Endtime prophecy is not the province of the religiously excitable alone. Even the die-hard materialists of the Russian intelligence service FSB (formerly the KGB) dabble in apocalyptic musings – although the scope of this particular prediction is not global, but limited to the imminent demise of that old-and-new archenemy, the United States.
Igor Panarin has been predicting the “moral and economic collapse” of the US for about a decade now; he set the Endtime for the American Empire at the year 2010, and the recent arrival of the credit crunch lends some credence to his outlandish forecast - at least as far as the Russian (state) media is concerned. Panarin, formerly a KGB analyst and now an academic, gets about two interview requests a day.
The break-up predicted by Panarin would be the result of mass immigration, economic decline and moral degradation, all of which would trigger a second American civil war, and the collapse of the dollar. This would then lead to the break-up of the United States, by mid-2010, into half a dozen regional sub-entities. These would be dominated or absorbed outright by foreign powers.
- Alaska would revert to Russia, and Hawaii would become Chinese or Japanese.
- The West Coast (the three Pacific states, joined with Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Arizona in a Californian Republic), would fall to China or at least be under Chinese influence.
- A Texas Republic, which would also include New Mexico, Oklahoma and all the other traditionally southern states (except the Carolinas, the Virginias, Kentucky and Tennessee), would similarly be either directly or indirectly under the sway of Mexico.
- The aforementioned southern exceptions would join the northeastern states in forming a bloc that might join the European Union.
- The rest – all midwestern and western states – would be at Canada’s mercy.
Imagine Chinese overlordship of Utah – another Tibet waiting to happen -, the Maple Leaf flag flying at the Gateway Arch and the European Union and Mexico meeting just south of there, on the Mississippi. As far-fetched as that may sound, Mr Panarin is no fringe looney. He heads the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats (and Russia will need quite a few more of those, if his prediction comes true). Mr Panarin also is one of the talking heads on (Russian state) tv whenever US-Russian relations are at issue.
The popularity of his end-of-America views mirrors the Kremlin’s semi-official anti-Americanism, and it is all the more popular for the pithy sympathy he wraps up his predicitions in: Panarin claims his disintegration scenario has about 50% chance of happening, and if it did, it would not be the best outcome – for Russia, that is. Even though the Russians would again cross the Bering Strait to retake possession of Alyaska, the disintegration of Russia’s main trading partner would spell economic trouble for the resurgent world power.
One can’t help but feel that Mr Panarin’s view is less a realistic scenario based on cold, hard facts (as he claims), and more a kind of payback for America’s and the West’s gleeful spectatorship of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Mr Panarin explicitly refers to political scientist Emmanuel Todd, who in 1976 predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. “People laughed at him”, Mr Panarin is quoted as saying by this article in the Wall Street Journal, implying that he can relate to the scorn felt by Mr Todd at the time, and is anticipating a similar vindication.
As with religious eschatologists (at least those careless enough to posit a near and definite date for the world’s end), the only way definitely to disprove Mr Panarin’s reverse Schadenfreude is to wait for his prediction to outlive itself. So let’s see exactly what Mr Obama remains president of, if anything, come August 2010…
Many thanks to the dozens of readers who sent in this map.
He has Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and especially the two Carolinas ally themselves with New England, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. Anybody that thinks they would prefer to be allied with these and not allied with Georgia et al either knows nothing about the US history or is delusional. If it done because of force from Mexico, why are they not strong enough to take Tennessee or others. It is not as if there was enough natural defensive barriers in Tennessee and lower southern states.
Comment by ja — May 2, 2009 @ 1:50 am
Excellent, I thought of this blog immediately the first time I saw this map. :]
Comment by Lakeman — May 2, 2009 @ 1:56 am
The whole Canada/Mexico dominance thing seems more than a little bit of a stretch. The population of the Yellow states is probably about equal to that of Canada. And while Mexico’s population is greater than the Blue states, their combined economy is larger than Mexico’s.
This particular scenario seems way more far-fetched than the ethnicity-based collapse of the Soviet Union, which was a hodgepodge of pre-existing countries. Not the same outlook as the USA at all.
Comment by oljb — May 2, 2009 @ 2:17 am
When this prediction came out a few months ago, it immediately struck me as absurd. Whatever happens in the future, the idea that Texans and Southerners would ever allow themselves to be dominated by Mexico (not to mention Mexico’s clear short-term lack of ‘power projection’ of any sort given it’s internal situation) is completely preposterous. Other regional predictions are generally similar, and demonstrate that this man is a fool who knows nothing about the U.S.
Comment by MikeT — May 2, 2009 @ 2:42 am
> Mr Panarin is no fringe looney. He heads the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats
He doesn’t _head_ the Diplomatic Academy, but he certainly is a full professor there.
And this makes the fact that he _indeed is_ a fringe looney much more alarming.
Comment by dpnotes — May 2, 2009 @ 2:51 am
How about this entirely more realistic scenario: Russia’s population continues to fall by 1 million per year (true), and its chronic xenophobia prevents the state from doing much about it. At the same time, Russia’s population ages to become the oldest in the whole world. Russia’s population falls to under 100 million (as America’s continues to surge past 400M), its economy collapses, the Chinese (world’s largest population AND economy) overrun Siberia facing little resistance from the Russian “army”, and Russia is reduced to the European portion of its territory, west of the Urals.
The only thing that will prevent this is Russia’s ownership of nuclear weapons. Which means they end up selling Siberia to the Chinese instead. Either way, Russia is demographically positioned for a collapse of epic magnitude.
Couldn’t happen to a better bunch, eh, komrades?
Comment by Glenn — May 2, 2009 @ 3:04 am
“Mr Panarin is no fringe looney. [...] Mr Panarin also is one of the talking heads on (Russian state) tv whenever US-Russian relations are at issue.”
Funny, I thought many talking heads were fringe looneys.
Comment by Jack — May 2, 2009 @ 3:12 am
I highly doubt the oil rich economy of devoutly independent Alaska will align/fall to Russia.
As for the Canadians in the midwest…what makes him think they want that?
Comment by Sean Testa — May 2, 2009 @ 3:21 am
This guy has obviously never read any of the books on regionalism here, especially this one:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/174-the-nine-nations-of-north-america/
That said, the USA is way too big to be to be culturally and economically cohesive in the long run. The various regions, however you outline them, have all the makings of distinct standalone nations. Historically, large nations that become empires (and don’t think the US ain’t one) tend eventually to break up. Russia isn’t done yet, I think (da, tovarich!), and China won’t always hold together either. I think he’s way too early in his prediction, though. The US may see its tricentennial, but probably not its quadracentennial.
