7 by the year 2024. While that would be a significant accomplishment in and of itself, it would nonetheless fall far short of hitting the fertility rate of 2.1 needed to keep Russia’s population stable. In other words, Putin envisions that the Russian population will continue to shrink, just at a slightly slower rate than it is currently. It’s no wonder that respected demographers like Anatoly Vishnevsky of the Russian Higher School of Economics have taken a decidedly dim view of the President’s plans. “There are no hopes of solving the fertility problem in Russia,” Vishnevsky recently told Novaya Gazeta. Sadly, all of the available data suggests that he might be right, at least under the current program the Kremlin has proposed.

Russia never recovered from the enormous population losses of WWII. In addition, other factors - family economics, alcoholism, a terrible healthcare system, and widespread abortion have also contributed to Russia's negative population demographics. The Russian xenophobia for immigrants and the brain-drain exodus are contributory factors. As the article points out, Putin's proposals do not even bring Russia up to a 'replenishment' (stay even) level much less a population increase. Moscow is also cheating in that it is counting the population of Crimea as an increase in the Russian population. Crimea is Ukraine territory and its 2 million inhabitants are Ukrainian citizens.

Slavister · Jan 25, 2020

Rogue Valley said:
Crimea is Ukraine territory and its 2 million inhabitants are Ukrainian citizens.

Crimea will be Russian for foreseeable future though... It was Russian since 1783 apparently and was only transferred to Ukranian Republic as a "symbolic gesture" by Khrushchev. It was essentially a "redistricting" within the same country (USSR) at the time, on a whim of a top guy (a little Trumpian interestingly). Noone figured the USSR would dissolve so quickly. In any case, now that it's back in Russian hands, I just don't see it leaving Russia, at least for many generations. In larger historical context, it's hard to argue how much more "Ukranian" it is vs "Russian".

Rogue Valley · Jan 25, 2020

Slavister said:
Crimea will be Russian for foreseeable future though... It was Russian since 1783 apparently and was only transferred to Ukranian Republic as a "symbolic gesture" by Khrushchev. It was essentially a "redistricting" within the same country (USSR) at the time, on a whim of a top guy (a little Trumpian interestingly). Noone figured the USSR would dissolve so quickly. In any case, now that it's back in Russian hands, I just don't see it leaving Russia, at least for many generations. In larger historical context, it's hard to argue how much more "Ukranian" it is vs "Russian".

It was transferred because it was a huge drain on the Russian treasury. The Politburo wanted it gone.

It has been a Ukrainian oblast for 65 years and Moscow paid Kyiv rent for the Black Sea Fleet base at Sevastopol.

Slavister · Jan 25, 2020

Rogue Valley said:
It was transferred because it was a huge drain on the Russian treasury. The Politburo wanted it gone.

I never heard that theory before. Do you have anything to support it?

Here is another one more in line with what I said.

Rogue Valley · Jan 26, 2020

Slavister said:
I never heard that theory before. Do you have anything to support it?

Here is another one more in line with what I said.

Read the Russian newspapers of the time. All Crimea had to offer was nice weather, wine, and a submarine base. The peninsula had to be financially subsidized.

The same was true from 1954-2014. Ukraine subsidized Crimea annually. From 1989 onwards Ukraine also encouraged the expelled Tatar population to return to their homeland.

Now Moscow is again subsidizing Crimea albeit without the wine industry because Ukraine controls fresh water to the peninsula, and also without the tourist industry due to EU/US travel restrictions.

I lived for a time in Balaclava and also in Alushta.

Slavister · Jan 26, 2020

Rogue Valley said:
Read the Russian newspapers of the time. All Crimea had to offer was nice weather, wine, and a submarine base. The peninsula had to be financially subsidized.

I can't believe any newspaper at the time would claim that Russia is dumping this money drain onto Ukraine to move the treasury drain from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR.

While Crimea may have been a money loser, that does not mean it was the reason, esp. given that Khrushchev really liked Ukraine.

