Russia's economy has entered the death zone
economist.com
economist.com
You can exhaust yourself completely and be dead on your feet.
Doomed, is the expression.
Same applies for the West.
If they do, they loose. That sets their position in the world.
Who’d fear them? They can’t even win over a country which is much smaller and weaker than they are.
The problem isn't Russia, inherently. The problem is Putin. He cannot survive (probably literally) without being feared.
Only the current regime is in existential struggle. This why it closed the borders[0] and kidnaps men on the streets[1] to send to the front line.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_conscription_crisis#...
They know they are next on the chopping block.
They need Russia to guard their back, the last thing they need is a USA-friendly regime in Russia.
You are all talking about 'just a bit longer and Russia will implode'. Look at the state of Ukraine, who is going to implode sooner, Russia or Ukraine?
Heck, look at the state of Europe and USA! USA is a political nutcase, and Europe has deep divisions and is overflowing with incompetence and impotence. Plus enormous debts, both in USA and in Europe.
Every day that passes, Russia gets weaker: more oil sold in crude form only, since they don't have refining capacity to export gasoline; foreign currency reserves shrinking, since China is their main customer; another 35k casualties every month, with mounting costs for enlistment bonuses and death benefits; outer provinces stripped of men of fighting age, North Korea unwilling to send more soldiers, African recruits drying up; inflation raging, industries shutting down, and all economic indicators heading south.
It's terrible that Ukraine is trapped in this slugfest, but at this point, time favours Ukraine.
Ukraine domestic defense production has the slight problem of being continuously bombed, lacking manpower, reliable (or any!) electricity. Are you sure it is growing? Perhaps explosively...
Their largest and most competent army is mostly dead and maimed, they rely on catching unwilling men on the streets and herding them to the front. You believe 35k Russian casualties each month, and at the same time you believe Ukrainian official figures of 55k casualties overall, right?
European powers taking responsibility for supporting Ukraine by continuously arguing where/how should they get emergency funds to 'lend' to Ukraine, so its finances do not collapse within the next 2 month.
Man, how can you believe this nonsense?
Time does not favour Ukraine. It does not favour Russia (or Europe) either, it favours mostly China.
Whether or not it's under constant bombardment, Ukraine is now supplying 50% of its consumable supplies; in 2022, it was under 5%. Ukraine actually exports some weapons and drone tech to finance other purchases.
Its manpower crisis has been continually overstated by Russian propaganda. At the moment, they have 800k+ in their army. They rejected a bill recently to lower the conscription age to 25 from 27. They have an untapped pool of manpower aged 18-27 that they're avoiding if possible (as has been possible so far).
Whether or not Europeans are arguing a lot, they're still providing massive material and financial aid to Ukraine, which still has a functioning economy and social welfare system. Their gov't pensions go out on time and in full. They're not experiencing hyperinflation. There's a reason that Ukrainians as a population aren't willing to accept the kind of crap settlements Trump is pushing.
> Man, how can you believe this nonsense?
You're the one spouting Russian disinformation, especially after looking at your other comments. If you're not getting paid for this, you should be.
But Putin doesn't care about that, so the war will continue until something changes militarily.
It's not clear how the Russian army will improve when the economy declines.
So European NATO countries basically need to keep supporting Ukraine while they try to becomes militarily independent of the US.
If Russia really becomes weaker and the war winds down a bit, then supporting Ukraine is likely to become cheaper as well. But as long as Russia manages to send tons of drones and missiles to Ukraine, Europe should be worried. So Ukraine will remain a testing ground for air defense for a while.
There is also the issue with the Baltic countries and to some extent Finland. Those countries are terrified that Russia will do something stupid.
Even if there is enough support for economic/material support of Ukraine, the matter of sending your man to die on the eastern front is an altogether different matter. Even Poland is not willing to do that. I mean, 'I am afraid of dying in a war, so I better go die in a war, to prevent that.'
Yes and no. There's a minimum price they need to sell it, and somewhere in between they may not actually make enough between the minimum and sale price to actually fund their military. Nevermind the awesome job you guys are doing blowing up refineries and other industrial facilities. It'll be good when Europe stops importing Russian gas and steps up their seizure of sanctioned ships too.
Sanctions can and will work against Russia. Part of the strain they face today is due to these sanctions, it just takes awhile and in the meantime, unfortunately, there are people dying.
