Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

In a Couple Decades, Which Will Russia Become? A Chinese Nation? A Muslim Nation? Or Join NATO for Its Own Survival?

Poll - Total Votes: 10

Chinese

Muslim

NATO

You can only vote on one answer.

Siberia is up for grabs as Putin becomes China's vassal
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/18/putins-choice-vassal-xis-china/

Russia Will Be One-Third Muslim in 15 Years, Chief Mufti Predicts
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/05/russia-will-be-one-third-muslim-in-15-years-chief-mufti-predicts-a64706

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

Obviously none of the above. It's too distinct and too much of a regional power. Also, I don't believe the demographics changes predicted by that article.

You can make the case that it will continue to move closer to China because of shared geopolitical interests. Like Britain or Germany are to America.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

U.S. State Department estimates in 2017 had the Muslim population of Russia at 10% - or about 14 million - with large majories of the population in North Caucasus and near the border of Kazakhstan. That former Soviet republic has a nearly 70% Muslim population.

According to the Pew Research Center, "Muslims are projected to make up 14.4% of Russia’s total population in 2030, up from 11.7% in 2010."

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe/

Russia has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world and Vladimir Putin's obsession with Ukraine as being "part of Russia" is one way to increase its non-Muslim population.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero They've had this kind of projection for the UK. It doesn't count for the fact that Muslims become more secular and have fewer children, the longer they stay in a country.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

The majority of Muslims in the U.K. are immigrants or first and second generations from those immigrants. Whereas in Russia, the great majority of the Muslim population are NOT immigrants and are descendants of families living in Russia for centuries past.

Nor does the U.K. have any borders with overwhelming Muslim countries. Whereas the North Caucasus is a hotbed for Islamic radicalism.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero A lot are third and fourth gen now. The first big wave was in th 60.

[quote][Nor does the U.K. have any borders with overwhelming Muslim countries. /quote]

Of course, but the commonwealth means that we have always had a lot of migrants from Pakistan in particular.

This is not in response to your article but it relates and is a reason why I am Skeptical.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

Couple things from that article (though it relates to the U.K. and not Russia).

It seems likely there has been a real increase in the Muslim population of Britain, due to a mixture of immigration and higher birth rates.

It put the 2005-10 fertility rate among UK Muslims at 3.0, which means that the average British Muslim had exactly three children in her lifetime, compared to 1.8 children for non-Muslim women. By 2030 the rate is predicted to fall to 2.5 for Muslims and remain at 1.8 for non-Muslims. Clearly this does suggest that there will be an increase in the size of the Muslim population

FactCheck wouldn’t bet on the British Muslim population ever topping 10 per cent.

That article was written in 2013.

The proportion of the overall population who identified as “Muslim” increased from 4.9% (2.7 million) in 2011 to 6.5% (3.9 million) in 2021.

In other words, the % of the Muslim population in the U.K. went up 32.7% in just a decade (4.9% to 6.5%).

People who identified as “Muslim” were the youngest of the tick-box religious groups

Those who identified as “Muslim” had the youngest average (median) age of the tick-box responses, 27 years; this is 13 years younger than the median age of the overall population. This religious group has aged since 2011, when the average age for those identifying this was 25 years.

Of the 3.9 million people who identified as “Muslim” in 2021, 84.5% were aged under 50 years, compared with 62.0% of the overall population of England and Wales.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/articles/religionbyageandsexenglandandwales/census2021

Given that Russia has an even lower fertility rate than the U.K., it should be assumed that the Muslim % of the population in Russia will grow faster than that of t in the U.K. And the % of the Russian population that is Muslim already reached 10% seven years ago.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero That the Muslim population of Russia will increase is not in dispute. Same with the UK. What is in dispute is whether it will become a 'Muslim nation.' That I doubt,

In addition, the economy of Russia is growing fast, even during war and with sanctions. That is likely to help the fertility rate.

The main point of your OP was also about geopolitics and based on loads of bad assumptions.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński said Russia's future would be that of either a “normal European country” (nation-state) or become basically a colony of China.

Unless Russia can mend its ties with the West, it will become increasingly dependant on China.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero I depside Putin because he's as far from my values as you can imagine. However, your take on this is very American-centric.

"Colony of China"

To qualify as a colony, you have to be occupied by the mother country right? Or else, Germany is an American colony and I have to tell my Irish friends that they are still a colony of Britain because we are a dominant ally and they have trade dependence,

It's as I said. You can make the case that Russia could be a mid-level player as pat of the Chinese sphere of influence. That is a fair point and it matters,s,

We are moving to a multi-polar world where America is not the sole hegemon. That is good and bad. No value judgments here, just objective reality.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

Not an occupation, although China (in that scenario) will possibly recover lands lost to Russia by treaties centuries ago.

"Colony" in the sense that they would be economically dependant on China and its foreign policy would mirror China's.