Generally, I see more smaller nations, in loose regional federations, as the long term trend.
Comment by Prod to be a Merkin — May 2, 2009 @ 3:50 am
It would be more fun if he predicted that some of the states would break up, too. Like Michigan’s Upper Peninsula going its own way, or downstate Illinois setting Chicago adrift.
Comment by The Reticulator — May 2, 2009 @ 5:44 am
The fact that he sees the country dissolving purely along State lines is the most obvious indication of his total lack of actual research. As mentioned, South Carolina willingly staying separate from the Deep South? The Mormons submitting to Chinese regulation? Texas (Or all the other states) letting this happen without a prolonged insurgency?
Fun speculation, but not credible to anyone who actually knows anything about the country (Unfortunately, this probably excludes alot of Russian TV watchers).
Comment by Lurker — May 2, 2009 @ 5:44 am
Those who advocate for Alaskan independence are a strong, though small community. What if that movement grew, we actually split from the U.S., and then as the states prepared to retake us or whatever, we turned to Russia for support – and then they assimilated us.
Yeah, totally possible.
Comment by Peter the Alaska Kid — May 2, 2009 @ 5:59 am
The TV series “Jericho” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(TV_series) ) has a similar scenario where the US breaks up in 2 unions with Texas as an independent state after a nuclear catastrophe.
Comment by Robert — May 2, 2009 @ 6:14 am
…But wouldn’t whatever collapses the US also collapse Canada?
Wouldn’t the “American sphere” follow a similar path to Poland, Hungary and Romania post-USSR collapse?
Comment by Yuval — May 2, 2009 @ 7:26 am
It’s odd, isn’t it: I mean sure, the split up of the USA — I don’t actually think it’s likely to happen, but large countries do split up sometimes — but the assumption that all the constituent parts will get absorbed into other countries. As though any of those entities was too small to be self-sustaining.
Comment by Harry — May 2, 2009 @ 7:27 am
The braking up is one thing, but even if the USA broke up, why do the bits end up joining other countries…it makes no sense.
Comment by EvilEuropean — May 2, 2009 @ 7:36 am
The predicted break-up in such books as THE NINE NATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA seem more realistic and possible than what is offered here. This is not to say the US won’t break up, but this particular scenario doesn’t seem as likely as others. Let’s show some of these maps together for comparison.
Comment by J. B. Post — May 2, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
[...] Russia to US: You’re Breaking Up (Too) [...]
Pingback by [links] Link salad is from another planet, ya know the truth | jlake.com — May 2, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
This reminds me of “The Nine Nations of North America” by Joel Garreau. The borders are not dissimilar, although most of the divided areas would remain independent nations, not consumed by other nations.
Comment by William — May 2, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
This reminds me of the old joke about Stalin and Roosevelt meeting in Heaven in around 2100(OK lets be imaginative and assume both merited a place there). Stalin gleefully shows Roosevelt a copy of the Cloud-9 Times and says, ‘Have you seen this article about Zimbabwe sending emeregency humanitarian aid to the USA?’. Roosevelt retorts ‘Yes, isn’t that the paper with the border dispute between China and Finland in it?’
Comment by Hillary Shaw — May 2, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
He’s a little misunderstood about the political climate of Tennessee.
Comment by Brandon — May 2, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
The Russkies can have Sarah Palin.
Comment by Comrade Outsider — May 2, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
I like how the four corner states are split into three different areas.
Comment by AJ — May 2, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
I remember reading how arbitrary the Idaho Montana border was (as in the reason Idaho has a pan handle is that no one realized how much more land was out there). Now it’s the border between Chinese and Canadian influence.
Comment by AJ — May 2, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
This thing is riddled with simplistic assumptions. Assuming that the U.S. were to disintegrate, why on *earth* would the established state boundaries still exist in their current form?
A rudimentary understanding of geography lends his argument no weight.
Comment by Matt Warren — May 2, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Despite the nonsense of this man’s assumptions. (the European Union would probably desintegrate before the US does), it’s always good material for strangemaps. The US might indeed break up some day (definitely not in 2010), but I wonder how much of that “sphere of influence” would be shared by those countries, especially Canada and Mexico..
Comment by Javi — May 2, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
South Carolina joins the EU? This bloke has had one too many vodkas. Has anyone ever made a map of the alternative divided United States from Philip Dick’s dystopian novel “The Man in the High Castle”.
Comment by Liam — May 2, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
If this is what passes for political analysis in Russia today then I think we can all heave a sigh of relief. Better watch your back guys though; the only imminent annexation will be your own – by China.
Comment by Natalie — May 2, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
The fact that Panarin holds official positions in academia and government is no guarantee that he is not a “fringe loony” (there have been plenty of “fringe loonies” in American government and academia over the years — I don’t see why Russia would be any different). When I first came across Panarin’s analysis a few months ago, my first thought was that this guy knows absolutely nothing about American regional politics. If America fractures (which is unlikely, even in the event of a total economic collapse), it will not be along the boundaries predicted by Panarin. If I had to predict how the US would fracture, I would say that it would be most likely to split up along the lines of the NCAA Division I football conferences. But maybe that’s just because I’m a college football fan. :-)
Comment by Greg — May 2, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
he forgot the part annexed by the invaders from outer space…
Comment by lp — May 2, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Natalie:
> If this is what passes for political analysis in Russia today
You shouldn’t rely on this. This guy is effectively a clown thriving on the tabloid reader base and treated as such. Why such clowns allowed to hold professorship at the major political science school is another question.
> Better watch your back guys though; the only imminent annexation will be your own – by China.
As Russians say “Never divide up the bearskin while the bear is still alive” :)
Comment by DP — May 2, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
[...] 379 – Russia to US: You’re Breaking Up (Too) — 8:24pm via Google [...]
Pingback by Will Dearman Lifestream » Daily Digest for May 2nd, 2009 — May 3, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Yes, I look forward to the day when the north-central US states will be under Canadian domination: Health care, no guns, Mounties everywhere, vinegar with your french fries, and Nickelback on the radio 80 times a day.
West Edmonton mall owns more submarines than Canada’s armed forces does. Canada is not going to make any territorial acquisitions, and anything that makes America collapse or fragment will have similar effects on Canada.
Comment by Peter Tupper — May 3, 2009 @ 12:29 am
Anyone who thinks Tennessee and South Carolina would not be part of a southern conglomeration has apparently never been to Tennessee or South Carolina.
And Texas would be it’s own country. It’s the only way.