Checkerboard Strangler · Jan 26, 2020

Rogue Valley said:
"In his Jan. address, President Putin admitted that Russia’s birth rate, which had been temporarily buoyed by the social measures enacted by the Kremlin in years past, is “falling again.” The country, he stressed, is entering “a very difficult demographic period.” The centerpiece of Putin’s new plan is to provide new monthly payments to young children in families with subsistence level incomes, and to expand incentives associated with the “maternal capital” campaign."

Gee whiz, all these Trump Republicans screeching about the evils of socialism and whining about all our welfare moochers over here, and yet their HERO, Vladimir Putin, is making noises that sound MUCH LARGER than ANYTHING Lyndon Johnson EVER advocated with his "Great Society" initiatives.
Putin sounds like he believes very strongly in a welfare state, just so long as the recipients are WHITE.

Rogue Valley · Jan 26, 2020

Slavister said:
I can't believe any newspaper at the time would claim that Russia is dumping this money drain onto Ukraine to move the treasury drain from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR.

Well Jesus H. Christ, of course they wouldn't put it so bluntly. Are you so unimaginative?

Slavister said:

While Crimea may have been a money loser, that does not mean it was the reason, esp. given that Khrushchev really liked Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Believe what you want. But don't come in here implying Crimea is Russian without also listing all of its other historical owners.

Rogue Valley · Jan 26, 2020

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Putin sounds like he believes very strongly in a welfare state, just so long as the recipients are WHITE.

Putin believes in his Crimea and Novorossiya narratives. After all, it isn't his money the Kremlin is spending.

Putin has had to hike VAT taxes and fuel-prices, and re-calibrate the pension system. Sanctions have ripped 6% from the Russian economy since 2014.

The Kremlin subsidy to Crimea is ~$5 billion annually (the approximate annual expenditure on health care in Russia). The Crimea Bridge alone cost $4 billion.

Slavister · Jan 26, 2020

Rogue Valley said:
Well Jesus H. Christ, of course they wouldn't put it so bluntly. Are you so unimaginative?

Sorry but you provided not evidence so far for your assertions. Or even explanation that makes sense given things we know.

Rogue Valley said:
Believe what you want. But don't come in here implying Crimea is Russian without also listing all of its other historical owners.

I was pretty accurate about Crimea historical ownership, was not I? I said it was since 1783. How far back do you want to go? Ottoman empire does not exist any longer.

Rogue Valley · Jan 27, 2020

Slavister said:
Sorry but you provided not evidence so far for your assertions. Or even explanation that makes sense given things we know.

That was one of the reasons. There were also other reasons such as Khrushchev seeing the transfer as a way to perpetuate Soviet control over Ukraine. It was also a vehicle for which Khrushchev could firm up his leadership role over Prime Minister Georgii Malenkov who had emerged in 1953 as a possible successor to the deceased Stalin.

The leaderships of both the RSFSR and the Ukraine SSR approved the transfer. This was intended to be permanent. On 8 December 1991 at the dissolution of the USSR and via the Belovezha Accords, RF President Boris Yeltsin and Ukraine president Leonid Kravchuk signed a document that stipulated the borders of the newly independent Russian Federation and the newly independent Ukraine would remain exactly as they were when the Belovezha document was signed. Crimea would remain an indivisible part of the sovereign and independent country of Ukraine. The Russian-Ukrainian Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership (1997) (Article 2 - Reaffirmed “the inviolability of the existing borders”) as did the 2003 Russia and Ukraine Agreement on State Borders. Via agreements in 1997 and 2010, Russia agreed to pay Ukraine compensation(s) for leasing the Black Sea Naval Base on Crimea.

The RSFSR/UkSSR transfer document below does indeed mention that the economy of Crimea is better suited for Ukrainian ownership and stewardship.

Decree of the RSFSR Council of Ministers "Concerning the Transfer of the Crimean Oblast' from the RSFSR [Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic] to the UkSSR [Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic] (trans. from the Russian)

Slavister said:
I was pretty accurate about Crimea historical ownership, was not I? I said it was since 1783.

