Thursday, September 18, 2008

From Russia With Children

Good news from Russia: it looks like the nation’s rate of demographic decline is definitively slowing. Russia still faces a significant population loss over the next few decades, but it will not be as severe as it would have been if the fertility rate of a few years ago had continued.

According to Russia Today, there’s somewhat of a baby boom in progress now:

Biggest baby boom since Soviet times

Only a year ago, Russia’s demographic crisis was in the spotlight. The country was depopulating at a rate of 700,000 a year. It drove the government to declare 2008 the year of the family and to come up with policies to boost the birth rate. And results show they seem to be working.

The number of babies born last year jumped to about two million — up 8.3 per cent from the year before and a post-Soviet record.

At 141.9 million, Russia’s population is the world’s eighth biggest. But that won’t last long. Projections show it will have one of highest rates of population decline between now and 2050, according to the Population Reference Bureau and Russia’s State Statistics Service.

The number of babies born last year jumped to about 1.6 million — up 20 per cent on last year and a post-Soviet record.

Another piece of good news is that the rate of decline is slowing. Russia is now expected to have 110.1 million people in 2050, up from the 109.4 million projected last year.
- - - - - - - - -
New government programmes support first-time mothers as well as working mums willing to have more kids after a certain age.

Leading gynecologist Mark Kurtser says: “There is definitely an age shift within women giving birth today. There are many more second, third and fourth births, and, accordingly, the women giving birth are older”.

Elena Kondratinskaya is a violinist and plays in an orchestra. She had her first baby at the age of 30 and is now discovering the pros and cons of having a child with government support and encouragement.

“The doctor was really nice, so were the hospital staff. It was clean and you could get professional help or advice at any time of the day. The new baby boom in Russia has brought in a change of attitude,” Kondratinskaya says.

I’ll be interested to see the statistics on the incidence of alcoholism. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were an inverse correlation with the birth rate.

This is good news, and not just for Russia. A strong Russia with a wealth of stable and growing families, especially when accompanied by the renewal of the Orthodox Church, is a boon for the entire West. The imminent depopulation and impoverishment of the country was in nobody’s interests.

Except possibly the Chinese, of course.


Hat tip: LF.

25 comments:

Western Initiatives said...

Thanks for posting this--you made my day! This is welcome news. Somehow I think the prospect of more Russians is bound to frustrate the plans of the American/Israeli Neocons in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

White nations in Europe and North America should consider similar proposals to combat population decline. It CAN be done.

Inkling said...

I beg to differ.

As long as Putin and his sort are setting Russian policy and determining the climate of its national life, this is emphatically not good news. It's yet another indication that Russia is now following the same path of intense nationalism that led to the last European war. Germany experienced a similar bump in its birthrate just after Hitler took power in Germany and that bump was also due to intense pronatalist policies.

Indeed, I suspect that if someone took the speeches Hitler was making in the mid-1930s and those Putin is making today and removed all references to specific places and events, no one would be able to distinguish between the two. Hitler wanted Lebensraum (living space) in the east. Putin wants his to the south. Hitler looked for excuses to grab land and exploited weakness in the Western allies, Putin does the same.

Here's something disturbing to ponder. While Nazi is a shortened form of National Socialism, Hitler's emphasis was heavily on nationalism rather than socialism. That may explain why Germany turned so quickly to aggression. Rabid nationalism and 'more land' are closely linked in the human psyche.

In contrast, while Stalin could, in a pinch, turn to nationalistic rhetoric, his core ideology was rabidly socialist. The result was extremely bad for the Soviet people. Stalin slaughtered far more of his own people than Hitler killed foreigners. But, despite all the fears we felt during the Cold War, the Soviet Union proved highly risk aversive. It grabbed up Eastern Europe while allied with Hitler at the start of the war and in the aftermath of WWII, in which it fought as our ally. Its only other direct aggression came in Afghanistan under Carter, by far our weakest Cold War President. Socialism/Marxism, because it looked inward and at the economy, avoided military aggressions on foreign soil. It also had an ideology that said its ideas should spread by revolution rather than conquest.

In short, rabid socialism, in its very essence, looks inward toward a socialist nation's economy. It will murder in the millions in an effort to grow that economy. But it isn't inclined to grow outward to merely acquire more land. With an intensely nationalist Russia, that pattern is reversed. Russia seems little concerned that its current prosperity is being built on exploiting its energy resources. It is very concerned about expanding outside its current borders to the south and in the Arctic.