Reality on the ground is much different. While the Soviets did bear the brunt of the Nazi onslaught, what is often overlooked is their own culpability in the war (invading and splitting Poland in partnership with the Nazis, &c) and their evil annexations of peoples and countries that were nearby as part of their own power-grab. In other words, part of the reason they were in the war in the first place is because they joined the Nazis in effectively kicking it off, at least in Europe.
Soviet apologists also tend to forget that the United States and other anglo powers* simultaneously fought the Nazis in the west, took down the Japanese, invaded and liberated Italy, the Philippines, and more, fought and won in North Africa, and did all of this while providing the Soviets with the equipment they needed to stay in the war. Nevermind staging additional campaigns and operations, such as those in China to aid them against Japanese occupation.
* I don't intend to suggest that it was only the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada that fought the good fight because we undoubtedly received heroic contributions from numerous allies and friends during the war.
Nice story. One problem though: they eagerly joined Nazis in exterminating Jews. The ideology of nationalists aligned quite well, be it German Nazis, Baltic states, Hungarians or Western Ukrainians.
Russians are killing their future for sure.
We hear this mantra since almost 5 years. I am not saying there should not be sanctions, but at some point the strategic lies need to end.
Their epistemology doesn't need updating; the politicians fibbing need to be ridiculed.
Under market rates sure, but it must still be profitable. China and India know that, so they're going to drive down the price to the extent they can so that it's just barely profitable. But you can't just profit from the oil and gas, you need to profit enough to buy fighter jets and tanks, and all sorts of other things.
It takes time.
Now, can you see anyone giving Putin's kleptocracy a few trillion dollars to rebuild Рашка? The Marshall Plan rebuilt Germany because the US realised that without that as the economic powerhouse of Europe the place would be a basket case in need of US support for decades, but when you're just a gas station masquerading as a country (McCain) no-one's going to bail you out except insofar as it keeps the gas flowing, and if you look at places like Nigeria you don't need much to keep the gas flowing.
Unfortunately, if the leaks are true, they might actually be discussing that.
"Fortunately" Putin is more bent on having the whole Donbas which Ukraine will not give so I don't believe this happens in the near future - which is bad for Russia as a country.
Which specific leaks are discussing giving Putin a few trillion dollars? Who is the money coming from?
I have several friends in Russia, and I do wish them well, but it will be difficult to get back to normal as long as Putin is alive.
I am not sure where did you get this, there is no such announcement publicly available.
> but it will be difficult to get back to normal as long as Putin is alive
There won't be a return to the 1990s-2000s subservient state, which you seem to be calling "normal". Whomever comes to replace Putin is going to be way more nationalist than the guy who spent more than half of his life in the USSR, being a Party member, and working in the field of internationalist politics.
No need to go that far, I visited Moscow a few times before 2014 and it was more or less fine. I'd say 2 decades behind the West but OK. What is now is a big mess with Russia being an international pariah. This is bad and also unfair to millions of people who don't care about imperialistic ambitions of Putin and just want to live their lives in peace.
World War 2 was not won due to the economy. And while it is true that the USSR "lost" the Cold War, they actually spent too much and entered a recurring debt from which they could no longer get out. There was no direct war here, which is different to e. g. world war 2 (at the least USA versus Germany). USSR and USA only fought some proxy wars.
It was literally won due to the economy. The moment Germans failed to knock out Soviets and Japanese pulled Americans into the fight their days were numbered due to insane industrial base of the both countries. Soviet meat waves, industry + lend lease won Europe and US finished Japanese.
sigh
> sigh
I agree it's an unfortunate way of presenting it but Stalin was a guy who didn't care for anyone's life and was literally sending people in waves to die with the NKVD sadists shooting scared young boys whenever they tried to run away from the horror of war. Dead if you go, dead if you don't. It's romanticized an celebrated today, but it was a mass tragedy incomparable to one that happened to ny other country in recent history.
So many pivotal decisions in WW2 were economic in nature. Lend lease? Germany's late switch to a war economy? The Allies' much larger manufacturing capabilities?
You could also argue that the cold war stayed cold because of the West's economic might. It set a military and living standard that the USSR bankrupted itself trying to match.
The US may not prioritize Ukraine but the war is mostly funded now by Europe who don't want Russia rolling west into Europe.