Comment by Susan — May 3, 2009 @ 2:10 am
@29 Greg:
YES, thank you, some sense here. The idea that the SEC would be split in two would cause mass protests and possibly armed revolution throughout the south. :)
Comment by boznia — May 3, 2009 @ 4:09 am
I can see the US splitting up at some point in this century if the federal government goes into default and the dollar becomes worthless. This guy’s predictions however are a joke for the many reasons noted above. It would obviously follow regional and historic patterns. There would be a new Dixie (hopefully more tolerant than the last), a New England, a Mid-West, etc. California, Texas, Alaska and Hawaii would probably be the only states which could be a lone country too. If Alaska did merge with another country it’d be Canada not Russia and if the US split Canada probably would too – and Alaska would have even more in common as part of a new Western Canadian nation.
Comment by David — May 3, 2009 @ 6:04 am
“Has anyone ever made a map of the alternative divided US from Philip Dick’s dystopian novel ‘The Man in the High Castle’?” I searched with Google Images and found this:
Comment by Pierre Hallet — May 3, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Sorry, retry without angle brackets.
Has anyone ever made a map of the alternative divided US from Philip Dick’s dystopian novel ‘The Man in the High Castle’?” I searched with Google Images and found this:
http://thursdaynightgumbo.blogspot.com/2007/06/vehige-man-in-high-castle-by-philip-k.html
Comment by Pierre Hallet — May 3, 2009 @ 10:09 am
“Mr Panarin is no fringe looney”. You’re being far too kind to the idiot!
Comment by dadge — May 3, 2009 @ 11:31 am
It’s also worth mentioning that the major disintegrations – the USSR, Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary (sort of) – struggled to hold together various national groups. As long as an American national identity means more to people than any regional interests, such a split is unlikely at best.
Comment by PB — May 3, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
If the United States were to split, it would be difficult to compare the consequences with those of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, etc. Those splits occurred along linguistic lines, which represent major cultural boundaries as well. While there are several parts of the USA that are largely Spanish-speaking, these areas are non-contiguous (NY, Southern California, Southern Florida, New Mexico, several urban centers, etc.). Most of the areas of the US that border Canada have as much in common with the neighboring Canadian provinces as with the rest of the USA — e.g., Maine and New Brunswick, Michigan and Ontario, North Dakota and Manitoba, Washington and British Columbia, Alaska and the Yukon. So a post-cataclysmic break right at the present US/Canadian border doesn’t make any sense at all.
Comment by Richard — May 3, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
If the USA were to fragment, the resulting socio-political, economic and military vacuum created would lead to the acceleration of fragmentation in Russia and China, while the effect of globalisation on the world economy would lead the remaining states of East Asia (the manufacturers), the Middle East (oil-rich nations) and Europe to enter economic and political meltdown, with hyperinflation similar to Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic creating a situation in which a series of Fascist/Neo-faschist states would be created. Russia would lose Karelia, Chechyna and Siberia, while China would be reduced to rump state centered around the South-East of the country. The EU countries may fuse together to create a single, stronger state. However, Russia and China are much closer to fragmenting than the religously, racialy and economicaly unifed US. In order for a dollar collapse of the magnitude required to lead to the collapse of the US, an event along the lines of Nuclear apocalypse, complete and simultaneous melting of all ice on the planet (like in the Day after Tomorrow) or an asteroid impact would have to occur. If in the event a break up did happen, it would be more along the lines of posting 205, the Balkanised North America on this website.
Comment by Alex — May 3, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Remember, this is wishful thinking on the order of the reconstitution of the Byzantine empire and Morocco getting Gibraulter back.
Comment by messy — May 3, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
How can the eastern states join the European Union? There are not really much limits on applying, but one is for sure: the European Union is only for European Nations/ States. So they’d have to become part of an European country again or acquire European territory. This Russian guy hasn’t done his homework. (Also: why wouldn’t they join Canada? It seems me much easier and closer.)
Comment by Henk — May 3, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Well, this guy must know what he is talking about, he is a known professor etc..
but I think that his anti-americanism is the one speaking there… The fall of soviet and american states would have a HUGE difference. As said above how come the “atlantic America” would join the EU? its EUROPEAN Union!!!
Comment by roboto — May 3, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
I’ll be damned if Washington goes to California! Cascadia forever!
Comment by Lenny — May 4, 2009 @ 3:08 am
thank you
Comment by Tony — May 4, 2009 @ 3:49 am
this is a great map!!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3510/3192055736_5d3e9ca1f0_o.jpg
Comment by Claus — May 4, 2009 @ 5:04 am
@41:
“Those splits occurred along linguistic lines … ”
In fact, SU, Austria and Yougoslavia split along existing administrative lines.
Outraged amusement aside, the lines kind of make sense: whoever drew that map looked quite closely at the transportation network and seems to favor the waterways, which is one thing in US that Russia always envied.
I don’t think the guy is a loonie. Probably he was in charge with elaborating scenarios for Russian government, (there are in every government people tasked with making scenarios and preparing responses) and when SU got privatized he decided to cash in on his work.
Comment by Emil — May 4, 2009 @ 5:38 am
This division seems to have been made purely along economic lines, with no regard to history and culture. Odd, since the collapse of the USSR was precisely along lines of history and culture. Perhaps Mr. Panarin and his colleagues are in denial about that, or as “ex”-Marxists they simply can’t allow themselves to acknowledge it.
Comment by Rodger — May 4, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
#49
Those “existing administrative” lines were, in fact, pre-existing linguistic lines:
Soviet Union — Russia: Russian; Byelorussia: White Russian, Moldavia: Moldavian; Ukraine: Ukrainian; Estonia: Estonian; Latvia: Latvian; Lithuania: Lithuanian, etc.
Yugoslavia — Slovenia: Slovenian; Croatia: Croatian; Macedonia: Macedonian; etc.
Czechoslovakia — Czech Republic: Czech; Slovakia: Slovakian.
Though some of these languages are closely related, they each had a separate literary tradition and a separate literature, each representing a separate culture.
The United States — to the extent that it is an English-speaking nation — has but one written standard, American English, which is close enough to British English to still be considered part of the English-language community. American English and Canadian English are even closer, especially contiguous cross-border spoken dialects, such as those of New York and Ontario.
There is no “cultural” reason (linguistically or otherwise) to split Utah from Colorado, Arizona from New Mexico, Ohio from Pennsylvania, or Tennessee from Alabama.
The “Old South,” at least, from Virginia to [East] Texas, has a unified sub-culture and shares a unified set of dialects (Southern American English), probably the most cohesive sub-culture within the USA. Yet precisely this one arguable sub-culture is split in the fantasy disintegration of the USA. It’s not the disintegration itself which is fantasy — the USA is so large that one could argue that it is too difficult to administer as a unified whole in the long run — it’s the very arbitrary way that the fantasy division was made.
