<DrumBeat: August 19, 2008 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: August 20, 2008>

153 comments on Some thoughts on Georgia and other Russian actions

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

LoveOregon on August 19, 2008 - 5:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Though I agree with your general point, keep in mind that with their generally severe climate constraints, Russia's (Siberia's) vast forest resources are pretty much a one-time windfall. Regrowth rates are generally very slow.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
petersburger on August 19, 2008 - 10:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This is true, but less than 20% of Russia's population lives east of the Urals. The regrowth rates in the European part of the country are much faster due to warmer climate and more precipitation compared to Siberia. While on a visit to Russia a few years ago, I had a pleasure to pick wild chanterelles in a forest that only 15 years ago was a Soviet-style collective farm field, now fully overgrown with pine trees. BTW, in Russia forests are largely considered an important food source (mushrooms, berries, hazelnuts, etc. - see Dmitry Orlov), not necessarily a source of wood to be cut and burned. It will be a while before most Russians have to heat their houses with firewood again.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakPlus on August 21, 2008 - 6:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hey Pete,

I guess I really need to qualify on my appraisal of Russia.
You are most certainly right that Russia has plenty of mineral resources. I won't argue that the trains are a definite advantage.

Now let's look at Japan: Little to no resources (Back then coal and some steel) but success out the kazoo.

Russia's on top of the world and will never be able to change that. It will spend its oil wealth and wonder why it's poor again. It will mine its Uranium under the Siberian dessert and wonder why the US or Japan (ok, probably Europe) is the beneficiary. It will sell its phosphates and potash to those in better climates and buy back the expensive. It will be strong, it will be weak, depending on the long, long business cycle. It will certainly survive.

But will it be a vibrant, dynamic nation like most in Europe, the US and the Far East? For some reason I have my doubts.

I would also warn, that the shrinking population is hardly an advantage, whether world resources are failing or not.

Forests for foraging are different than socio-economic health. My actual statement should be: "Where would Russia be without it's oil and gas wealth?"

Cheers, Dom

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dissident on August 21, 2008 - 5:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What you describe is the economic regime of the 1990s and not today. Russia's GDP is driven mostly by domestic consumption and not raw materials exports. Residential construction in Russia is experiencing explosive growth as is retail. Fossil fuels, Uranium and other minerals are going to be increasingly consumed domestically.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
weatherman on August 21, 2008 - 5:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Russia's richness in resources is probably why the communist system survived so long. The land was so rich it could afford the inefficiency of the system. Without the revolution it could have been the World's preeminent economy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

153 comments on Some thoughts on Georgia and other Russian actions

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version