Dmitry Orlov is a software engineer with a classically wry sense of Russian humour now living in Boston, Massachusetts. He uses his firsthand observations of the economic collapse that followed the dissolution of the USSR to analyze and comment on both the differences and the similarities between the former Soviet Union and the USA. With his experience and knowledge, Dmitry is able to offer a fascinating and detailed description of what can be called, ‘post-collapse America’.
 

Orlov presented at the Local Energy Solutions conference, in New York City April, 27-29, 2006 (sponsored in conjunction with Peak Oil NYC, one of our Local Post Carbon Groups) and prompted me to delve further into his discussion of Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century – not least because I too have some first hand knowledge of the Soviet Union (from 1980) and of Czechoslovakia before it split in 1992. Such experience makes Orlov’s points all the sharper, but is not necessary in order to understand his analysis, though it certainly makes his sardonic observations of the bizarreness of the ‘new’ Russian society all the funnier – and sadder.
 

There is one particularly notable difference that Orlov sees between Russia and the US: food production. Most Russians are still able to grow much of their own food. This can mainly be attributed to the fact that their agricultural revolution was less productive than the ‘green revolution’ in the United States. Ironically, it may help Russia to navigate energy descent in a much less painful way than North America.

These links will take you to the three-part story Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century by Dimitry Orlov, published by From the Wilderness.

 
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060105_soviet_lessons.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062805_soviet_lessons_part2.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071805_soviet_lessons_part3.shtml

2.) It looks as if Dick Cheney might do well to read Orlov’s work, since he apparently is unsure how this game works:
 

Cheney Lectures Russia About Reform
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060504/ap_on_re_eu/cheney
 

Cheney is quoted as saying "No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation." I suppose the operative word is legitimate. But that should lead one to ask who makes the rules for whose ultimate benefit?

3.) Speaking of intractable energy difficulties, as one is rather inclined to do these days, I fear that we should try to learn from Britain, the country which built the first nuclear power station, and still doesn’t know what to do with the mess:

Undiagnosed nasties lurk in nuclear 'ponds'
by Neasa MacErlean
Thursday May 4, 2006
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1767344,00.html

The dark horse in all these nuclear matters seems to be France. If anyone knows how France has dealt with their nuclear waste issues I would certainly like to hear. As France is so dependent on nuclear power for electricity, the amount of waste must surely be a massive problem for them as well. And if they have the answer, then why are they not selling it to the Brits, who are now going to spend 116 billion dollars on nuclear cleanup. I would not be the first person to point out that you can buy an awful lot of solar panels and wind turbines for that kind of money. However, as Bernard Shaw sagely remarked in one of his plays, we learn from history that we don’t learn from history. Now would be a good moment to start proving Shaw wrong.