Russian analyst predicts breakup of US

Russian Analyst calls a breakup of the US

Quote:

---

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.

---

While I think the aformentioned analyst took Shattered Union seriously, I would like to hear what the non-Americans think of the strength of the US system, not STFS leading us into secession.

its possible, but not happening anytime soon....
id say not in at least a few more decades.

I don't see this happening in my lifetime. After that, who knows. Lot's of things can happen in theory.

I rather suspect he's letting wishful thinking cloud his judgement. I don't think that Russia is going to be as influential as he suggests either - it has "only" 150 million people versus China's 1.2 billion. Oil and gas will cause their influence to peak in the coming decades only to come crashing down when the world is forced into rehab.

This man does not have a very good grasp on American demographics.

IMO Russia is far more likely to fragment, as is the EU, not to mention loads of countries in Africa.

A cheap swipe at the USA.

~:smoking:

This may be a hoax

Quote:

---

He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all."

---

.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

IMO Russia is far more likely to fragment, as is the EU, not to mention loads of countries in Africa.

A cheap swipe at the USA.

~:smoking:

---

:yes:

It sounds like wishful thinking on his part. Either that or some one slipped something into his vodka!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

This man does not have a very good grasp on American demographics.

---

That's quite an understatement.

I think his past experience with the breakup of the Soviet Union clouds his judgement by predisposing himself to a certain path of events. The reality is that 80% of Americans are too lazy to rise up in Revolution anyways.:smash:

It won't happen. The States already are quite reliant on the Federal Government (Whether you support this or not you have to admit it is true) for many, many things and as such to leave the Union would be suicide.

“…large Native American populations…” what year did he write this?
:indian_brave: "If there are only 2 of us left why do you get to ware the war bonnet?"
:indian_chief: "Just shut up Russell, and lets go get some fire-water and white girls at the casino"
:indian_brave: “dude, I told you to call me fighting buffalo, the chicks dig it”
Seriously though, there are less than 2 million Native Americans left in the US.

To break-up there would have to be a motive, and I just don’t see one. Plus it would have to be easy because Americans are more concerned with their own individual lives rather than the idea of creating a new country, heck we can barely motivate a few dozen people to break away from their personal Saturday evening plans to come to a BBQ. Organize a separatist movement – HA!


It would make for a great game though! Pirates along the Mississippi, military warlords, forced labor camps, dirty deals with foreign allies, etc. USA: Total War

normally i wouldn't blat the screen with condescending smileys, but seeing it isn't directed at an orgah:

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

and even funnier:

Quote:

---

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."

---

that guy is off his ****!

Quote:

---

and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

---

Those sneaky canadians! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Seriously though, there are less than 2 million Native Americans left in the US.

---

Which may be more than there were in 1600. Haven't read good estimates lately.

:wacko:

Sounds like another mind clouded by nationalism. Also what did he mean by 'Canadian influence' on the northern states?

Umm......yeah........what is he on?

Seriously, the Chinese will rise and bring communism to California? :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Which may be more than there were in 1600. Haven't read good estimates lately.

---

Between 30 and 50 million are the best estimates I have seen. But the trouble is that once the white man decided to count them there weren’t many left and they were not the best bookkeepers. :bow:

Meh. Let's just say that the so-called "analyst" is wrong. He measures the U.S. using Russian standards and assesses our situation with Russian mentality. The guy is just too focused on ethnic divisions that are very pronounced in Russia, but virtually non-existent in the States. We're all Americans here, regardless of our roots.

He's probably right, obviously Americans live in denial of what's to come...:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

We're all Americans here, regardless of our roots.

---

You've never been in a southern village, have you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It sounds like wishful thinking on his part. Either that or some one slipped something into his vodka!

---

Russians with snazzy titles do not drink vodka, but tea, chardonnay and champagne... when people are looking.

While I doubt the US is going to shatter into a collection of regional states any time soon, I can see some of those things happening.