It's as I said. You can make the case that Russia could be a mid-level player as pat of the Chinese sphere of influence. That is a fair point and it matters

Yes, in that sense.

We are moving to a multi-polar world where America is not the sole hegemon. That is good and bad. No value judgments here, just objective reality.

The 20th century is often called "The American Century" on this side of the pond because we became not just a world power, but a superpower that took the lead in world affairs.

This is not to in any way denegrate the sacrifies of the British and French (and others) in the lead up to Pearl Harbor. But without U.S. involvement in World War II, history would have turned to a much darker page. I know you have some critical opinions of Winston Churchill, but without his steadfast leadership to keep Britain in the war I shudder to think of the consequences.

But, as you mentioned we are moving to a multi-polar world. But partly by choice.

The 21st century is seeing the rise of China, Russia turning backwards to dictatorship, state-sponsored terrorism on a level never before seen, the fear of global pandemics causing economic disruption, global warming and with potential wars over water and minerals.

International cooperation in the West will be essential to navigate these troubled waters. And, like it or nor, only the United States can provide the leadership that will be necessary to keep a coalition together to tackle them. Whether we want to is unfortunately a bigger question than whether we can.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero

Not an occupation, although China (in that scenario) will possibly recover lands lost to Russia by treaties centuries ago.

"Colony" in the sense that they would be economically dependent on China and its foreign policy would mirror China's.

Then the who;e of Latin America and Europe would be American colonies? They are not. They are of course subordinate allies but this is not the same thing. Though given that I have always said that America has an empire, I'm glad you have come around to my thinking! Russia also still has vast mineral resources to bring to the party with but clearly China has more power.

[The 20th century is often called "The American Century" on this side of the pond because we became not just a world power, but a superpower that took the lead in world affairs.

This is not to in any way denigrate the sacrifices of the British and French (and others) in the lead up to Pearl Harbor. But without U.S. involvement in World War II, history would have turned to a much darker page. I know you have some critical opinions of Winston Churchill, but without his steadfast leadership to keep Britain in the war I shudder to think of the consequences./quote]

Churchill was a great orator and a superb figurehead for a country under siege. There are statues of him here and his status is kind of similar to what Lincoln is in America. He's seen as a national hero. History has brushed over his role in the Bengal famine and the general strike. He also lost the 1945 election in a landslide because he was then against the formation of the NHS. As a commander, he also had some bad ideas. Gallipoli in WW1 and the invasion of Italy in WW2 are examples.

For sure, WW2 was won by the USA and the USSR.

[quote][But, as you mentioned we are moving to a multi-polar world. But partly by choice./quote]

It's not by choice but by necessity. The biggest factor is the internationalisation of technology, which makes the population count a lot more than history. The 21st century will be an Asian century. WW2 relegated Britain and France to mid-level powers but it just sped up a process that was already well underway. This is also similar to the relative decline of America. Though unlike Britain, the US has the population, economy and resources to remain a world power for the foreseeable future. It was the world's only superpower from 1989 until about ten years ago, Now it is being reluctantly forces to share the stage and that process will continue.

[quote]The 21st century is seeing the rise of China, Russia turning backwards to dictatorship, state-sponsored terrorism on a level never before seen, the fear of global pandemics causing economic disruption, global warming and with potential wars over water and minerals.

Agree.

International cooperation in the West will be essential to navigate these troubled waters. And, like it or nor, only the United States can provide the leadership that will be necessary to keep a coalition together to tackle them. Whether we want to is unfortunately a bigger question than whether we can.

Europe will remain within the US sphere of influence but we are seeing a gradual decline in American involvement in Europe. Trump's America First foreign policy is a reaction to American decline. However, this is not just about him.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

I agree that it is not just about Trump. But in many ways we're losing our belief in American Exceptionalism.

Our space program used to be the envy of all other nations.

Our navy helped maintain freedom of the seas.

The Peace Corps was welcomed around the world.

President Biden tries to invoke the idealism that enabled us to shape much of the later half of the 20th century when he frequently ends a speech with, "This is the United States of America. There's nothing we can't do if we do it together."

But too many of us have become "tribalized", damning the "other side" in everything without recognizing the common values. Some of that discontent was simmering beneath the surface even before Trump took office.

And it's not just on the right. Some on the left attacked President Bush, comparing him to Adolf Hitler (yeah, I know. Godwin's Law; couldn't be helped). It's the old story of "Crying Wolf" too often. Then along came Trump.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero

But in many ways we're losing our belief in American Exceptionalism.

It's a natural reaction to a relative loss of power. It's not really possible for America to be the world's sole hegemon anymore due to the rise of China and foreign policy failures (see Bush).

Trump will reduce funding for Ukraine and NATO if he gets in but will be a hawk on Israel and China.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

Trump can't be a hawk on China unless he increases the defense budget. And he'd rather have tax cuts for the uber wealthy.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero True, but he makes a lot of noise. Maybe not a hawk. A loud chicken.