Of course, it is also very difficult to utterly destroy a country’s economic power. Unfortunately, in Russia’s case, they have the raw materials and a population they can basically enslave. Hitting hard at refineries is a good strategy, it’s a weak point in the whole structure. Hopefully it’ll be enough.
Honestly, I don’t see an easy or clean way out of this. One possibility is that they’ll grind themselves badly enough to become completely irrelevant. Unfortunately that means a good chunk of Ukraine gets ground down along the way. One can hope for a coup, but then whatever comes after might well be worse.
Then, hopefully Ukraine can rebuild as a free nation.
Basically: the way this ends is when the collective will of the power centers (generally the armed forces, though not always) decide that they'll be wealthier and happier with Putin gone than by following more orders.
And obviously that's an unstable/unpredictable equilibrium, because groups don't decide collectively like that and exactly how a coup works is never known until it does. But it's the way literally every other government of every other failed state has fallen[1], and there's no reason to think this one will fare any differently.
[1] Well, there's "unexpected death of the leader" thing too.
No, I am not misunderstanding. For all intents and purposes, at the moment Putin’s will is Russia’s will. And it looks like he knows his weaknesses within the country and is willing to let marginal populations bear the weight of his ambitions while keeping his power base comfortable enough. Of course he might end up like Stalin, at which point who knows? But it might not be much better for Ukraine, and in the meantime Putin keeps giving the orders.
> Basically: the way this ends is when the collective will of the power centers (generally the armed forces, though not always) decide that they'll be wealthier and happier with Putin gone than by following more orders.
He can get most soldiers rich enough for this to drag on for quite a long time. They probably would be happier elsewhere, but they don’t have a say. The generals is another problem, but so far Putin is quite effective at finding loyal ones.
I'm not saying that Putin is going to be deposed next week, or year, or even ever. I'm saying that the Russian government is no less susceptible to the circumstances that produce coups than any other failed state, and failed states are the circumstances that produce coups.
At the end of the day, all government is ultimately by the consent of the governed. But predicting how and when that consent will be withdrawn that's is hard part.
However putin is a good representative of russian people who easily travel to other country 5000+ km to die for cash and imperial narratives. If putin dies tomorrow war wouldn't stop.
Classic economic theory suggests that the amount you need offer to people willing to die goes up over time.
For Ukraine the main thing is to get to the point that Russia doesn't attack any more. There is no need for Ukraine to concur any part of Russia. Even getting the currently occupied land back is mostly optional.
No, it's not. Even Ukrainians rarely target civilians.
Not if that city's industry is contributing to the war effort.
>Most people suffering from it will be civilians. There will likely be deaths.
You can say that about Western sanctions on Russia too. How many people have died because of a single MRI scanner or cancer drug that couldn't be bought by a Russian hospital?
Was it the "nuclear war without nukes" since the day the West imposed blanket sanctions on Russian economy?
Or did that "nuclear war without nukes" started in 2014-2015 when the Ukraine cut electricity and water supply to Crimea? "It has one goal - terror", right?
Ukraine cutting supply of electricity and water to Crimea did demonstrate the attitude of the Ukrainian government to people it considered once their citizen. It obviously wasn’t a part of the current chapter of the war.
Yes, there is nothing like 'nuclear war without nukes' that is happening here. And I was trying to demonstrate that your logic seem to lead to conclusion that the 'nuclear war without nukes' started in 2014.
>to people it considered once their citizen
It is still considering them Ukrainian citizens.
The whole story with territorial question is part of this: possible peace settlement could include just splitting Donbas region on the current front line, so that Putin could claim victory and Ukraine could just say they did what they could. But Russia wants more, they need Donbas in original borders, which is unacceptable to Ukraine. Why? Because if this question will be settled in the peace deal, it may open Ukraine eventually path to NATO. They want to create permanent tension the same way as it happened to Georgia, deferring the final settlement by a hundred years (see Taiwan as an example, which occupies China for decades).
No, it wouldn't be victory, it would be compromise. And the Ukraine isn't Russia's rival, it's just cannon fodder for the West.
>they are surprisingly content with Ukraine joining EU
Kremlin says that. Doesn't have to be true.
>which is unacceptable to Ukraine
Why is it unacceptable to the Ukraine?
I see why it's unacceptable for current regime in Kiev because they can't just say "we actually don't need Donbass, never mind hundreds of thousands lives we wasted defending it".
However, it is true that they do not do it on the scale Israel is doing.