Really guys, have you never read papers like this? He's getting attention and he's doing a good job. Basically what I'm trying to say is:

You got trolled, kinda.

I don't think the U.S. can ever really fracture, we have to strong of a national idenity, even with all our differences. Now if your talking about a longterm economic slump and a gruadal decline on the world stage, thats much more likely; but, nothing is locked in yet and the next couple of decades will be key in deciding what role we'll play in the hundred years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

You've never been in a southern village, have you?

---

Sure. Rural Kentucky is southern enough, no? Been there. Have you?

Well. It looks like my fellow Minnesotans and I will have to return to our Viking heritage and go raiding and a-plundering. I've already got my shield and longspear, now I just need to find one of those silly helmets.... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

:wacko:

Sounds like another mind clouded by nationalism. Also what did he mean by 'Canadian influence' on the northern states?

---

I can only guess he's referring to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as we generally get along quite well with our Canadian friends. That said, I wouldn't want to lay odds on the likelihood of our northern neighbors pulling a Borg and actually assimilating us; that'd be a bit far-fetched.

i was thinking as i finished reading the book Rubicon: if you look at the fall of the Roman republic and empire, you can kinda see the same things that caused it to fall happening now. does any one find examples of such? all i can think of is corruption, forming of political alliances that do more harm than good, not listening to their constituency, ect. i may even do my research paper on it.
thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i was thinking as i finished reading the book Rubicon: if you look at the fall of the Roman republic and empire, you can kinda see the same things that caused it to fall happening now. does any one find examples of such? all i can think of is corruption, forming of political alliances that do more harm than good, not listening to their constituency, ect. i may even do my research paper on it.
thoughts?

---

I had a lecture on it the other day and basically our lecturer (An American himself) mercilessly mocked everyone who has published on this sort of thing. So my advice is: Don't.

my english teacher says its a good idea.... :idea:

Obviously that essay is much more complex than the text about it. The text is pretty vague and only mentions few of the conclusions of the author and not how he got to them.

I'd say it's impossible to predict what's going to happen, but I think that 21st century in general will not be kind to US. US is slowly going lose more and more control of worlds oil and other resources, dollar is going cease to be worlds universal currency, there is already huge debt and growing trade deficit etc... Breakup of the US is not impossible but pretty unlikely. If it does happen, it will happen first and foremost because of economy, ethnic and national divisions will play a secondary role. Of course, in that case, a lot will depend on foreign influences, will they be helpful or harmful...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

my english teacher says its a good idea.... :idea:

---

I'd value the opinion of an Ancient History Lecturer over an English Teacher in this matter.

The US isn't going to be invaded by hordes of screaming barbarians any time soon. Unless global warming displaces the dutch.

I kind of liked Shattered Union.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Sure. Rural Kentucky is southern enough, no? Been there. Have you?

---

It tends to degenerate to skin color the further down you go. It's not as shiny and happy as you are asserting.

Looks like a spoof article to me

Also I wouldn't see the US as a union of separate states. It is just a federal nation. It has survived for so long and it is so uniformly heterogenous that there aren't any serious nationalistic tensions between the states (unlike the USSR)

I like the Pacific coast breaking apart due to high Chinese population. I also think Fallout 2 is a great game and obviously the author liked it too :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Also I wouldn't see the US as a union of separate states. It is just a federal nation. It has survived for so long and it is so uniformly heterogenous that there aren't any serious nationalistic tensions between the states (unlike the USSR)

---

You obviously haven't been to Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You obviously haven't been to Texas.

---

Or Alaska

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Or Alaska

---

Or Vermont

Or Puerto Ri....nvm.

Many states still have their own identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

It tends to degenerate to skin color the further down you go. It's not as shiny and happy as you are asserting.

---

Really? Enlighten me on how these backwards people operate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The US isn't going to be invaded by hordes of screaming barbarians any time soon. Unless global warming displaces the dutch.

