And that tunnel actually has traffic. This one would have air in it, and not much else.

Not much else other than possibilities for petroleum and natural gas importation, goodwill between the dying superpower and its successor, and oh yeah, a possible hault to Russian arms sales to the PRC.

Americans still harbor such resentment towards the Russians, it boggles my mind.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

When was Russia ever a superpower? Do you mean to say that you believe the US will be supplanted as a superpower....by Russia? Whoa, Free.... you just jumped on the crazy train.

Riiiiight. And the Russians you encountered on this board are the finest bunch of Amerophiles you've met? Perhaps there isn't as much animosity toward Russians, per se, as you think. Maybe its just taht the one's who intimate that we, as a nation, will soon be destroyed by Russia* who illicit such hostile remarks? Wonder why that could be?



*A sentiment you seem to share for some reason, given the above post. Strange, I'd thought you more rational than that.

__________________
Mexico delenda est

I'm not saying it's going to happen overnight, but given the path that the US and EU are flirting with, it's a definite possbility. Russia's economy grows every fiscal year, they have a stable budget (which is something no major EU country or the US can say), the second and first largest petroleum and natural gas reserves in the world respectively, and they possess advanced military hardware just below the American technological threshold. Russia is our likely successor as the global hegemonic entity, assuming the nation-state system is retained.

It's not crazy to look at trends, utilize training (in my case political science, history, and economics), and reach a rational conclusion. US military power is quickly becoming a non-issue given the loss of political and economic capital. Likely within my lifetime I will see Russia standing toe-to-toe with the US in at least two of the three arenas of power (political and military, but lagging economically). Given Russia's dominance of the SCO, they will control Indian and Chinese labor markets and thus, have the opportunity to become a three-sphered power, and thus, a hegemonic state.

Think back one hundred years. Was the United States a superpower? Exactly.


The "Russians" encountered on this board either aren't Russians or represent the unwashed masses of St. Petersburg. I had regular contact with several Russian students while studying for my BA at UT, and most of them don't harbor resentment towards the United States, but certainly see faults within our system (and we have many). The two guys here to claim to be Russian nationalists don't understand Russian politics (few people really do) and make absurd claims of Chinese dominance of the new century. They're wrong, and possibly medicated, I'm not.


I don't believe Russia will ever destroy the United States, I think we're doing a great job on our own. Russia is simply in a position to benefit from our demise, and thus, I predict will be our successor. It is not irrational to look past patriotic sentiments and make valid policy predictions.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

OK, they have petro-wealth. How much of their growth is due to economic and technological innovation? Can we expect S. Arabia to assert similar hegemony in their region of the globe? Mexico?

Understood. I just don't know which trends you're looking at. Besides the assertions issued below, where are your data? No big deal if you don't have any; I never provide any either (do your own dam research!).


Dude, I keep tabs daily on our military and I see nothing to indicate that we're in martial decline. What is making you think we're becoming militarily weaker?

Well, we didn't yet have much use for a military, but the United States a hundred years ago already had far and away the most wealth of any nation in the world per capita and the highest GDP by far. In short, we may not have been able or willing to project it, but a hundred years ago the United States was already the most powerful country on the planet.


Hey, I wasn't getting into the veracity of their claims, just explaining why the American responses you complained about might have seemed so hostile. But it isn't as if you seem to care. Gads, you're the most anti-American libertarian (hey, that rhymes!!) I've ever encountered.

And it isn't rational to look at patriotic statements and simply dismiss them as anachronistic jingoism.

__________________
Mexico delenda est

Not much of their economy is based in technology, most of it is, as you pointed out, in petroleum (and heavy industry). If I were predicting a Russian superpower TOMORROW, that would be a valid criticism, but every superpower in world history has developed from a country of raw material exports to one of mixed industry and technology. Given a reasonable timeline for US decline and Russian growth, like say a century, it is not unfathomable that Russia could, and likely will develop greater technological production capabilities.


The girl is coming over to go for a run in a bit, but I'll provide the sources from a paper I wrote during undergrad when I get online this evening or tomorrow. I prove conclusively in my paper (which was 20 pages I think, nothing great, but it was undergrad) that the US would benefit in the long-term with increased cooperation with the Russian Federation. Essentially, their economy is growing at a healthy rate and not the inflationary rate of the PRC, but we'll do the numbers later, deal?



Our military isn't weaker, I didn't suggest that; we can kill anybody we choose. The use of force in the modern world is not the same as it was in the 1930's however, and political legitimacy plays a BIG role in engaging in wars now. Our country has lost almost all of our political capital and international political power because of our actions abroad, especially in the Mid East. Coupled with a weakened economy, this diminishes the international impact our military prowess can deliver.


I doubt either of us will be able to find figures (if you can, go for it), but the Empires of Europe prior to WWI had far more capital-garnering ability than we did, and by all historical accounts it appears that Great Britain ruled the roost up until the German arms race.

On the contrary, I want to see the United States survive and retain great power status (since hegemony is all but lost at this point, and a multi-polar world is all but assured), but given our moronic foreign policy and even stupider economic policies at home and abroad, I just don't see it happening. You mistake my recognition of genuine problems with anti-American sentiment.


No, it isn't, and I'm not doing that at all. To simply tout patriotism and ignore the very significant changes in the world since the twentieth century however IS irrational. Bourne especially is guilty of this, and appears as though you are suffering from a similar affliction. One must realize that in order to address a problem (and we have many) one must first IDENTIFY IT. To simply dismiss the very real possibility of Russian hegemony is nothing more than patriotic fervor and demonstrates a lack of any real thought on the matter and summary dismissal. If I suggested that Tajikistan was the next Rome, you would have reason to doubt, but the Russian Federation, whether or not we care to admit it, are a force to be reckoned with, now or later.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

*sigh* To be continued. I gotta get out of here. Have fun with your girl.

__________________
Mexico delenda est

I'm not sure what resnetment has do with it.

That seems to be a fairly inefficient way of trasporting oil. Why build a huge tunnel to fill with people and trucks when you can just build a much smaller pipeline instead? Besides, there isn't much of a market for oil in Alaska. Wouldn't they be better of tanking it to the east coast?

With NAFTA in place all Russian imports to Alaska via the tunnel could be transported freely south, alleviating much of the cost of transportation. Plus, it brings Russia and America closer towards friendship.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Russia's not part of NAFTA, therefore their imports would still be subject to tariffs, regardless of how they get here.