That's only true in the short term.
If Russia gets out of the war with Ukraine with territory gains, that only serves as incentive to start up again after Russia can regroup. After all, Putin's stated long-term goal is to take the entire country (among others) and restore the USSR.
Of course, taking back the occupied land is also easier said than done, as it would severely weaken Putin domestically to have expended all these resources and lives for nothing. There's no way he can allow that.
Both countries are in a catch-22.
This was never a stated goal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/6/27/putin-confirms-...
Also, looking at Russian track record specifically, is Georgia, which was militarily defeated in 2008, part of Russia? Did they formally annex Abkhazia or Transnistria? Does Lukashenko report to Putin?
Ukraine was seen as easy to take over. But that was clearly a wrong assessment.
And Ukrainian military force currently relies on kidnapping men on the street and dispatching them to the front line after minimal training.[0][4]
The borders of the Ukraine are closed for any man of conscription age - they can't get out.[1]
You can watch the videos with logos of Ukrainian telegram channels and see how it happens[2][3]. Imagine yourself in their place.
[0] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-recruitment-army/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_conscription_crisis#...
The death zone isn’t the point at which they die, it’s the point at which they are consuming their own long term strength and capacity to recover in order to sustain their effort .
To our utter shame, we have never actually committed to Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat, but merely to tenuous Ukrainian survival. I firmly believe this war would already be over, or effectively so, if Ukraine’s allies had spent what we have up till now in the first 2 years. Even from a cynical financial point of view it would have been the better policy.
The fundamental issue is that Russia has not fully committed to winning the war either. While losing the war would be an existential threat to the Putin regime, not winning it is not. As long as the war drags on, there are more effective uses for Russian resources to ensure the stability of the regime. But if the war becomes an existential threat, Russia could mobilize its entire economy.
A regime change in Russia is the only way Ukraine could win the war. Maybe by a coup or by military force. Or maybe by an arrangement, where the current regime can retire comfortably in a third country without having to answer for its crimes.
As per Clausevitz, wars end either when you kill every last soldier or the ones who are still alive decide not to fight. I can't see the former happening. So it's about ratcheting the pain of continuing to something unbearable. To the level where Russia can't make enough cash selling resources to make more tanks and bombs and also feed people.
The issue is of course that Russians seem incredibly resilient against the latter. They seem happy when Russia wins another 5m^2 of territory even if materially they are massively affected.
But even then if Russia can no longer recruit "marginal" people and the alternative to peace is even larger losses, people might reassess.
The higher the economic cost in the meantime, the sooner this moment comes.
the "russian firehose" approach and vryanyo (institutional lying) means they're bombarded with info but also know most of it is BS, but not necessarily how or why.
they know it's not going well but at this point much of the economy is on war-footing and if they're not drafted they're probably getting paid okay. STFU and keep your head down and you won't get drafted.
But who? People watching the national TV and followers of war bloggers for sure. But for the rest the current situation is just a very dark fragment in the history of Russia and everybody is just waiting for it to end.
By western standards ruzzian economy is in collapse, but their citizens are willing to endure anything beyond western imagination. Not to mention that even before 2022 apart from Moscow and Saint Petersburg there are many towns that are like timecapsules 50+ years into the past.
TL;DR: I will believe ruzzina state collapse/death when I will see it, but now I don't hold my breath.
I think everyone underestimates just how much misery Russia, and Russian citizens, can endure.
Systems are resilient - until they are not, and exhibit sudden factures and fast collapse.
The question is not whether Russia collapses or not, but who would be making profit from such a scenario, and who is keen on keeping the current state of affairs.
Strategic independence my ass.
IMHO ruzzia hasn't changed in ~450-500 years since Ivan the Terrible. No matter how they sell their way of governing to international scene - it's always a tzar rulling with iron fist. There were optimistic glimpses that they will grow out of it, but it always returns back to tzar.
Really?
From what I see there is no visible economy problems in Russia. Yes, there are some temporary issues in some areas, but generally it's resolved promptly.
There is some decrease of real salary/price increase, but not that significant. Probably situation in EU is worse.
It looks like economic block of Russian government is really professional and know what to do. It's not typical for government in Russia ;)
Also it helps that people are locked in country by western countries, so many stays in country and drives the economy.