---

The Dutch have already begun their invasion! They are building these massive weapons of destruction all over the western coast of Michigan. :scared:

EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture of a windmill. BG

Absolute rubbish, in my opinion. Probably his desire more than his grasp on reality. As Rory said, Russia itself is in a far more precarious position.

Sounds like old school soviet wishful thinking. Realize that this "Information Intelligence Warrior Talking Head" is proselytizing to a less than worldly and delusional audience of Russian citizens. As Americans we certainly have had plenty of recent experience with those in our own society. Since when have the Russians ever had a clue as to how the rest of the world operates and thinks? However, he's not alone. Here's a link to :The Nine Nations of North America is a book written in 1981 by Joel Garreau.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...4/9nations.png

• New England (also called New Britain or Atlantica) — an expanded version including not only Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut (although omitting the Connecticut suburbs of New York City), but also the Canadian Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec. Capital: Boston.
• The Foundry — the by-then-declining industrial areas of the northeastern United States and Great Lakes region stretching from New York City to Milwaukee, and including Chicago and Philadelphia as well as industrial Southern Ontario centering on Toronto. Capital: Detroit.
• Dixie — the former Confederate States of America (today the southeastern United States) centered on Atlanta, and including most of eastern Texas to Austin. Garreau's "Dixie" also includes Kentucky (which had both Federal and Confederate governments); southern portions of Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana; and the "Little Dixie" region of southeastern Oklahoma. Finally, the region also includes most of Florida, as far south as the cities of Fort Myers and Naples. Capital: Atlanta.
• The Breadbasket — most of the Great Plains states and part of the Prairie provinces: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, most of western Missouri, western Wisconsin, eastern Colorado, parts of Illinois and Indiana, and North Texas. Also included are some of Northern Ontario and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Capital: Kansas City.
• The Islands — The South Florida metropolitan area, the Florida Keys, the Caribbean, and parts of Venezuela. Capital: Miami.
• Mexamerica — the southern and Central Valley portions of California as well as southern Arizona, the portion of Texas bordering on the Rio Grande, most of New Mexico and all of Mexico, centered on either Los Angeles or Mexico City (depending on whom you ask), which are significantly Spanish-speaking. Garreau's original book did not place all of Mexico within Mexamerica, but only Northern Mexico and the Baja California peninsula. Capital: Los Angeles.
• Ecotopia — the Pacific Northwest coast west of the Cascade Range, stretching from Alaska down through coastal British Columbia, Washington state, Oregon and into California just north of Santa Barbara. Capital: San Francisco.
• The Empty Quarter — most of Alaska, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Colorado from Denver west, as well as the eastern portions of Oregon, California, Washington, all of Alberta and Northern Canada (including Nunavut, although not yet created at that time), northern Arizona, parts of New Mexico, and British Columbia east of the Coast Ranges. Capital: Denver.
• Quebec — the primarily French-speaking province of Canada, whose legislature is called the National Assembly of Quebec, and which has held referendums on secession in 1980 and 1995, the latter of which the "separatists" lost narrowly. Capital: Quebec City.

Garreau also discussed several areas that he termed "aberrations":

• Washington, D.C. and its surrounding area, specifically referring to the area "inside the Beltway".
• Manhattan south of Harlem (he placed Harlem, and by extension the Manhattan neighborhoods to its north, clearly within The Foundry).
• Hawaii, which he considered an Asian aberration as much as a North American aberration.
• Northern Alaska, despite its categorization on the front cover as part of the Empty Quarter, was listed in the aberrations section of book.
• Although not included in the "Aberrations" chapter of his book, Southern West Virginia was named by Garreau as a region which had significant aspects of both Dixie (Appalachian geography and historical ties to Virginia) and The Foundry (coal-based and unionized economy closely tied to the fortunes of the Rust Belt), and could be placed in either nation. Garreau's conclusion about the region was "In good times, southeastern West Virginia can be considered an isolated part of the Foundry. In bad times, it is an isolated part of Dixie." Garreau placed the northern half of the state in The Foundry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Absolute rubbish, in my opinion. Probably his desire more than his grasp on reality. As Rory said, Russia itself is in a far more precarious position.