Remember, n 1933 the increased German birthrate was a warning to Europe that the nation was bent on conquest. I suspect the same is true of Russia today, particularly when a contrast is draw with the dismal and unchangingly low birthrates of Western Europe.


--Michael W. Perry, Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II.

Western Initiatives said...

Wrong.

A strong Russia is a necessary counterweight not only to a nascent China, but also to the socialist EU, NATO, and US regimes. Russia presents a real challenge to American Neocon hegemony in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

A revitalised Russia can act as a bulwark against radical Islam, as she has done for centuries.

A healthy Russia can also serve as a beacon or inspiration to oppressed white populations around the world. White population decline is not a given, it is not an irreversible 'force of nature.' It CAN be revered. Western populations CAN grow again, given the right sort of government that is on their side.

The Russian government actually seems to be on the same side as the Russian people. What an odd concept!

Unlike decadent Westerners in the declining countries in Europe and North America, the Russians don't want to die.

Conservative Swede said...

Very nice post, Baron.

Regarding our other discussion on this topic: it got interrupted since I have been travelling, and then the discussion thread scrolled out of focus. And maybe now with this post of yours, much of that discussion has become inoperative anyway. But nevertheless, when I find some time, for the record I will send you and email to unwind some of the things said in that discussion, and sort it out. We didn't quite understand each other in every step of that discussion, as it were.

And what you tell us here is not only a boon to the West. The fact that Westerners in general see Russia as the "other", and/or the enemy, turns the whole thing into a challange (and possibly a competition). But the point is that this would work equally well, or even better.

However, to the degree that Westerners are smug, arrogantly delusional and at the same time despise Russians, it will have no effect. And of course this is exactly where the West is today. However, we also know that this will have to change, or we will perish.

Anyhow, for anyone who has woken up and smelled the coffee of the predicament of the West, the current development in Russia (if it continues) is a blessing, regardless of whether one is pro-Russia or anti-Russia. It's a useful argument (and inspiration) either way.

Conservative Swede said...

And here's another interesting news item from Russia Today: Ukrainian PM lashes out at President (also video!).

I have always talked about how pivotal world events redraws the mental landscape in countries around the world. Here the Georgia/Ossetia war has triggered mental reshuffling in Ukraine. The people of Ukraine have woken up from their dream of the West as forever expanding "freedom" and seen the true side of it. And are now turning towards Russia. The prime minister Yulia Timoshenko (make sure to follow the like to take a look at this very pretty woman), embodies this change in one person. She was part of the Orange revolution, but has now turned against Yushchenko. She says about him: "Since 2004, this president has managed to destroy everything: people's faith in the ideals of the revolution and faith in the president himself - only five percent still support him"

The alleged dioxin poisoning of Yushchenko is being highly questioned in Ukraine today. I quote from the article: "Timoshenko was called to give evidence to investigators in connection with the poisoning of the president in the run-up to the 2004 parliamentary elections. Last week Timoshenko controversially suggested that the poisoning was not a proven fact. The president's opponents have made claims that it was a simple food poisoning."

And here: "the latest poll showed that 41.2 per cent of Ukrainian population don’t believe that their president was poisoned."

And in June 2008, David Zhvania, a former political ally of Yushchenko and an ex-minister in the cabinet of Yulia Tymoshenko, claimed in an interview with BBC that Yushchenko had not been poisoned in 2004 and that laboratory results in the case had been falsified.

It will be interesting to follow this. I cannot know whether Yushchenko was poisoned of not. But one thing is clear: if John Kerry would have staged a poisoning, and turned up in the 2004 election campaign with a splodgy face, no one could have been made to believe that George Bush was behind it. It would just have appeared ridiculous. But there is no limit to what evils that the Westerners are prepared to believe that the Russians are prepared to do. So indeed it would have made sense to stage such a thing. And the Soros Octupus, and the Ralph Peters type warmongers and haters, have no scruples and are absolutely ruthless in their methods.

Conservative Swede said...

Inkling wrote:
It's yet another indication that Russia is now following the same path of intense nationalism that led to the last European war.

This attitude is at the very core of what causes Western suicide. This is the main doctrine that commands Western suicide.