Comment by Richard — May 4, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
@Richard–I’d agree, except to the statement that “There is no “cultural” reason … to split Utah from Colorado.” There’s a strong cultural reason to split Utah from everything, which is exactly why the Mormons left what was then the United States in 1846.
Comment by Rodger — May 4, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
This guy’s been playing “Shattered Union” too much. Of course, their boundaries made more sense.
If it did occur with his map, however, I think it more likely that the US successor states would end up dominating the countries they attached to (Except maybe China and Russia)due to their population and economic strength. Not to mention the dominance of American culture in media.
Comment by Longstreet63 — May 4, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Other minor problem with the man’s assumptions. US dollar crashes, than so too does the Chinese economy, as it is upheld by billions upon billions of US treasury bills. Who controls the West Coast then?
Comment by Julio — May 4, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Obviously, this Russian guy didn’t bother with subculture boundaries. Where are the subculture centers in the US? Boston, NYC, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Phoenix, LA, and Seattle. The major two are obviously LA and NYC since those are the two cultural centers of the US. (And by “culture” I mean the promotion of ideas, ethics, and morals thru news and entertainment.)
That being the case, the nation would most likely split along state lines because it’s more convenient then redrawing them. Texas would be its own country – again. The historic South would be its own country. The NE would be its own country.
Those are the obvious ones. I think the Plains states would go more towards Chicago than Denver. And I think the Mountain states would probably join the West Coast states. The Southwest could join Texas, but might try to go their own way. And I think Alaska would try to go it on their own as well. It just depends on what major city that state identifies with in the end.
Comment by dagmar27 — May 4, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
#55 Dagmar
The entry states: “The break-up predicted by Panarin would be the result of mass immigration, economic decline and moral degradation, all of which would trigger a second American civil war, and the collapse of the dollar.”
You said “That being the case, the nation would most likely split along state lines because it’s more convenient then redrawing them.”
Would redrawing state lines convenience level be taken into consideration in a meltdown and war? It’s not like we’re fighting between each other with militia groups this time around. It doesn’t seem likely that in a scenario where sh*t hits the fan this bad that enough order would be kept to make such decisions. If the country can’t stay united on this magnitude, I really doubt states could.
Comment by BAT — May 4, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
@ #56 BAT
It’s easier to keep the borders that you know than create new ones. People are used to state lines, particularly since most of them have been around for quite a while. Regardless of whether it’s an ugly breakup or not, I would think that most people would stick with the already accepted and well-known convention whenever possible.
True, that may not always be possible, but would you want to be thinking about which county of Virginia you’re in to determine whether or not you’re actually in the Southern Confederate United States? Probably not. State lines are more recognizable on the ground then county lines because of signs and because of people’s familiarity with them.
Comment by dagmar27 — May 4, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
“[W]ould you want to be thinking about which county of Virginia you’re in to determine whether or not you’re actually in the Southern Confederate United States?”
That’s just what happened the last time around.
Comment by Rodger — May 4, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Panarin’s idea is interesting but I think his California empire line is a little skewed. Being an Arizonan I can proudly say that Arizona would never team with California and, conversely, California wouldn’t want us anyway.
Comment by J. Rood — May 4, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
[...] From Strange Maps: Russia To U.S.-You’re Breaking Up (Too) Filed under: Communism, Media, Public Debate — chr1 @ 7:06 pm Tags: Igor Paninin, Strange Maps, The U.S. Break-up Full post here. [...]
Pingback by From Strange Maps: Russia To U.S.-You’re Breaking Up (Too) « Chris Navin — May 5, 2009 @ 2:06 am
Wow. I can do better than this guy. Heck, let’s go for it. Not that I expect anything to happen, but if we start with the assumption that something will, here’s what I think is likely:
If there is to be any breakup of the United States, it is going to be among people who feel some form of “national” identity other than being Americans. Most Americans see themselves as Americans first, but there are a handful of exceptions:
1) Dixie — Many people in the former Confederacy still feel a connection to the CSA. A new version of Dixie would probably include most of the former CSA. Texas may or may not join (see #2). Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina would have strong contingents of pro-Union and pro-Dixie people; these two states (especially Virginia) could easily be contested territory. Ironically, West Virginia would likely join if Kentucky does (if not, they’d be blocked from the rest of Dixie and would probably stay in the USA).
2) Texas — Texans do not have the right to secede, but try telling them that. Seriously, however, Texas may very well be the only state where state identity trumps national identity. In a fractured America, Texas almost certainly wouldn’t be part of the United States any more. The question is whether it would be part of (and thus dominate) Dixie or be its own country. My money is on the latter.
3) California — Not likely, but California is probably the most powerful state in the US (if it split off from the US today, its national economy would be one of the ten biggest in the world). If the USA was disintegrating anyway, and Californians thought they could do better on their own, they might split. Such a country would probably look to Asia for trade, but that doesn’t mean it would be politically dominated by any Asian country or countries.
4) Southern Florida — As with California, this would only happen if the USA was disintegrating anyway. In such a circumstance, South Florida might become part of Cuba if Cuba was no longer a communist nation.
5) Hawai’i — Hawai’i may be the only thing this guy has right. I doubt they’d be particularly interested in leaving the USA, but depending on the circumstances they might have no choice. They might become an independent nation again, or they might become a Californian territory.
Finally, there might be an attempt by some Rocky Mountain states and/or Alaska to split away from the United States. However, their population is simply too sparse to defend themselves if the USA decided to keep that region by force (which is quite possible given where the USA keeps some of its nuclear arsenals). At best, this region might find itself taken over by one of the other spinoffs (California, Dixie, or Texas). Similarly, if and only if Washington and Oregon find themselves cut off from the rest of the USA, they might join California.
Comment by rhodent — May 5, 2009 @ 4:04 am
SIGH….this is what passes for academic, strategic analysis in Russia? It makes the CIA look good!
It’s obviously a revenge wish-list. Panarin has ignored all historical and socio-economic facts on the ground in order to divvy up the US between other countries (including Russia). I believe he is thinking more of the Partition of Poland than the collapse of the USSR.
@6
Your future scenario for Russia is much more realistic that this hypothesis on the US, with one exception: Russia will not have one of the oldest populations in the world. Russians are afflicted by a (largely alcohol-fuelled) hypermortality: Russian men in their teens and twenties have a better than even chance of dying/being violently killed – usually by other drunken Russians – by the age of 65.