That's your out?

By mentioning no other owner except Russia, you gave a misleading impression to those not familiar with the complex history of the Crimean peninsula.

Here are others who have colonized/ruled over Crimea...

Cimmerians, Scythians, Tauri, Sarmatians, Goths, Alans, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Kipchaks, Mongols, the Golden Horde, the Romans, the Byzantine Empire, Empire of Trebizond, the Principality of Theodoro, the Crimean Goths, the Venetians, the Genoese, and the Ottoman Empire

Crimea
History of Crimea

Slavister · Jan 27, 2020

Rogue Valley said:
That was one of the reasons. There were also other reasons such as Khrushchev seeing the transfer as a way to perpetuate Soviet control over Ukraine. It was also a vehicle for which Khrushchev could firm up his leadership role over Prime Minister Georgii Malenkov who had emerged in 1953 as a possible successor to the deceased Stalin.

I googled a bit but did not see how Malenkov related to UkSSR. The reasons you mention here, if true, are still just showing that the transfer was done for Khrushchev's personal goals and ambitions. At the end of the day, Khrushchev was half Ukranian, had close ties with UkSSR, and for whatever reason decided to give them Crimea. Given his position, noone would stand in his way.

Rogue Valley said:
The leaderships of both the RSFSR and the Ukraine SSR approved the transfer. This was intended to be permanent.

Of course they did. As permanent as USSR. If USSR were still in place, I doubt anyone would care.

Rogue Valley said:
On 8 December 1991 ...

Yeah, Yeltsin had a lot on his plate in those days - USSR was quickly collapsing and splitting into many countries. Caring about Crimea was probably the last thing on his mind.

Rogue Valley said:
That's your out?

By mentioning no other owner except Russia, you gave a misleading impression to those not familiar with the complex history of the Crimean peninsula.

Here are others who have colonized/ruled over Crimea...

Cimmerians, Scythians, Tauri, Sarmatians, Goths, Alans, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Kipchaks, Mongols, the Golden Horde, the Romans, the Byzantine Empire, Empire of Trebizond, the Principality of Theodoro, the Crimean Goths, the Venetians, the Genoese, and the Ottoman Empire

Click to expand...

Crimea
History of Crimea

Yeah, and now please tell me which of these countries still exist... Hey, maybe it best belongs to Italy since Romans owned it

Anyway, you are right, it's a complex history, most recent of which is still 1783-1953 as part of Russia, 1953-1991 as part of Ukranian SSR within USSR, 1991-2014 as part of Ukraine, 2014-today as part of Russia.

slick · Jan 27, 2020

Slavister said:
Crimea will be Russian for foreseeable future though... It was Russian since 1783 apparently and was only transferred to Ukranian Republic as a "symbolic gesture" by Khrushchev. It was essentially a "redistricting" within the same country (USSR) at the time, on a whim of a top guy (a little Trumpian interestingly). Noone figured the USSR would dissolve so quickly. In any case, now that it's back in Russian hands, I just don't see it leaving Russia, at least for many generations. In larger historical context, it's hard to argue how much more "Ukranian" it is vs "Russian".

Breakdown of results showed that Ukraine was deeply divided, with the Russian-speaking east and south
overwhelmingly backing Yanukovych, and the Ukrainian-speaking west and centre, including Kiev, voting for Tymoshenko.

In the last legitimate election 2010 the following Provinces voted accordingly:
Crimea Yanukovich 78.24% Tymoshenko 17.31%
Donetsk region Yanukovich 90.44% Tymoshenko 6.45%
Luhansk region Yanukovich 88.96% Tymoshenko 7.72%

Crimea and neighboring Sevastopol -- the two newly annexed portions of Russia -- were certainly bastions of support
for Yanukovych in the 2010 election. But while they came close to providing his entire national margin of victory, they
fell a bit short, providing 90 percent of Yanukovych’s winning margin.