Germany experienced a similar bump in its birthrate just after Hitler took power in Germany and that bump was also due to intense pronatalist policies.

This adds to my description of the superstition I described above. It also underlines what I said before of how hate of Russians and hate of Germans go hand in hand in the current paradigm (Where the hate against the Germans is the most intense and deranged. The Germans are even worse off than the Jews in this respect, which does not say little.)

If Germany would ever substantially increase their birthrate, many proponents of the 20th century world order would call for an invasion of Germany.

But of course, as long as there are American soldiers stationed in Germany there will never be any significant raise in their birthrate. And trivially, no calls for invasion.

Joanne said...

Wow, take your blinders off please. No wonder this world is in such dire straits - it is filled with wingnuts.

Joanne said...

...or should I have said moonbats....either way, the world is full of both and neither make much sense.

no2liberals said...

And I know the difference between a teddy bear, and a hungry bear.
The latter is a threat to all.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

1. Russia Today is a propaganda organ and not to be trusted. Double check everything stated by any Russian official or media body.

2. Did they explain the nationality of the babies? While Russian demographics have been in a nosedive, this has only been in ethnic Russia areas + Chechenya. Every single non-Russian republic save Chechenya in the Russian Federation has recorded population growths in the last few years, even as the total population of the federation has fallen. This is why Paul Goble has predicted Muslim majorities in Russia by mid century.

3. Russia has never been pro-western. They look at civilized countries with the eyes of barbarians - envious, covetous but ultimately paranoid.

CzC said...

3. Russia has never been pro-western. They look at civilized countries with the eyes of barbarians - envious, covetous but ultimately paranoid.
--------
Look at it this way. The West has fought Russia before. People still remember that. A resurgent Russia might just wake up the West and cause the West to rethink a few attitudes. A different attitude towards Russia could lead to an eye opening attitude towards Islam. A little less tip-toeing around the subject. Open public debate.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Inkling, nationalism did not lead to World War II. Fascism, particular in its German form of Nazism, did. Second to Nazism was Bolchevism in Russia, and only third Italian Fascism. Get a grip on history, please.

Actually, the lack of nationalism in today's Europe is leading to a dismantling of democracy that is very unhealthy. Once we realize how little we are in control of our own countries, the risk of civil war will become a very real danger over the next decade. A healthy nation-state, with a government protecting its citizens and overseeing the interests of the nation, is the best protection against war there is. EU, as evidenced by it's contributions to the destruction of Yugoslavia, is worthless for that.

It is indeed good tidings from Russia - and on top, it is a clear sign why the Putin regime is as popular as it indisputably is: It faces up to the problems.

Really, it's simple. Faced with a demographic decline and the risk of a future collapse of the Russian nation, the government did the Right Thing - take concrete efforts to make circumstances better for families with children, and make it fashionable to have babies. It works, and that is good. For Russia.

We have to deal with our own problems, not shift the responsibility or the blame elsewhere. When was the last time we saw a West European government come up with anything like that? They leave it to the Eurocrats to deal with the problem. The Eurocrats, as is their habit, turns out a ton of reports on the problem, but does nothing to cure it.

Western Initiatives said...

Just a couple of points:

(1) The population boom in Russia is caused by Russian women (not foreigners, not Muslims) having more babies. And that is a good thing. In the West, populations are declining, causing governments to import inassimilable third world populations, as colonists.

(2) WWII was caused by the rise of Bolshevism in Russia and the East.

(3) The "proponents of the 20th century world order" are the same ones calling for the occupation of Georgia, the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Iran, etc. They have a special hatred for Germans and, as we have seen, the Russians as well. they are threatened by the prospect of white Christians acting in concert. White women having babies scares the hell out of them. In fact, they are behind the mass non-white immigration and multicultural schemes throughout the West in the 20th century, the disastrous effects of which are being played out now. In other words, the same old suspects. Look for the anti-Russian rhetoric to increase, from these people.

Vasarahammer said...

"But there is no limit to what evils that the Westerners are prepared to believe that the Russians are prepared to do."

I CS is going a bit too far in his wildly speculative conspiracy theory.

I suppose it was the British government that faked the evidence, when Litvinenko was poisoned with radioactive Polonium. The Westerners tend to believe bad things about Russia because of what Russian goverment does and how it behaves, not because of evil Neocons or George Soros.

