In 2007, Russia’s real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by approximately 8.1 percent, surpassing average growth rates in all other G8 countries, and marking the country’s seventh consecutive year of economic expansion. Russia’s economic growth over the past seven years has been driven primarily by energy exports, given the increase in Russian oil production and relatively high world oil prices during the period. Internally, Russia gets over half of its domestic energy needs from natural gas, up from around 49 percent in 1992. Since then, the share of energy use from coal and nuclear has stayed constant, while energy use from oil has decreased from 27 percent to around 19 percent.
As to the recently ended Russian military incursion Tom Engelhardt suggests, that, no, this isn't the beginning of a new Cold War (or even a continuation of the old one):
Right now, the Bush administration continues to have its hands militarily more than full just handling a low-level war in Iraq and a roiling one in the backlands of Afghanistan (and Pakistan). At the moment, it couldn't fight a "new Cold War" if it wanted to.
While Michael Klare observes that:
Putin prevailed this time around because he focused on geopolitical objectives, while his opponents were blindly driven by fantasy and ideology; so long as this pattern persists, he or his successors are likely to come out on top. Only if American leaders assume a more realistic approach to Russia's resurgent power or, alternatively, choose to collaborate with Moscow in the exploitation of Caspian energy, will the risk of further strategic setbacks in the region disappear.
On the Russian homefront, Alexander Golts, deputy editor of the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnalthe offers a critique picked up by the Moscow Times. Golts compliments the military but chastizes the politicians. (And also calls the incursion an "aggressive, neo-imperial foreign policy"
I must admit that for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's army fought well despite the fact that its main weaponry dates back to the early 1980s. What's more, the army fought with an extremely outdated communications system and without the use of drones, night-vision equipment or precision-guided weapons.
The conflict also demonstrated that the military top brass runs the armed forces the same way they did in the 1970s. Its archaic structure prevents the military from conducting joint operations between all the branches of the armed forces under a unified command structure. The result is that land- and air-based forces operate completely independent of each other. It is anyone's guess why Tu-22 strategic bombers were used for reconnaissance purposes or for the strafing of tactical ground targets. It is also unclear why the Air Force was unable to foil Georgian anti-aircraft systems using electronic countermeasures; as a result, Georgia was able to shoot down a few Russian aircraft. Moreover, military intelligence dropped the ball when it failed to provide timely reports of Georgian troop deployment.
...
But a successful military campaign ended up being a political catastrophe for Russia, which now finds itself completely isolated by the international community. The level of isolation is not unlike when the Soviet Union was ostracized in 1983 after its fighter jets shot down a South Korean airplane full of passengers. In answer to the condemnation that Russian has received from all sides, propagandists on state television ask: "Has Russian done anything wrong? Didn't NATO send troops into Yugoslavia without a mandate from the international community? And didn't the United States do the same thing in Iraq?"
The West has never been this united against Moscow's aggressive, neo-imperial foreign policy. But this has been building up for years, based largely on the inflammatory rhetoric of Russia's top leaders. ...
To put it bluntly, the Georgian campaign was a complete and total failure of Russian diplomacy. Moscow's current isolation is the inevitable result of having developed over the last few years its hard-nosed, provocative stance against the West.
Conclusions:
The Russian economy is growing faster than the economies of the other members of the G-8.
Russia is decreasing its energy use of oil.
Russia's top politician's understand geo-politics far better than the current US administration's ideologues.
Russia's weaponry is 20+ years old, it's military communication systems out of date, and it's military didn't use drones, night vision equipment, or "precision-guided weapons" (Russia is not in an arms race with the US. The US is in an arms race with itself.)
Russia's military command structure is out-dated and not integrated (good, so is ours).
Russia's air force was unable to use electronic counters to Georgian anti-air craft weapons (most likely supplied by the US).
Russian military intelligence is not so hot either.
At least one publication seems able to offer FAR more criticism of the Russian military and political situation than the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times etc., etc., ever offer of the US military and political counterparts.
Okay. All good. Iran, which spends 1% of what the US does on defense remains our biggest threat.
Nobody's military is out "to get us."
So I can sleep safe tonight.
Well, not while Cheney or McCain are or may be in the White House.
