Shattered Union?

On Tuesday, Matt Drudge posted a transcript from an article in the Russian daily Izvestia, in which a professor named Igor Panarin predicted the imminent break-up of the United States of America. Drudge's transcript, presumably translated from the original Russian, reads as follows:

RUSSIAN ANALYST PREDICTS DECLINE AND BREAKUP OF USA
Tue Nov 25 2008 09:04:22 ET

A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."

The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.

When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."

When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."

Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.

Developing...

Panarin's predictions have the ring of someone who isn't all that familiar with United States history or ethnography. The Pacific coast states (California, Oregon, Washington) might secede because of their "Chinese population?" I doubt that. Chinese-Americans make up a relatively small percentage of the population and aren't particularly secession-minded anyway. The South "with its Hispanics?" Panarin seems unaware that as a geographical term, "the South" in this country means the southeast - the former Confederacy. While there are some Hispanic people living in the South, again I doubt they would be leading the charge to revive the legacy of Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. Lee. Perhaps Panarin is referring to the Southwest - New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada. Again, I'm not seeing a whole lot of secessionist sentiment among Hispanics there either.

Then, consider his reference to "Texas, where independence movements are on the rise." Believe me, I wouldn't be at all sad to see my home state of Texas to go back to being an independent republic as it was from 1836 to 1845. And it is true that while the blue tide of Obama HopeChange swept a substantial part of the country, Texas remained deep red. But I have not yet heard of any "independence movements" popping up. Perhaps he is mistaking heritage groups like the Sons of the Republic of Texas (SRT) and the Daughters of the Republic of Texas (DRT) for independence-minded organizations. As a member of the former, I can assure Professor Panarin they are not.

But Panarin may have a point when he talks about "the Atlantic Coast, with its distinct and separate mentality." If he is referring to the New England states, then I agree that they are becoming increasingly "distinct and separate." Aside from a common language (and some may even question that), I see little in common these days between Vermont and Texas.

I'm a bit confused as to his reference to the five "poorer central states" with large American Indian populations. Might he mean Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, among others? And then the "northern states" with strong Canadian influences? Again, Panarin could be more clear.

While I think that a complete economic meltdown - one that rivals or even exceeds the Great Depression of the 1930s - could possibly lead to a splintering of the United States, I doubt that such a dissolution would play out according to Panarin's scenario. He just doesn't know this country well enough to make an informed guess as to how such an event might develop.

And then there is the matter of our forty-ninth state, Alaska. Panarin says "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." The claim of Russia's 1867 cession of Alaska only being a lease is false, as can be seen by reading the text of the Alaska Purchase Treaty. As for the matter of reclaiming Alaska in the event of a dissolution of the United States. Professor Panarin might want to consider that Alaskans are just as defensive of their property and rights as are Texans. Like Texans, Alaskans are not a bunch of effete nancy-boys who would faint at the sight of a gun or at the thought that turkeys might actually be killed for Thanksgiving dinner.

Rather, Panarin might expect the type of reaction that Kaiser Wilhelm II of the German Empire received when conversing with a Swiss militiaman about a century ago. According to the story, Wilhelm II was in Switzerland as a guest on a state visit, while observing Swiss military maneuvers. Impressed by the marksmanship of one Swiss militiaman, Wilhelm II asked him "You are five-hundred thousand strong and you shoot well, but if we attack with one million men what will you do?" The militiaman replied: "We will shoot twice and then go home."