CS is desperately trying to make Russians look good and rational despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I don't know about his motives but I believe he sees Russia as some kind of potential ally in the war against global Jihad.

Paranoid conspiracy theories and wild rumors were part of the Soviet reality because the media was filled with nothing but lies and propaganda. This mentality still exists in various parts of the old Soviet Union.

Henrik R Clausen said...

I don't know about his motives but I believe he sees Russia as some kind of potential ally in the war against global Jihad.

So do I.

As for siding up with undemocratic regimes, working with the Putin one seems much less dangerous than standing with Libya, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan and our other 'staunch allies' in the War on Terror. Russia is a Christian nation and much more likely to be trustworthy than, say, Mr. 10 Percent currently in charge in Pakistan.

It was, after all, Russia who proposed that we construct the missile shield in Azerbaidjan, that it would be in a good position to counter any possible Iranian missile launches.

As all our Western leaders know, the Iranian missiles are not intended to be a threat, Iranian Uranium enrichment is for peaceful purposes only, and Iranian anti-Semitism is not of the violent kind that Nazi Germany propagated. Right?

Wrong, of course. But our politicians are, as usual, unable or unwilling to identify our real enemy, and to make the alliances we need in the current situation. Then better evoke some Cold War ghosts, point at the autocratic Putin regime, and pretend it is a problem for the West. Now, I have one question to ask:

How many Russian organisations, official or undercover, are active in the West, undermining democracy?

How many Islamist ones?

We need Russia, autocratic or not, as a solid ally against the worse evil.

Conservative Swede said...

Vasarahammer,

I CS is going a bit too far in his wildly speculative conspiracy theory.

Excuse me, sir. I think you might not know what a "conspiracy theory" is. What is the conspiracy theory that I supposedly have presented?

Your post is based on the idea that I would have presented a conspiracy theory, but I have not presented a conspiracy theory, so your post is based on thin air.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

WI => The population boom in Russia is caused by Russian women ...

Really? What is your source?

According to the 2002 census (wikipedia. I know, but I'm not going to wade through Russian government stats), arranged in order of fertility. See the slavic peoples all at the non-replacement end? And various Caucasus islamoids at the breeding end? There is no reason to believe this approportionment has actually changed. Every single autonomous nationality in Russia is breeding at above replacement, except the Russians/Russian speakers.

Ethnic Group Med Age Children/woman (age 15+) Children/woman(age 35+) Predominant religion of Ethnic Group
Jewish 57.5 1.264 1.371 Judaism
Russian 37.6 1.446 1.828 Christianity
Belarusian 48.0 1.765 1.941 Christianity
Ukrainian 45.9 1.726 1.946 Christianity
Karelian 45.7 1.823 2.108 Christianity
Tatar 37.7 1.711 2.204 Islam
Armenian 32.8 1.68 2.225 Christianity
Ossetian 34.1 1.665 2.267 Christianity
Mordvin 44.4 1.986 2.303 Christianity
Komi 38.8 1.869 2.363 Christianity
Adyghe 34.2 1.757 2.363 Islam
Udmurt 40.0 1.93 2.378 Christianity
Chuvash 38.6 1.884 2.379 Christianity
German 39.7 1.864 2.443 Christianity
Mari 36.7 1.917 2.493 Christianity
Permyak 40.8 2.145 2.604 Christianity
Cherkess 31.2 1.807 2.607 Islam
Kazakh 30.7 1.872 2.609 Islam
Azerbaijani 29.5 1.83 2.619 Islam
Balkar 30.1 1.689 2.624 Islam
Kalmyk 31.3 1.853 2.625 Buddhism
Kabardin 28.2 1.799 2.654 Islam
Bashkir 34.2 1.969 2.658 Islam
Karachay 29.5 1.86 2.836 Islam
Yakut 26.9 1.972 2.843 Christianity
Buryat 28.6 1.949 2.861 Buddhism
Altay 27.5 2.021 2.933 Christianity
Kazakh/Kyrgyz 30.2 2.015 2.964 Islam
Kumyk 24.6 1.977 3.123 Islam
Lezgian 25.4 2.045 3.275 Islam
Avar 24.6 2.09 3.319 Islam
Tuvan 23.0 1.996 3.407 Buddhism
Chechen 22.8 2.163 3.456 Islam
Dargwa 24.6 2.162 3.476 Islam
Ingush 22.7 2.325 4.05 Islam

Russia is not Rohan, and a fool's hope for help with Islam. Better learn to accomodate China and cultivate India.