@14
I agree that historical precedent would indicate that if the US disintegrates, so will Canada and Mexico. The Rio Grade provinces and Yucatan were independent while Texas was, to say nothing of the regional issues past and present in Canada.
Comment by Kochevnik — May 5, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
@Peter Tupper (post #33)
You need to include some other Canadian “contributions” to a newly acquired Midwest: The French language, poutine, the metric system, vinegar flavored potato chips, gay marriage (with gay adoption of children), and……. “hate speech” laws. Welcome to Canada. Say goodbye to the American Bill of Rights!
Other than for the warmer weather, what is Canada’s motivation for taking over the Midwest. Since Canada would not have the money nor the military power to do so, the Midwest would have to consent to being taken over. Either that, or a much stronger state such as China or Russia would force the Midwest to join Canada.
Culturally, the southern 1/3 of Indiana and the southern half of Ohio should merge with a revived southern confederacy. I suspect the southern 1/3 of Missouri would feel more comfortable with the South than in the Midwest.
Culturally, do the people of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado really see themselves as Midwesterners? I am sure that the Midwest would love to have them.
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — May 5, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
In my (very humble) opinion, any attempt to discuss whether this guy, Panarin, is a fringe looney or not, and whether his predictions have any scientific value, are vain.
I really don’t think this professor is so illiterate, stupid, or ignorant to truly believe in his “prophecy”.
I clearly see him merely delivering on the existing conjuncture. Times of pure demonization of the “imperialist West” have passed. Now there is a (social, political) demand to humiliate the US and debunk them, by predicting their close and inevitable demise.
This map is intended not for scientific journals, but for tabloids and TV screens.
The most obvious indication of that is this map’s pathetic notion that all the fractions in this map are destined to fall under some external entity’s influence – this is one of the most feared scenarios for an average TV consumer in Russia, and this is what they “wish” (as mentioned, “reverse Schadenfreude”) for their archenemy to get.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Panarin has other, “classified” versions of his predictions, intended for the “competent organs” (the Soviet-era euphemism for intelligence services).
Comment by KHK — May 5, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Lurker at #11: “Fun speculation, but not credible to anyone who actually knows anything about the country (Unfortunately, this probably excludes a lot of Russian TV watchers).”
This prompts me to some reflection on American television and their choice of foreign-policy experts for interviews. How many of those apparently-knowledgable people are just as far off base about Russia (or China or Iran) as Panarin is about the United States?
Comment by Ken — May 5, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
#65: Probably the ratio of those actually knowing anything about the other country (-ies) is pretty similar among US and Russian TV audiences – I’d say around 20%. Don’t forget the old, politically incorrect rule stating that 80% of any randomly chosen group of people are complete idiots.
Comment by DP — May 5, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Glenn said, comment #6:
“How about this entirely more realistic scenario: Russia’s population continues to fall by 1 million per year (true), and its chronic xenophobia prevents the state from doing much about it. At the same time, Russia’s population ages to become the oldest in the whole world. Russia’s population falls to under 100 million (as America’s continues to surge past 400M), its economy collapses, the Chinese (world’s largest population AND economy) overrun Siberia facing little resistance from the Russian “army”, and Russia is reduced to the European portion of its territory, west of the Urals.”
Actually, it’s only the ethnic Russian population that’s facing serious decline. Most of the other ethnic groups (and yes, there’s more to Russia than just the Russians) have either stable or (especially in the Caucasus, Arctic and Siberia) rapidly growing populations. So what we may see in the future is a Russia without Russians. I personally have no clue how that would affect geopolitics, especially relations with China. If anyone wants to speculate, feel free.
Anyhow, I think the Russians should take the twigs out of their eyes before they take the specks out of ours. Seen what’s been going on in the Caucasus lately?
Comment by Lucario — May 6, 2009 @ 1:40 am
[...] (via the excellent Strange Maps) [...]
Pingback by In Mother Russia, Country Divides You :: Scoop44 — May 6, 2009 @ 3:11 am
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Man_In_The_High_Castle_map.PNG
for that one dude who asked for the High Castle Map.
Comment by Dude Helper — May 6, 2009 @ 5:48 am
[...] strange map from strange maps. Where do they keep on finding these [...]
Pingback by America’s dissolution? « The Gulf blog — May 6, 2009 @ 6:53 am
Well, some are pushing for Turkey in the European Union, too. And not all of the “territory” of the EU lies outside Europe.
Technically, it would be possible for an European state to cede some territory to a non European state. Let’s say we give Helgoland to Eastern America. :-)
Seriously, while the basically all the ideas expressed in that map are ridiculous, a possible merger between future-EU and future-part-of-former-USA would probably be named Atlantic Union.
Comment by Peter Brülls — May 6, 2009 @ 11:39 am
I think north and south Missouri would split. Southern Missourian’s seem to side with the “confederacy”.
Comment by Christy — May 6, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
I think a 6th grader with basic knowledge of history and Social Studies could divide the United States better than this. Panarin’s prediction is beyond absurd and gives zero consideration to any on-the-ground criteria.
Even if the USA *did* break up, only Canada and Mexico would stand any chance of annexing territory. Canada would probably get Alaska and some of the Northeast and upper Midwest (Minnesota, the Dakotas, perhaps Michigan’s UP). Mexico would get most of its old territory back, with the possible exception of California – this is not as unrealistic as it sounds, given that the ethnic Mexican population in those states (both native born and immigrant) is huge and growing faster than any other ethnic group.
The most absurd notion I saw on the map is he broke up the Old South. While the Old South could possibly splinter into two halves (a northeastern half and a southwestern half) and Texas would almost assuredly go independent or absorb into Mexico, I can’t possibly see a scenario where those states would arbitrarily splinter off from each other into other regional subnations. The split between Georgia and SC is especially egregious. Those states may have a friendly rivalry going but culturally, they’re very tightly bound together.
Comment by Ryan Hauck — May 6, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Methinks, Panarin is not so far off the mark. The US is a new country that has only become unified after the “Civil War”. Russia is an ancient 1000-year old nation. France is 1,500 years old, China over 3,000 years. These REAL, historic nations have been tested over time and still exist. The US has barely survived the two major tests to its existence, namely the independence war and the “Civil War”. Even its name is disputed, as in the south it is still called “War between the States”. This points to a deep-seated resentment that may well prove to be a powerful dissolving agent.
Comment by Hans — May 6, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
In response to the decline of population in Russia and the stabilization or growing population in the US.:
The only reason the pop. in the US is stable or growing is because of immigration. US families average 1.5 children per family which in no way can support population stability.
Comment by truth — May 6, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Arizona joining with California, Oregon, and Washington?
Truly, this man knows nothing about American internal politics.
