France does not break down its statistics by race or ethnicity. But the general opinion among French demographers is that pro-natalist measures (family allowances, daycare, etc.) have a greater impact on indigenous French women than on Muslim women.

This is because French women tend to plan family size on the basis of their ability to pay. Muslim women are more influenced by other factors, especially the husband's desire to have male children. In addition, Muslims, like Third World immigrants in general, are less likely to plan the size of their families because they are more present-oriented and less likely to plan their lives in general. Finally, subsidized daycare has less impact on Muslim women because most of them are forced to stay at home.

Russia's family benefits are for Russian citizens only. There is a serious problem with illegal immigration from Central Asia, but any regularization of their situation is done on a case-by-case basis. Unlike Spain and the U.S., Russia has never amnestied illegal immigrants.

Russia also has an indigenous population of Muslim Tatars. The Tatars, however, are generally nominal Muslims and are thoroughly European in culture and outlook.

...as they benefit primarily the Muslims as already observed in countries such as France or Sweden. Putin's policies should therefore be considered pro-Muslim just as Sarközy's or Brown's.

I'm more optimistic. In fact, I'm more optimistic about Russia's demographic future than I am about North America's or Western Europe's.

Under Putin, Russia has introduced a large number of pro-natalist measures, which are starting to have an effect. Over the past two years, there has been a marked increase in the birth rate. It's still below replacement, but the change is in the right direction. When I talk with young Russians, there is now much more interest in family formation than there was just five years ago.

Is Russia a 'democratic civil society'? No. But how democratic are most societies in this world? (Ask Mark Stein about our Canadian 'democracy'). It's naive to think you can create democracy just by changing the government or by having the right laws. There has to be respect for law, not only by the government but also by common people at the grassroots level. 

It's the people who make the country, not the country that makes the people.

"and young people emigrate to escape the burden of supporting the elderly."

Where are they going to escape to? Nigeria? Pakistan? Indonesia?

Fortunately Russia's demographics are as bad or even worse. Take away the oil money and Russia is Zimbabwe with snow. The demographics in Europe as Mark Steyn in "America Alone" has pointed out will forever change the continent in Muslim's favor.

Russia is incapable of change. 70 yeas of Communism produced a population that is passive and risk averse and basically ignorant of what a democratic civil society would look like. The soft Communism that permeates Europe produces the same passive mind frame. Brussels morphs into the Politburo, rights are diminishing, natives are being systematically replaced and there is no a sense of urgency.

I don't see much changing this.