Henrik R Clausen said...

FP, those figures are a full six years old. Worthless for assessing the situation today.

Also in Denmark, significant change for the better is taking place, where the fertility difference (assuming the statistics are trustworthy) between native Danes and immigrants is close to evaporating.

My best guess is that the falling birthrate among immigrants to Denmark is due to our "24-year rule", which was originally designed to curb child bride import. This rule should be adopted in all countries having immigration-related problems.

Quijybo said...

None of this includes conversion. While Muslims tend to ballyhoo converts, people who leave Islam do so quietly. In addition converts TO Islam tend to leave whereas converts from Islam are unlikely to return, by the simple logic that totalitarianism is less appealing than freedom, at least to those who have to actually live it. There is a lot of information about this tendency online, and the terrible image Islam has gained of late cannot help draw converts. This is a factor that will mitigate the demographic conquest, but how much is not clear, and of course this applies more to Western Europe and the US rather than Russia where Muslims are indigenous. Emigrants from Muslim nations must include a certain proportion of people who are sick of Islam who leave immediately.

Conservative Swede said...

Vasarahammer didn't get back to answer, so I will have to clarify what this is about without him.

For not accepting from the mere accusation in media, that the deliberate poisoning of Yushchenko is an established fact, and that "the Russians" are guilty, I get labeled a "conspiracy theorist" by Vasarahammer.

This reminds me of the new law in Norway were you are guilty of racism by the power of the mere accusation, and that you remain guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

So sound skepticism about what really happened gets labeled "conspiracy theory". But it's the idea that Yushchenko got deliberately poisoned by dioxin that is a theory (the prime minister claims that the poisoning is not a proven fact, a former ally of Yushchenko claims it was a fake, the people of Ukraine are skeptical, etc.). And surely, if there were actually Russians who poisoned Yushchenko with dioxin, that would be exactly a conspiracy(!).

So you are the one clinging to a conspiracy theory, dear Vasarahammer. It's truly the "inverted world" when skepticism about this gets labeled "wildly speculative conspiracy theory". Instead of looking at facts, people get impressed by the "inverted world" of the Western media and how they describe things. They think that if 99% of the people around them parrot the same thing, that it is an established fact, and that any questioning of it is a "conspiracy theory" (almost everything that are written here at GoV are "conspiracy theories" from this perspective). Why don't people ever learn? Almost everything in Western media is twisted, distorted and faked, while the truth is blacked out. It's the world of inverted values and inverted truths.

When there is a consensus about something in the Western media and among all sorts of activists (such as the ones "spreading" "democracy" and "freedom" in Eastern Europe), this is in itself a reason to be skeptical about it.

In this particular case there is a lot of skepticism about it in Ukraine. And the whole thing is still just a conspiracy theory.

There are a number of possibilities:

1) Yushchenko was deliberately poisoned. a) by "the Russians", or b) by other people.

2) Yushchenko was accidentally food poisoned, and then used this to put up a theater to booster his campaign.

3) Yushchenko intentionally poisoned himself (in a controlled way) in order to create his splodgy face.

4) Yushchenko was not poisoned at all, and the splogdy face came from something else.

I truly cannot know which it is, but I notice the widespread skepticism in Ukraine about this, which is spread both high and low.

I also cannot help noticing that anyone who went for a poisoning that didn't result in killing the victim, but just made his face splodgy, must have been a real dumba$$. Who would pick a poison that was that ineffective, but turned out to become Yushchenko's greatest rhetorical asset in his campaign? There is of course people that are this incompetent (I suppose even among the poisoner's guild), but the whole thing is just a little too good to be true, isn't it?

Not only this time, but almost every time Russia is discussed, I get these deja vu's of five years ago when I discussed America with people around me (the time of the Iraq invasion). It's exactly the same pattern.

One example: In the middle of a discussion I said that unlike the 1970 coup attempt in Chile it's not established that CIA was involved in the 1973 coup. For this sober skepticism and respect for facts, I got showered with angry comments about what a fanatical pro-American I am, etc. The problem for people of this inclination is that the involvement of CIA in the 1973 Chile coup holds such a pivotal place in their mythology.

