Dave does for Russia what Simmons did for Saudi Arabia. An impressive piece of work!

In the case of SA, there seems to be the possibility of some of the major fields going into decline. Perhaps one of the major accomplishments of the SU will have been in delaying peak there thru failing to develop the economy to European, never mind US levels of oil consumption?

Russia may not be ready to go over a cliff in terms of geological ability to deliver. BUT, Russia is not SA. The Saudis are far more vulnerable to Western (US primarily) bullying, and therefore far more likely to deliver as much as they can.

This is in violent conflict with their self-interest which would be to throttle back production and allow price increases to compensate for reduced production.

Russia is in a far better position to protect its self-interest in this regard. The balance of incentives, in their case, IS to not be overly zealous in meeting world shortfalls. What do they gain? So in that sense, Russia too, for slightly different reasons, cannot in any way be thought of as way of postponing the day of reckoning.

Of course, if an addict becomes desperate enough, a very well defended source of the needed substance becomes a target in defiance of all ordinary calculations of risk v. gain.

Sing a happy tune.

Is another futile military campaign so much more preferable to reducing the "addiction"?  Whatever lies under the ground here or there is only going to delay the inevitable need to quit the habit.  Politicians and their puppet masters (not the electorate) are truely brain damaged if they think this way.  I would say that their actual IQ is lower than yeast.
Not so sure about the virtue of the SU in staving off Peak Oil.  In John Grace's book,  Russian Oil Supply - Performance and Prospects, he notes that in 1983 Soviet oil netted the country over $22 billion. In 1987 the industry's net income was -$4.8 billion on 11.4 million barrels per day of production. In 1993 it was -$4.1 billion on just 7 million barrels per day of production.  Translation: because the Soviet regime paid no attention to costs, it was subsidizing world oil consumption on every barrel it exported (not to mention the other 2/3 of Russian production, which was sold on the domestic market for much less than world price).  Grace also notes that the 1987-1988 peak was had by virtue of overly aggressive water flooding that ultimately will reduce the amount of oil extracted from these (predominantly West Siberian) fields.
> In 1987 the industry's net income was -$4.8 billion on 11.4 million barrels per day

This is a very relative estimate. Former Soviet Union suffer severe deficit of foreign currency. There was a fixed official rate of exchange of the russian ruble (less than a ruble per 1$ as far as I remember) which was just what it says - official and nothing more. On the black market the ratio was more like 5 : 1.

For the Soviet government it was a much better deal to subsidise the costs of their oil industry (which were mostly in rubles) but keep those hard currency flows going in. I know this sounds strange for people that lived in free market economies, but that was what socialism was like - lots of control and mad economic decisions.

Actually this is my reason to be cautios about any simple modelling of Russian production.

There's a non-obvious typo in my post.

"In the case of SA, there seems to be the possibility of some of the major fields going into decline."

I meant to say "into rapid decline".