Almost immediately after ultra right wing Ukranian Nationalist overthrew Yanukovich the entire
Ukraine navy had “defected” in the Crimea region, pledging allegiance to its unrecognised pro-Russian
leader and surrendering the country's Sevastopol headquarters.
Ethnonationalism after the coup was the call Crimea heard & answered.

Rogue Valley · Jan 27, 2020

:roll:

Kremlin talking points. A surprising number of Americans, even some GOP Congress critters, are carrying Putin's water.

Rogue Valley · Jan 27, 2020

Slavister said:
I googled a bit but did not see how Malenkov related to UkSSR.

I didn't say he was related to UkSSR. I said he was a challenger to Khrushchev for power in Russia after Stalin's death. This power struggle was transpiring in the midst of the Crimea transfer.

Slavister said:
The reasons you mention here, if true, are still just showing that the transfer was done for Khrushchev's personal goals and ambitions.

Sorry but no. Even the transfer document itself mentioned economic reasons.

Decree of the RSFSR Council of Ministers 'Concerning the Transfer of the Crimean Oblast' from the RSFSR [Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic] to the UkSSR [Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic ]

Slavister said:
Of course they did. As permanent as USSR. If USSR were still in place, I doubt anyone would care.

They were indeed near-sighted and never anticipated a time when Ukraine would be a sovereign independent country seeking to escape the Russian boot. Near-sightedness is not exculpatory.

Slavister said:
Yeah, Yeltsin had a lot on his plate in those days - USSR was quickly collapsing and splitting into many countries. Caring about Crimea was probably the last thing on his mind.

The Belovezha Accords document didn't suddenly appear on Yeltsin's plate. The Kremlin had ample time to read the contents and digest the implications. I daresay, once the decision was made to dissolve the USSR, the Kremlin was an initiator of action. Two weeks after the Belovezha Accords was signed, the Alma Ata Protocol was also signed creating the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Belovezha Accords

Alma-Ata Protocol

Slavister said:
Yeah, and now please tell me which of these countries still exist... Hey, maybe it best belongs to Italy since Romans owned it

That's not the point. The history of Crimea is not a binary narrative (Russia/Ukraine). The Russia of 1783 doesn't exist anymore either.

Slavister said:
Anyway, you are right, it's a complex history, most recent of which is still 1783-1953 as part of Russia, 1953-1991 as part of Ukranian SSR within USSR, 1991-2014 as part of Ukraine, 2014-today as part of Russia.

Not so fast. Ukraine didn't transfer Crimea to Russia. The Kremlin took it by military force and is occupying it by military force. The UN has instructed nations to not recognize the Russian occupation.

General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region

This is the only time since the end of WWII that the borders of a European nation have been altered by brute military force.

Slavister · Jan 27, 2020

Rogue Valley said:
I didn't say he was related to UkSSR. I said he was a challenger to Khrushchev for power in Russia after Stalin's death. This power struggle was transpiring in the midst of the Crimea transfer.

Ok, but how is Crimea transfer is at all related other than being during the same time? Do you have any links for this relationship?

Rogue Valley said:
Sorry but no. Even the transfer document itself mentioned economic reasons.

Decree of the RSFSR Council of Ministers 'Concerning the Transfer of the Crimean Oblast' from the RSFSR [Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic] to the UkSSR [Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic ]

That document is useless. It just says "commonality of the economy, and close economic and cultural ties". That is meaningless and is just a rubber stamp.

Rogue Valley said:
They were indeed near-sighted and never anticipated a time when Ukraine would be a sovereign independent country seeking to escape the Russian boot. Near-sightedness is not exculpatory.

It's not exculpatory indeed (nor do I support Russian attack). However, it gives more context to whether it "should" belong to Ukraine or Russia.

Rogue Valley said:
The Belovezha Accords document didn't suddenly appear on Yeltsin's plate. The Kremlin had ample time to read the contents and digest the implications. I daresay, once the decision was made to dissolve the USSR, the Kremlin was an initiator of action. Two weeks after the Belovezha Accords was signed, the Alma Ata Protocol was also signed creating the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Yeah, all these agreements and protocols and figuring out where nukes go and break up of a superpower and all that... I doubt Crimea was given much of a thought.