It's the same about the poisoning of Yushchenko. So many Westerners see to whole issue of Russia and its nature through this prism. And that's why I get these very emotional reactions when I question it.

Since the theory about Yushchenko's poisoning is so highly disputable, let's not see everything about Russia through this prism, shall we? To let something on such loose grounds leave such a definitive impression is highly unwise.

That much can be said without knowing what really what happened. But unlike the people who think that the whole case was settled the very moment the accusation was made, I will follow the ongoing investigations in Ukraine with interest.

Conservative Swede said...

I wrote:

I also cannot help noticing that anyone who went for a poisoning that didn't result in killing the victim, but just made his face splodgy, must have been a real dumba$$. Who would pick a poison that was that ineffective, but turned out to become Yushchenko's greatest rhetorical asset in his campaign? There is of course people that are this incompetent (I suppose even among the poisoner's guild), but the whole thing is just a little too good to be true, isn't it?

I.e. in order to believe in the widespread theory about the poisoning of Yushchenko, one also has to believe that the poisoner made the following mistakes at the same time:

1) to underdimension the dose

2) to pick a sort of poison that if the dose was underdimensioned would lead to a splodgy face, a smoking gun walking on two legs -- something to be exploited in Yushchenko's campaign to his great advantage.

Two very fatal mistakes to make in combination, indeed. Unbelievably stupid.

One would have to believe that the people involved in this conspiracy were not only evil, but highly incompetent (putting it bluntly: stupid!).

I cannot help but thinking in terms of the likelihood of the splodgy face having been created by someone, who had in his interest to create a splodgy face.

no2liberals said...

Khrushchev's Shoe Returns to Russian Diplomacy.

"In short, the Russian aggression makes it imperative to strengthen our alliances wherever possible. The new Administration will be challenged early to demonstrate purpose, resolve and vision in the face of Russian challenges-not only in Georgia-but in Venezuela and Nicaragua as well. The first aggression is never the last."
It never is with Russia.

Unfrench said...

So what? Russia has a lot of Muslims, whose demography is vibrant. Higher TFRs are certainly a consequence of increasing Muslim numbers, rather than of native Russian women aborting less children. Same is true in France and Sweden.

Anonymous said...

There is a paper study about the demographyc problems of Russia that point to the fact that the same happened when the blacks were freed after the Civil War.
High alchoolism, high death rate, etc.
This is because the people were not able to cope correctly with the challenge of a free life. They were supposed to be guided, controlled, herded around from supervisors.
They never developed good self-control, planning skills. So Darwin take its toll on them.
After this they recovered.

Vasarahammer said...

"Vasarahammer didn't get back to answer, so I will have to clarify what this is about without him."

Actually, I did answer to your post, but it seems it has disappeared to a hellhole called internet. I try to answer to your points the best I can remember.

"deliberate poisoning of Yushchenko is an established fact,"

I have never claimed that Russians poisoned Yushchenko. However, somebody did something to his face and it surely wasn't himself.

The Ukraine is a split country with the western half yearning to get closer to the West and the eastern part more closely oriented towards Russia. Finlandization is a tempting alternative to the Ukraine, if you compare the 'finlandized' price of gas to the price for a NATO member. Ms. Timoschenko is a rival to Mr. Yushchenko and does her best to discredit him, which is a normal part of political process.

If Ukraine became a member in the EU and NATO, this would ignite internal strife with or without any Russian provocation. However, there would most certainly be Russian involvement, make no mistake about it.


"So you are the one clinging to a conspiracy theory, dear Vasarahammer."

What I'm really critical of is your insistence that any desire to join the West by Ukrainians is necessarily a result of evil intervention by neocons and/or George Soros.

And there is a clear difference between positions of you and Henrik compared to the Eastern European posters here (like Bela). Both Henrik and you are more likely to embrace Russia than the Eastern Europeans (including me).

You and Henrik tend to believe that allying with Russia in the war against Jihad is essentially beneficial. Me and the small Eastern European contingent tend to disagree. Allying with Russia has a price, which you and Henrik would probably be ready to pay. The price is the finlandization of Russian "near abroad" and, for Western Europe, increased dependency on Russian energy.

And to be honest Western Europe would be more than willing to give Russia what it wants if the US only agreed.