Germany has 6.3%
Spain 9.9%
France 7.9%
All while having millions of foreigners/immigrants to support.
salaries are pretty good, relatively speaking, if you're in engineering or other STEM fields.
excess labor is being drained off to die horribly to drones in eastern Ukraine.
it's kind of like a fat guy starving to death -- for a minute all that weight loss will bring improvements to blood pressure, insulin, etc., but in a couple weeks he's not gonna feel so great
For practical purposes, unemployment around 4% means full employment, because there's always a portion of the population not working for some reason: taking time off, too dumb, don't want to work, unable to for reasons of temperment or psychological health, etc. At 4% (as the US has often been in the last few decades) it's really difficult to fill menial roles or unskilled factory jobs with people who know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Russia at 2.2% means many needed positions are going unfulfilled, crippling productivity and planning. It's a sign that the manpower needs of the war are draining productive workers, slowing their own economy at a time when they need more productivity to overcome sanctions and other economic effects.
I'm skeptical how close they are to a dramatic change.
Build tanks -> increase GDP
Send those tanks to burn with men inside -> increase GDP per capita
It looks like Russian bonds are largely bought by Middle Eastern based hedge funds and family funds or trusts.
Yes, pretty much. But even that peaked at some point in 2023 and is trending downwards now.
Obviously domestic investors. EU sanctions locked them on domestic market and with current macro indicators buying Russian debt is a no-brainer.
> Also how did the GDP grow by 1% in 2025, is that a function of the internal Defence spending activity?
Russia poured a lot of money in the economy, so it wasn’t just military spending. Generous payouts to families of killed and wounded soldiers did magic to local property markets. It also accelerated inflation, which pushed people to spend more. At the same time imports from the West dropped, only partially compensated by Chinese. Central bank had to raise interest rates multiple times targeting inflation and preventing economy from overheating. Now it started dropping the rates, taking into account that borrowing already suppressed and military spending is lower this year.
Since Crimea Invasion
Russia’s Economy Is On the Brink of Collapse" – CNN Business, December 2014.
"The End of the Putin Era? Russia’s Economy Is Tanking" – Newsweek, December 2014.
"Russia Heading for Economic 'Colossal Collapse'" – BBC News (quoting Alexei Kudrin), December 2014.
"How the Oil Price Collapse Could Topple Putin" – The Guardian, 2015.
"Russia’s Economy Is a Mess" – The Atlantic, February 2015.
"Russia’s Coming Economic Collapse" – Forbes, June 2015.
Since Ukraine War
Post-Ukraine Invasion (2022–Present)
"The Russian Economy Is Heading for a Meltdown" – The Economist, March 2022.
"Biden: The Ruble Is Reduced to Rubble" – Associated Press (reporting on White House statements), March 2022.
"Russia Faces its Worst Economic Collapse Since the Fall of the Soviet Union" – Bloomberg, April 2022.
"The Implosion of the Russian Economy" – Foreign Affairs, July 2022.
"Russia’s Economy Is Dying a Slow Death" – Business Insider, 2023.
"Is Russia’s Economy On the Brink of Collapse? Why Trump Might Be Right" – The Guardian, September 2025.
"Stormy Weather Pummels Russia's Economy: Cracks Are Appearing" – CEPA, February 2026.
"The Russian Economy Is Finally Stagnating" – The Guardian, February 2026.
The only hope for reasonable context/nuance over here is through independent journalists.
Don't just the world through the lens of a few billionaires.
[1] https://pwestpathfinder.com/2022/05/09/the-big-sixs-big-medi...
[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx
1. News outlets look to sell stories - and so catchy headlines. Real value is optional.
2. I expect you could find a range of contrary views over the same time. I've read good analysis saying economy will just keep going.
3. Try going to Russia and see what you find in the way of half-truths or free speech.
The point of media is not to sell stories. Even if it is, the stories should not be made-up, biased or distorted.
Just because in Russia it’s worse, it doesn’t mean we should keep our media shit.
It does look like the war is taking it's toll, though. It is said that the annual growth in GDP is expected to be negative for 2026.
Overall I think they’ve been the best source of analysis on this I’ve found. They were explaining what CDOs and such were, and why they were a systemic risk years before the collapse in 2008.
Edit for the good metaphors.
> It has entered what mountaineers call the death zone: the altitude above 8,000 metres at which the human body consumes itself faster than it can be repaired.