I can see those four joining with each-other (especially minus Nevada, which might cleave to California)… but those three, and also Oregon and Washington, famously don’t much like California and things Californian.
What does Oregon have to gain from becoming part of a Californian nation, rather than joining with Washington and Idaho separately? Heck, perhaps Northern California would prefer not being joined with anything south of Redding?
Hans: Russia as it is now is not a thousand year old nation; Siberia wasn’t conquered until the 17th century. The Tsarist era only started in the 15th… and frankly, that sort of “nationhood” is something I’d rather not see more of.
It seems that you mean “REAL” nations to be “primarily ethnic groupings kept together by force”?
I am thus quite happy to see the US excluded from a list of “REAL” nations.
(Was “France” the same “nation” all since 500? Wasn’t the Kingdom of Francia a few hundred years later?
By the same logic you wish to apply to the US, it “barely survived” the “major tests of its existence” like the War of 1870, World War 2 (if Vichy France on German sufferance is a “REAL nation”, then the term is meaningless)…
Lastly, if you believe that the South is ready to leave the Union anytime soon, you’re … well, I don’t know where you get your information about the US, but plainly it’s not the sources we Americans have.
Your schadenfreude will have to wait, sadly.)
Comment by Sigivald — May 6, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Arizona joins China, while Georgia joins Mexico, and Tennessee joins Europe? Arrested Development one-armed man: “And that’s why you don’t make sweeping predictions.”
Comment by Jim K — May 7, 2009 @ 3:21 am
This is called seeing your own failures reflected on others.
This is all
Amusing
Sad
a little frightening.
This shattered prediction seems more apt for Russia itself than for the United States.
Comment by Rob — May 7, 2009 @ 8:14 am
@65: Point taken.
Comment by Lurker — May 7, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
As one of those Texans who has roots in the state all the way back to the Stephen F. Austin days, I’d venture to guess that Texas would come a lot closer to joining Dixie than it would to going with Mexico. And yes, I understand that there are a lot of ethnic Mexicans in Texas, but most of them busted their tails to get here because it wasn’t working out for them where they were at. And I can’t see them being willing to rejoin what wasn’t working for them the first time. Although, I’m sure someone would attempt to demogogue them into rejoining the red white and green with the implied promise being given the reins. I actually think that the plains area of eastern NM would probably go with Texas. They’re culturally, economically, and philosophically more alligned with Texas than they are with Albuquerque and Santa Fe.
I see the mountain states of eastern NM, Col, Ariz, Utah, possibly Wyoming and Montana banding together just cause no one else want them. Can you imagine the fight over water flowing out of the mountains to the sea if Cali and the mountain west weren’t under the same soveriegn? It would be a blockbuser.
Comment by Sticky B — May 7, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
If a new referendum comes one day in Quebec that leads to its independance, many canadian states would immediately merge with the USA, so it’s more probable that they inflate rather than deflate…
Comment by lp — May 7, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
> If a new referendum comes one day in Quebec that leads to its independance, many canadian states would immediately merge with the USA
Are you related to Mr.Panarin? :)
Comment by DP — May 7, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
In a breakup of the US, why treat California as a single entity? California has definite divisions internally. The far north allies itself with Oregon/Cascadia. The central valley is very much a red state – perhaps the Sierra Nevada region would join with them, perhaps they’d go separately. The central coast centering on the bay area would finally embrace all the “San Francisco values” they are accused of having. Southern California would have the white enclave of the San Fernando valley, Hollywood and parts between with the rest of the area becoming Aztlan. Not sure who’d end up with the eastern deserts.
Comment by Taggart — May 8, 2009 @ 1:00 am
There’s no way you can get Florida to bow to the South. At least not Central and Southern Florida. We have a substantial amount of gays, blacks, mexicans, moderates, and liberals. North Florida has the Christian Conservative Bible-belt beaters. Why does this have to happen when the north and the south finally mix together in a mixing pot? There’ll always be a Florida, and Florida will be free!
RULE FLORIDA! I’d love to see a Floridian Republic. It sounds nicer than Texan Republic. Texan is too Mexican :P
Comment by Isaac Grove — May 8, 2009 @ 9:57 am
“However, Russia and China are much closer to fragmenting than the religously, racialy and economicaly unifed US.”
In the case of China, not going to happen. Something like 1.3 billion Chinese are pure-blood Han; compare this to about 3 million Tibetans, 10 million Uighurs and 6 million Mongols, which are about the only ethnic groups within China likely to want to break away from the motherland. It’s much more ‘racially unified’ than the US, if that counts for anything.
Personally, I don’t see it as likely that any of these countries will balkanise in the near future, though then again people were saying that about the Soviet Union in the late 80s.
Comment by Isaac Lewis — May 8, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
What I actually meant by ‘racially unified’ is that the only thing holding most of Western China (Tibet, Xianging etc.) to the ‘Chinese’ east is the military presence and public oppression of the communist government in Beijing. That’s slowly on the way out (capitalist economy) meaning that in about 20-50 years the west will have no reason to remian part of China.
Comment by Alex — May 10, 2009 @ 9:58 am
China is definately not a 3,000 year old nation. Between the Mongol invasion of 1279AD, the numerous territorial changes, broder disputes and wars in the region and the 600-700 years of disunified China which can be found between 350BC and 1700AD, China is actually a very young nation. France as a single, unified country can be dated to 500-900AD, and 1500AD onwards. Russia migrated across a good chunk of Eastern Europe before finally settleing on the area of Northern European Russia in c. 1500, and expanding South and East from there. One of the oldest countries in existence is actually Spain,created in 1499 and retaining the same boundries since then. Finally, if England is taken seoperately from the UK, it becomes the oldest counrty in existence, the country has retained the same boundries, and indeed the same ruling extended family since Aethelstan in 939 (The Normans married into his family in 1053)
Comment by Alex — May 10, 2009 @ 10:27 am
‘if England is taken seoperately’ that should be ’seperately’
Comment by Alex — May 10, 2009 @ 10:28 am
To DP:
So, you consider that if Quebec becomes independant ( it was a question of no more than 5 per cent of the voters in 1995…)the Canadian Federation would continue to be as it was, cut in two separate halves, the USA not seeing an opportunity of controlling the North West passage in the Arctic Sea ?
I don’t see anything “paraninoïd” in that possible ( and far not ineluctable of course…) future !
Comment by lp — May 10, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
“would be at Canada’s mercy” There is an oxymoronic sentence if there is one
Comment by Herman von Salza — May 11, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
*88
Haha, sorry Alex, but just to be an ass before anyone else gets the chance, it really should be ’separately’… that is unless it’s one of those theater/theatre, aluminum/aluminium kind of things.