---

What makes it worse is the fact that this is coming from a professional diplomat, a supposed "expert" in the field. I can totally see this coming from a fringe blogger in a tinfoil hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

The Nine Nations of North America is a book written in 1981 by Joel Garreau.

---

Newfoundland in the same province as Boston? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Really? Enlighten me on how these backwards people operate

---

I'm not sure what you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i was thinking as i finished reading the book Rubicon: if you look at the fall of the Roman republic and empire, you can kinda see the same things that caused it to fall happening now. does any one find examples of such? all i can think of is corruption, forming of political alliances that do more harm than good, not listening to their constituency, ect. i may even do my research paper on it.
thoughts?

---

NOES!!!1!1!

Those theories are so of comparing Rome to the USA, not only in the rising and the maintaining of an "Empire" but of it's supposed fall, are so dumb I just wish to call those people all sorts of stupid names for their idiotness.

USA doesn't have all sorts of hungry, savage barbarians at it's gates with more advanced technology then the "Failing country".
USA's economy isn't sustained on a gigantic number of slaves needed to fund it's latifundia.
USA isn't an empire composed of several distinctive ethnical backgrounds
USA doesn't stretch as far as the Roman Empire did, and are immensely more advanced in technology and infrastructure.
USA isn't in a permanent state of war with "The Persian Empire" of nowadays, which would be Russia, I suppose.
USA is a secular pluralist State (To those who make the Christian Faith and it's Pacifism as one of the one million different causes of the Roman Downfall)
USA's economy has never been near bankrupcy, nor has its inflation been a problem.
USA doesn't have Emperor's/President's getting assassinated as frequently as a hooker gets a customer.
USA isn't an Empire (Unless you count the Puerto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii as it's "Provinces")
USA isn't capable of sustaining a war against a well trained and supplied guerrilla enemy (Or any enemy, unless the said enemy actually poses a threat to the territorial integrity of the USA), without facing severe War Exhaustion protests and riots (The Roman Republic had 200 years of constant warfare against well trained and armed guerrillas in Iberia).
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Now...

Rome wasn't a Banking Capitalistic Nation.
Rome didn't have many peaceful neighbours.
Rome didn't have internal tranquility from the time it took over the Latium League.
Rome didn't have external tranquility from the time it was formed.
Rome wasn't much more advanced in Cavalry techniques than the Persians or the Huns.
Rome had to face it's enemies from everywhere, in it's territory (Meaning since the Mexican Wars, the USA hasn't had to face an enemy invading him through land since they weren't his neighbours.)
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Please. I wish I could destroy the studios of those companies who produce shows who compare the USA with the Rome using, for example, the Senate. PLEASE! The Senate is a :daisy: name. Brazil has a Senate, Portugal's Parliament was once called Senate. There over :daisy: 50 countries whose Parliaments are named Senate. Are they Romes as well? I'd honestly burn down the houses of the producers if I could.

EDIT: On the USA breaking up, that's just stupid. I have a magazine, who is one of the most respected of Portugal, that says there are an increasing number of Siberians who wish independence from Russia, arguing all the oil and precious metals are extracted from Siberia and sold, yet the wealth stays in Moscow and it's Russian vincinity. I am much more prone to believing that will happen any time soon then the USA breaking up.

I Wish. When he said that native Americans would "take control of the midwest" I realized that the guy had no idea what he was talking about. I don't think that native populations break into double digits in more than 1 state - and the state with the highest population is like 11%. A few others are 4-6% and the vast majority have around .5-3%.

America will probably fall one day, but not any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Newfoundland in the same province as Boston? :laugh4:

---

No more rediculous than Texas and Maine being in the same country. Or Alberta and Quebec.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

No more rediculous than Texas and Maine being in the same country. Or Alberta and Quebec.