> Over the past four years the Russian economy has bifurcated into two distinct metabolic systems... The body is metabolising its own muscle tissue for energy.
> A recession is like fatigue: rest and you recover. Russia’s condition is like altitude sickness: the longer you stay, the worse it gets, regardless of rest.
> But Vladimir Putin is not only watching his own oxygen gauge. He is watching the other climbers.
Always a fan of the writing style the Economist promotes.
The US runs a trillion dollar war machine, a multi-trillion dollar military industrial complex. It needs to feed it. It needs enemies. At the very least, it needs a constant threat to justify its existence (even if it has to create those threats).
If Russia ceases to be a threat, does the US begin to hassle more countries? Does it increase the Police State, does domestic surveillance become more prevalent. Are we already seeing these things?
A legitimate Russian threat might actually be good for the world and the American people.
The US is great at creating its own threats. In addition, marketing chops are top tier, and Hollywood is always glad to help.
The main focus is on GDP growth, which indeed has been reported as decent - maybe a bit of a wobble recently but no more.
So, first of all, that number is kind of unverifiable. Hostile journalists have been silenced, independent institutions shattered or kicked out. Their GDP number might be accurate, but might also be inflated, and we'd never know. Russia is notorious for manipulating information for propaganda reasons and frankly I can't see why they wouldn't inflate their GDP prints. China was far more open when people were questioning its GDP and even then it was tea leaf prophecies.
Moreover, with Putin's (and incidentally Trump's) approach of never retreating and always doubling down, I'd expect Russia would act like it's business as usual until pretty much the day it collapses. As with the Titan sub, there will be some awkward creaking sounds then in one instant it will all go.
For the final straw, even if the GDP number is 100% right, increasingly it is driven by military spending. GDP is essentially the sum total of money spent in a country. And Russia is increasingly spending that money not on healthcare, schools, police, infrastructure and investments, and instead on military hardware being sent straight to be destroyed in Ukraine. You can do this for a little bit but, as the article points out, not forever, and mere GDP growth is not much of a sign of a strong economy.
There's just so much we don't know: if the GDP is real, what Russian gold reserves look like (apparently raided - but how much?), how their oil companies are holding up having siphoned every last Rouble meant for maintenance off to cash. Russia also lost something like an estimated 1.25M men. If for a back-of-the-envelope we assume half of Russia's prewar population is participating in labour force, that's almost 2% of the workforce permanently lost. And their loss rate ain't dropping.
EDIT some more caveats:
- GDP captures the official economy. It is unclear what the impact on the unofficial economy is, I can imagine larger than on the regular economy (but could make the opposite argument too).
- Even if Russia is not fudhing the final number, the incentives on individual surveyed subjects align with those of pumping GDP, especially in time of crisis - lower costs, higher income.
>Consider the arithmetics of descent for the Kremlin. Russia’s defence sector now accounts for around 8% of GDP. Demobilising without falling into a crisis would require five conditions to be met simultaneously: credible security guarantees that satisfy the Kremlin’s threat perceptions (which in turn will determine the extent to which it rebuilds its military capabilities);
Likely result of a peace deal. Trump wants to sign it and focus on China, so some pragmatic arrangement to be expected.
> mass demobilisation with effective retraining programmes;
The easiest part. The scale of mobilization was relatively small compared to total workforce. Not sure why effective retraining sounds like a problem.
>at least partial sanctions relief for technology access;
Russia has gaps in electronics (can buy from China) and in aviation (sanctions likely to be lifted in exchange for opening transit routes). In software it is still ahead of Europe, having strong national players in AI, banking, marketplaces etc. It may need Western tech to roll out 5G, but given that they already plan it, they probably already have access to Chinese tech.
>a revolution in defence procurement that prioritises efficiency over budget absorption;
Not clear why this is relevant. The defense spending will wind down gradually, it is likely already more efficient than before the war.
> and a healthy ecosystem of small and mid-size firms capable of absorbing reallocated resources and boosting innovation.
Will likely happen as soon as tax relief will be affordable, i.e. in 1 or 2 years after the peace deal. Resilience of Russian SMEs is something developed over decades. It might happen that Dubai and South Caucasus Russian tech hubs will go home. Most importantly, there will be a huge amount of money spent on new territories similarly to infrastructure investments in Crimea, which will add few percentage of growth to GDP.
> The probability of all five converging is near zero.
This is the most interesting part of the article, but it left unexplained. Why?