I’ve had those days where I wish I could edit my fresh posts too.
Comment by BAT — May 12, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
[...] many scenarios are absolutely laughable. Like this map developed by a former KGB agent. Seriously, does anyone living in the US think these divisions are [...]
Pingback by The Balkanized USA « El Santo//Rooktopia — May 14, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Though both separately and seperately are acceptable spellings, in this case I meant separately as this is the correct spelling for the UK.
Comment by Alex — May 15, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
This is a joke. NC, SC, TN, WV, and KY part of the EU? Who are you kidding? Nebraska part of Canada? That’s bull****! GA hispanic? Yeah right!
Comment by guy0307 — May 16, 2009 @ 2:48 am
There’s talk of Israel becoming part of the EU,even though geographically,Israel is in Asia.In the 1950’s there was talk of the US & Canada joining the European Common Market as the EU was known as back then.
Comment by Neil — May 18, 2009 @ 1:54 am
I live in New Mexico, and don’t want nothin, no-how to do with Texas.
Comment by J.Turner — May 28, 2009 @ 3:28 am
[...] interesting looks at border redistribution, courtesy of Strange Maps: Russia to US: You’re Breaking Up (Too) and My Kingdom for a Beer? Heineken’s [...]
Pingback by adaptive path » blog » Adaptive Path » Signposts for the Week Ending May 29 — May 30, 2009 @ 12:54 am
Assuming the current state borders stayed intact, here’s what I would predict:
New England: MA, RI, CT, ME, NH, VT
Atlantica: NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC
Dixie: GA, NC, SC, VA, TN, KY, AR, MS, WV, MS, LA, AL
Great Lakeland: OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, MN MI
Heartland: MO, KS, ND, SD, IA, NE, OK (might also join Texas)
New Mexizona: NM, AZ
Cascadia: WA, OR
Rockyland: CO, UT, WY, MT, ID (might join Cascadia), NV (might join California)
I would expect Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, Texas and California to become their own nations.
Of course, my scenario isn’t perfect because there’s cultural divides within individual states that would probably play some role in how the borders actually shaped up. But it makes a whole lot more sense than that of this so called “expert” that seems to have no grip on the cultural divides that the US would likely break along if it were to split up.
Comment by Nick — June 10, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
Actually the point about the Chinese taking over Siberia is quite true. It was already happening prior to Putin’s arrival on the scene. There were thousands of Chinese entrepreneurs moving into Siberia and vitalising its economy, held back by the far from innovative, vodka-sodden local populations.
Who can doubt that the Chinese would turn Siberia into a successful type of Canada-USA type of set up within a few years?
Comment by marisbo — June 10, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
this guy is an idiot
this is just wishful thinking on douscbehag russkie’s part
Comment by Callthepolice — June 13, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Esse artigo prova que a KGB está atuante e com os mesmos intentos de outrora: destruir os EUA.
Deus abençoe os EUA contra os exércitos de Satanás.
God bless America!
Comment by Efraim G. Ferraz — June 17, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
You have to love how despite civil war all the state borders remain exactly the same.
Comment by DB — June 18, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
This is really hysterical. The thought of the central-north American states joining or being under the influence of Canada is ridiculous. The military forces stationed within these states alone could invade and subdue Canada, especially with the nuclear arsenal stationed within these states. Colorado alone could put up a big fight with Canada with airforce, army, and strategic command bases. Also the grain belt that is found within these states would be too valuable to the New England states and the West Coast, the south could hold their own.
Comment by TaR — June 19, 2009 @ 8:19 am
Panarin is right .The terrorist nation of America is going to be destroy according to the Bible,destroy by fire,nuclear weapons.For you that don’t believe read REVELATION 18,IN ONE DAY(24H)AMERICA IS GOING TO BURN.RUSSIAN WILL ATTACK AMERICA IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS,WHY?BECAUSE THE JEWISH PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE HAVE DESTROY THE DOLLAR,THERE WILL BE REVOLUTION,CIVIL WAR,WHEN THE TOILET PAPER(DOLLAR)COLLAPSE.BY 2013 THE DOLLAR IS DOOM.READ ALSO JEREMIAH 50:3,,13,,14,,15,,16,,17,,20,,26,,27..39,,40,,41
Comment by Nicolae — June 21, 2009 @ 7:24 am
Nicolae (@104), this is why people tell you not to turn on the computer until AFTER you’ve taken your lithium.
Comment by rhodent — June 21, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
“Russia migrated across a good chunk of Eastern Europe before finally settleing on the area of Northern European Russia” Whoa whoa whoa, Kiev Rus and Russia are the same nation?
Comment by to Alex — June 23, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
@106:
“Kiev Rus and Russia are the same nation?”
No less than Louis X is French … Before the Romanovs came to the throne, the princes of Moskow claimed to descend from the princes of Kiev Rus. Google for “Rurik”.
Comment by Emil — June 24, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
@107:
There is a logical fallacy in your response: “to be descended from something” doesn’t mean “to be equal”, and doesn’t mean even “to be a part of it”. Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are all, ethnically and somewhat politically, the descendants from Kievan Rus.
But Russia is not the same nation as Kievan Rus. The history of Russia per se starts from Muscovite Russia.
Comment by DP — June 24, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
As a west coaster, there’s no way that OR and WA (even North CA) will join with CA. I’d expect Southern OR, Eastern OR and WA to join with ID more readily.
Comment by JohnH — July 7, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
If the country were to collapse, the divisions would have to include disputed territories, no-man’s lands where control constantly flip-flops; possible city-states that control small regional areas and attempt to remain separate from larger governments; the presence of state militias and other armed factions (i.e. urban gangs) that would create autonomous zones in certain states and cities . . . It really all depends. I will say that he has the division of the South totally wrong.
Plus, who would be fighting who in this conceptual second civil war?
Comment by David — July 13, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Suppose the Russians postulated this, full of mistakes, so that we the gullible would eagerly post corrections?
Comment by Marnie — July 20, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Most of us who try to build a scenario,forget that annoying little variable,the.The Hiesenburg Theory(Fact)of unpredictability.Which can destroy any scenario no matter how logical
Comment by Dennis Lawler — July 26, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
You know, if I had a nickel for every time a West Virginian came up to me and said, “I feel like a Frenchman trapped in an American’s body!” I’d have… well, I wouldn’t have a nickel.
So, in a few day’s it’ll be August, 2009, leaving about a year left for Uncle Ivan’s prediction to come true. Frankly, given the state of Russia’s economy, I think it’s far more likely that Mother Russia’s going to break into even more pieces in the near future.