---

Yes, but his division implies that Newfoundland and Massachusetts have very similar cultural features.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I'm not sure what you want.

---

To substantiate your claim with some evidence.

The writer wants this to happen more than he believes it would.

The whole West will crumble and new empires will invade or rise from the ashes, it's funny to see how people are almost aggressive when someone mentions this. It's a perfectly logical conclusion for countries that shift their focus from warfare to fashion and backstabbery and also turn their politics into soap operas.

Obviously the octosquids know this as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

To substantiate your claim with some evidence.

---

What kind of evidence? You want me to make a hand count of racists/supremacists in the US? That would be hard... and pointless.

EDIT: OK, that was not entirely fair. Your assertion seemed somewhat optimistic. Considering that there are people in this country who may not like those that live around them. Natives may see themselves ass those who truly hold the rights to the nation. Immigrants may see their home as an extension of their homeland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I'd value the opinion of an Ancient History Lecturer over an English Teacher in this matter.

---

Don't lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Sounds like old school soviet wishful thinking. Realize that this "Information Intelligence Warrior Talking Head" is proselytizing to a less than worldly and delusional audience of Russian citizens. As Americans we certainly have had plenty of recent experience with those in our own society. Since when have the Russians ever had a clue as to how the rest of the world operates and thinks? However, he's not alone. Here's a link to :The Nine Nations of North America is a book written in 1981 by Joel Garreau.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...4/9nations.png

---

I've never read that book. But Garreau's division of North America looks decent enough to me. It is pretty much how I'd do it if I had to divide it up in eight parts.

-~+-~+-~+<<((0))>>+~-+~-+~-

I think our Russian has just discovered that the US is not a monolith. But a breaking up? Anytime soon? ~:confused:

What I can't work out, is that this is no random internet blogger, but a well respected and educated political scientist. Maybe he really believes it. Maybe he is more accustomed to Eastern European history, where maps tend to change drastically every few decades or so. Most of the causes for that are absent in north America.

Is he preaching to the choir? Does one make money in Russia with this sort of stuff? After all, there's money to be made in America too with spouting the most ridiculous nonsense about Russia, or the Arab world, or Europe.
I can't work it out.

Well, of course the US isn't a monolith; neither is any Western country. But we're not going to break up (at least, not anytime soon) because, aside from Texas, no part of the US has any concept of a national tradition aside from the national vision. Many people may be pissed off individualists, but the US mentality is highly dependent on the Federal government because we simply can't imagine anything else.

When Americans get really angry, they protest, riot and assassinate. They don't secede; they try to change the current government to suit their own desires.

I wonder what d happen to Texas if it secedes. I mean, they are not exactly popular with the rest of the planet. They better make a deal where they get to keep the nukes :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I've never read that book. But Garreau's division of North America looks decent enough to me. It is pretty much how I'd do it if I had to divide it up in eight parts.

-~+-~+-~+<<((0))>>+~-+~-+~-

I think our Russian has just discovered that the US is not a monolith. But a breaking up? Anytime soon? ~:confused:

What I can't work out, is that this is no random internet blogger, but a well respected and educated political scientist. Maybe he really believes it. Maybe he is more accustomed to Eastern European history, where maps tend to change drastically every few decades or so. Most of the causes for that are absent in north America.

Is he preaching to the choir? Does one make money in Russia with this sort of stuff? After all, there's money to be made in America too with spouting the most ridiculous nonsense about Russia, or the Arab world, or Europe.
I can't work it out.

---

He didn't say "when" it's going to happen. The point is that it could happen and if it happens, it will be divided like that, in his "expert" opinion.

Where most of you guys from the west (western Europe and North America) are wrong is in your notion of eastern Europe. In this case eastern Europe in political sense, not geographical, ie everything east of Germany. You're presuming that eastern Europe is unstable because people there are nationalists. I have a totally opposite view - people there are in general more nationalistic than in the west because of that unstable situation.