The truth is that the sanctions are only hurting the Eurozone more than Russia. Small minority (EU or the political west) cannot force meaningful sanctions on much larger group (BRICS). Unfortunately this is not the narrative anyone can say out loud lest they be labeled as "Putin's trolls" so the wishy-washy keeps on going on.
Debt. The Bubble.
Is that sustainable? I don’t think so.
What’s the point of the article? To prove the west’s superiority?
So what's the point of the comment? Your fear that it might be superior?
That is the very basis of our currency, and the basic idea is a good one in an idea-heavy economy more reliant on innovation than natural resource constraints. Also, if truly becomes too much we will just have one of the many many currency changes. My grandparents lived with about five (could be as many as seven) currencies throughout their (German) lives, for example.
As long as the real values remain, the factories, the people, the roads, the buildings, that is not a problem overall. It's not like people can emigrate to alien worlds, and on earth the places with the best real economy will be where they will go - have to go.
Money is the carrot dangled in front of us to keep us moving and to create real value things. The carrot can be updated and changed if the current one starts to lose its appeal, it is not what ultimately matters. The point of view of an individual and the big picture are very different things.
- nuclear threat rhetoric
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47051983
- news are propaganda
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47052056
- Unsustainable debt
There are tons of great parts in it, but one that really stuck with me is his analysis of the social dynamics whereby when someone brings you a gift or otherwise does something expensive for you, you are temporarily in debt to them, and the polite expectation is that you always pay it back in a way whereby you give more than you owe, such that they will then be in debt to you (generally for approximately the same amount), and the relationship can continue oscillating, with each of you being in debt about half the time. Paying back exactly what you were given and not a penny more is thus considered to be an indication that you want to discontinue the relationship.
I borrow from you. I now have debt.
I sell furniture. Now I can pay you back some part of it (up to 100%).
You (and other parties) see that I'm quite good at what I do and my products sells.
I now can borrow from you and other parties again to produce more (and possibly diversify my business).
I sell more, I open new businesses etc. I pay you and other parties back. And borrow again.
I can and will have debt (and it will grow over time) because this is what allows me and my business to grow.
I can borrow and be in debt till the day I die.
This basic concept is too foreign for people for whom "debt" is just a sum of money they borrowed from their friend and somehow now feel ashamed.
I say the current amount of debt and the promise of we have unlimited money is what’s wrong.
Of course мы do, tovarisch.
What does this have to do with "unlimited money"? USD is just a "contract".
A trillion in debt is not the sum of fiat paper the US owes anybody.
I think the way is to support Ukraine to win rather than the 'escalation management' of Biden or the taking bribes to pressure Ukraine to surrender of Trump.
They are not doing so badly recently. 200 sq km taken back last week.
Nice in theory, now put that in practice.
Care to share how to achieve that? Especially since Ukraine is running low on men.
Should we (the West) send men to fight in Ukraine? What else would make a difference? Do we really want WW3?
Ukraine is not doing great. Selective news selection, notwithstanding. They did occupy some territory in Kursk, did not help them much in the long run either.
'Denazification' means 'regime change', the western standard. Its just that the US is much better at it.
We view Belarus as a total vassal of Putin. Still, there were/are no Belarusian soldiers fighting in Ukraine. That could not have been said about e.g. European soldiers in Afghanistan, or UK soldiers in Iraq.
We keep insisting on Ukraine in NATO ... well, now it is not sure thing there will be a meaningful NATO around by the time the Ukraine war ends.
No one is insisting on Ukraine in NATO. NATO has been continually refusing, officially and unofficially, membership for Ukraine because it's actively involved in a war. The NATO charter automatically rejects membership for any party actively engaged in hostilities, defensively or otherwise. Ukraine will never be in NATO unless it has an actual peace with Russia. Talk of Ukraine joining NATO is, again, Russian disinformation trying to blame NATO expansion for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
My problem with this is that many of these "news media" have a certain propaganda spin. Yes, Russia's propaganda puts any other propaganda to shame, but that does not mean others don't use propaganda either. The most prevalent change is how suddenly in Europe, more debt will be made by upgrading arms. I am not saying this is not understandable, so I am not necessarily against that; in fact, Europeans need a nuclear arsenal under EU control anyway. But at the same time one should not blindly adopt propaganda used by others. One always has to look what happens to taxpayer's money or who finances something.