Rogue Valley said:
That's not the point. The history of Crimea is not a binary narrative (Russia/Ukraine). The Russia of 1783 doesn't exist anymore either.

This discussion is about who should have "claim" to Crimea in larger historical context. Sorry, but Russia and Ukraine still exist and they are most applicable to last few centuries. Other countries do not even exist.

Rogue Valley said:
Not so fast. Ukraine didn't transfer Crimea to Russia. The Kremlin took it by military force and is occupying it by military force. The UN has instructed nations to not recognize the Russian occupation.

True. What do you think are the chances for Russia to give it up?

Rogue Valley · Jan 28, 2020

Slavister said:
Ok, but how is Crimea transfer is at all related other than being during the same time? Do you have any links for this relationship?

Read the relevant Russian Pravda/TASS articles of the day and the subsequent historical monologue's. It's not my remit to get you "up to speed".

Slavister said:
That document is useless. It just says "commonality of the economy, and close economic and cultural ties". That is meaningless and is just a rubber stamp.

You said economics never played a part. I demonstrated the converse with the transfer document itself.

Slavister said:
It's not exculpatory indeed (nor do I support Russian attack). However, it gives more context to whether it "should" belong to Ukraine or Russia.

It belongs to the nation that legally held it, and that nation is not Russia. See: UN Resolution 68/262.

Slavister said:
Yeah, all these agreements and protocols and figuring out where nukes go and break up of a superpower and all that... I doubt Crimea was given much of a thought.

If not, it is because it was simply a fait-accompli and accepted by both parties at that time that Crimea is a Ukrainian oblast.

Slavister said:
This discussion is about who should have "claim" to Crimea in larger historical context. Sorry, but Russia and Ukraine still exist and they are most applicable to last few centuries. Other countries do not even exist.

This "discussion" shouldn't even be here. It is a diversion and has little if anything to do with the OP. Title: Putin’s Demographic Revival Is A Pipe Dream

Slavister said:
True. What do you think are the chances for Russia to give it up?

Minimal.

Russia should pay Ukraine direct financial compensation as long as the Kremlin continues to occupy Crimea, to make such an illegal and illegitimate endeavor very painful for the aggressor.

Slavister · Jan 28, 2020

Rogue Valley said:
Read the relevant Russian Pravda/TASS articles of the day and the subsequent historical monologue's. It's not my remit to get you "up to speed".

I suppose not, but then you'll have to forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

Rogue Valley said:
You said economics never played a part. I demonstrated the converse with the transfer document itself.

Everything I've read suggests that it was mostly Khruschev's doing for his own reasons. The fact that economy is vaguely mentioned in the transfer document is not a proof of anything.

Rogue Valley said:
It belongs to the nation that legally held it, and that nation is not Russia. See: UN Resolution 68/262.

Yes, it should belong to Ukraine based on legal status, even if the "legal" status is somewhat of a historical quirk.

Rogue Valley said:
This "discussion" shouldn't even be here. It is a diversion and has little if anything to do with the OP. Title: Putin’s Demographic Revival Is A Pipe Dream

I was specifically replying to you OP's statement of "Crimea is Ukraine territory" since it is not at this point and as you agreed in your post, there is minimal chance Russia will give it up.

Anyway, did not mean to divert your thread. Sorry, I will leave it at this.

Ringo Stalin · Feb 2, 2020

Before the war, 101.9 thousand schools were built in the USSR from 1923 to 1940. 6 thousand schools per year or 16.4 schools per day. About 40-50 million students were educated there.
From 2000 to 2018, 27.5 thousand schools were closed. 1.53 thousand schools per year or 4.2 schools per day. YouTube

Putin’s Demographic Revival Is A Pipe Dream

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Slavister

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Slavister

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Slavister

Checkerboard Strangler

Make Video Horizontal Again

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Slavister

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Slavister

slick

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Slavister

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Slavister

Ringo Stalin