Comment by Yinzer — July 31, 2009 @ 3:49 am
[...] the United States faces an imminent likelihood of breaking up into several smaller countries. See this link for a [...]
Pingback by Bad news: US dissolves. Good news: We won’t be with Texas « UNL Political Science Graduate Student Blog — August 4, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
The Kievan Rus can be identified as the earliest Russian State. Thus, I’ve made the valid point that a Russian State migrated across Eastern Europe. I’ve simplified the statement as a way of making my point clearer
Comment by Alex — August 6, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
There are Millions of Descendants of Rurik to this very day and they are too many to mention.
Comment by V.E.G. — September 11, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
Billy Wayne Sandefur is a direct descendant of Rurik, the founder of Russia.
Explanation:
Rurik>Igor>Svaitoslav>Vladimir>Yaroslav>Anna Yaroslavna>Hugh Magnus>Isabel de Vermandois>Reginald de Warenne>William de Warenne>John de Warenne>John de Warenne>Edward de Warenne>Edward de Warren>John de Warren>Nicholas de Warren>Laurence de Warren>John de Warren>Laurence de Warren>William de Warren>John Warren>Thomas Warren>John Warren>William Warren>Thomas Warren>Elizabeth Warren>Sylvanus Walker>Tandy Walker>Ann Walker>Judith Bilbo>James Richard Sandefur>Enoch Sandefur>William D. Sandefur>Gordon Odell Sandefur>Billy Wayne Sandefur(!)
Comment by V.E.G. — September 11, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
@117, Billy Wayne Sandefur:
If that’s documented right, then you might have a shot at claiming the throne in Russia, at least under the old law, that from before the Romanovs. You should start a club, at least: “Heirs of Rurik”.
Comment by Emil — September 12, 2009 @ 5:27 am
Actually, there are millions of descendants of Rurik. Bozo the Clown (born Vance DeBar Colvig), John Smith Preston, Thomas Jefferson, Caleb Davis Bradham.
Comment by V.E.G. — September 23, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
why would east US join european union? I mean EUROPEAN union
Comment by raz — September 30, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
Rurik>Igor>Svyatoslav I>Vladimir “The Great”>Yaroslav I “The Wise” GRAND DUKE OF KIEV>Anna Agnesa YAROSLAVANA>Hugues “Ie Grand” DE FRANCE>Isabel (Elizabeth) DE VERMANDOIS>Robert “Bossu” DE BEAUMONT>Robert “Blanchmains” HARCOURT>Margaret DE HARCOURT>Roger De QUINCY>Elizabeth (Isabel) De QUINCY>Elizabeth COMYN>Robert De UMFREVILLE>Thomas De UMFREVILLE>Thomas De UMFREVILLE>Elizabeth De UMFREVILLE>Joan De ELMEDON>Thomas FOSTER>Thomas FOSTER>Roger FORSTER>Thomas FORSTER>Christopher FOSTER>Hannah FOSTER>Samuel SAYRE>Daniel SAYRE>David SAYRE>David SAYRE>Rachel SAYRE>Absolom HARPOLD>Elizabeth HARPOLD>Susie Catherine WRIGHT>Earnest Frederick Miller>William Frederick Miller (HERO!!!!!!!)
Comment by V.E.G. — October 8, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
It’s funny how everything on the list might go here or might go there – except for Alaska, which used to be owned by Russia.
Also, I love the idea in an earlier comment about countries divided by Division I college football – the State of LSU playing the state of Alabama in the Republic of the SEC sounds great! I guess this means we would have to leave the country to play Texas (United States of the Big 12!)……
Comment by Mike — October 12, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
This guy clearly just divided up the US and doled out the pieces to the nearest neighbor.
Its cute that he thinks Russia would still exist in a world where China has taken over California.
Comment by Wolfgang — October 22, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
I’ve actually often thought it conceivable that the US could one day fracture internally in the very very distant future. I mean it has fought a civil war before and if you consider the American War of Independence also pitted many Americans agaisnt each other then you could make that 2 civil wars.
As an outside observer America does appear pretty politically and economically divided. Add to that the potential for creeping militarisation, that a military leader could end the republic/bring about military rule and provoke civil conflict, or just the number of armed militias/private arms and wacko groups there are. I don’t a variety of different factions competing for control in America as inconceivable. I don’t know about Mexico and Canada carving out chunks of it though, maybe if there was a huge vaccuum of power for long enough…but i would think US nukes would put a stop to that. Then again Britain did condider intervening in the US civil war.
Comment by blitzenfest — October 31, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
@124: I don’t think anyone is saying it’s absolutely impossible that the United States of America could ever fracture. What everyone is saying is that the timeline (2010) is absurd and that if the country did fracture then it would do so along lines very different from what this map shows. As numerous people have noted, the idea that South Carolina would forsake states like Georgia and Alabama so it could be in the same country as Massachusetts and New York is particularly laughable.
Comment by Daniel — November 1, 2009 @ 2:22 am
Back in the late 1980’s I designed, published and sold a game called ‘Shattered States’ that postulated a collapse of the US. (actually it did postulate so much as say what would happen afterward). We came up with 26 groupings – based on states -lines and group of states. However, rather than being controlled by others it is clear that the US groups would try to restore order in a ‘New US.’ However, the US military today is WAAAYYYY too small to control the various states. So you would have armed non-military groups doing so. But even then, you are talking about a country that is heavily armed…and direct military confrontation is not likely.
Of all the suggestions the good professor makes I think the HI breaking off (really declaring independence) and Alaska being ‘liberated’ if the US central government falls apart as likely. Although, what Russia would want with a cold resource rich non-industrialized state when they have lots of that now who knows.
Comment by Karsten — November 2, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
The funniest thing would be if the original thirteen states of the Union, or some very similar group, ended up reapplying to become colonies of Britain, or at least of the EU.
Comment by Adam — November 6, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
[...] by hepsy from StrangeMaps Endtime prophecy is not the province of the religiously excitable alone. Even the die-hard [...]
Pingback by Divided States – How U.S. will Split « Hepsy's Kuleana — November 12, 2009 @ 10:02 am
I hope someone has ideas about redrawing state lines to prevent a collapse, a restructuring if you will. The mean streak map shows the population movement west, however the west has real water shortage problems which national politics ignore. I think redrawing western state-lines according to watersheds is a logical start. Rivers are “Natural Boundaries,” however notice cities on both sides of the river are not equal. Hopefully, having both sides of the river under the same state government will have a positive economic impact. Surely the water projects would get done.
Comment by Bruce Arterbury — November 16, 2009 @ 6:48 pm