Let's take Yugoslavia for example. If you ask people from the west why did Yugoslavia disintegrate the most common answer would be nationalism and it would be the wrong answer. Well maybe not wrong, but incomplete. Main reasons for the breakup are economic crisis and foreign influences. Nationalism rode on the wave of economic crisis and foreign influences fed it. Yugoslavia never recovered from the oil crisis in the seventies, and high standard of living was maintained by credits and by spending reserves. In the eighties people started to feel it and that's when nationalism started to awaken. By the end of eighties it was clear that something must be done because the :daisy: has hit the fan. Complex reforms were to be undertaken and entire country was to be reorganized. That's where foreign influences come in. Foreign support was given to various nationalist leaders and parties instead.

US is of course very much different. Nationalism isn't much of a threat to the US yet, mainly because all those nationalities in way created American nationalism, they're a part of it. English, French, Germans, Irish etc... Also, they don't have any option. What could Americans of Irish roots do, even if they wanted to secede? Exactly nothing, for several reasons: 1. There are too few of them, 2. Ireland couldn't support them against the US even if it wanted to 3. Even if they win, they wouldn't have any more contact with Ireland than they have now. I use Ireland as an example, it's the same with any European country. Also, America enjoys cordial or friendly relations with their ancestral countries.
But, one very large ethnic group is very different - Latin Americans. They have a different cultural upbringing (not all of them of course, but a big chunk), different language and the countries they can relate to are around the corner - save Brazil, it's entire Central and South America and cultural links are much easier to maintain when the distance is not so great. Unlike with European countries, US often has strained or even unfriendly relations with many of those countries. Hell, most of the time they can identify with one another visually because their skin colour tend to be darker. There's your nationalistic spark.

On the other hand, US is much more susceptible to economic crisis. It highly indebted and its trade deficit is huge. US is maintaining their economic might by the means of dollar, their strategic control of resources in many parts of the world (or even better, their control of strategic resources) and of course, their military might and political influence. And what is now happening in the world? Dollar is losing its value, it's slowly losing status of the worlds prime currency, keeping control of resources is getting harder because others are making a grab for them and their political influence is waning, which could be seen in the Kosovo case. It is pretty much limited to western Europe and few of their protectorates around the world, like Afghanistan. To combat that and to keep the current world order, they started using more of their military muscle, which in a way backfired because their debt has risen and political influences have deteriorated even more, even if they did manage to acquire control of some resources. So basically you have huge spending combined with huge deficit and debt while dollar is losing value and in all probability all that is going to continue. There's your economic reason.

We come to foreign influences, and this is where US is "most safe", so to speak. Other countries don't see the breakup of the US in their interest, because US and its European allies are very good markets for their growing economy, US is still able to resist such advances because at the moment its economy and military are still strong enough and it is very unlikely that key foreign powers needed for that to happen could find so much common ground to make a coordinated effort.

Of course, this is all pretty far in the future, but the most dangerous thing for the US is that with time, all those factors will only get stronger. 1) Spanish speaking population is on the rise, both through immigration and their higher birth rate, 2) economy is very fragile and it doesn't look that it will improve, more chances are it will deteriorate and 3) other countries in the world in whose interest it is that America loses some of its power and influence are on the rise.

I'm not saying that it will happen for sure or that it will happen soon, but US is very far from being "totally safe". I personally don't agree with that Russian political scientist, especially on his view of new countries that will emerge. Even Izvestia (they published the article) described it as unlikely and pretty much ridiculed it. If something like that is to happen, it probably won't in our lifetime.

Then again, US of A in its history has shown that it is sort of a mutant (in a good way) that is highly adaptable and could thrive in conditions that other countries would find lethal. We'll just have to wait and see, but I wouldn't say that the idea of US breaking up is science-fiction or reject it outright as wishful thinking...

excellent analysis, my thanks.