3 ms·

> That's in contrast to Russia, which as a declining economy, would be well served by a chaotic situation. I heard some people repeat this, but I don't follow

> That's in contrast to Russia, which as a declining economy, would be well served by a chaotic situation. I heard some people repeat this, but I don't follow the logic. Unless you are a major exporter of weapon system like the USA, war means draining resources. Yes you can increase local production of weapons for the local market, but in the case of Russia it's a direction downward, not upward. I read Russian press regularly and one of their major problems now is a sudden and drastic increase in mortgages. How will increased production of tanks help? Russians needs houses to live not more tanks - nobody sane is going to attack a country with so many nukes.

hangonhn 5y ago
One narrative I've heard is that Russia is the only petro state in Europe and gets as much as 50% of their revenue from oil and gas. However, Ukraine also have some fossil fuel resources in the eastern and western edges of its territory along with huge gas reserves off of the Crimea peninsula. So maybe Russia is not so much served by the chaos of war as much as it needs to maintain a strangle hold over the gas and oil trade to Western Europe. Annexing the Crimea and the Donbas region gives it control over most of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources.
pasabagi 5y ago
In straight terms you're right: going to war will almost certainly not help the Russian economy, almost regardless of how well it goes. I think the question is a bit more deeper, though. Economic growth is fundamentally useful as a means to accrue legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled - that's how the CCP remains in power in China. That's how countries like the UK or USA have managed to avoid serious pressure to reform, despite obvious (and often comical) systemic flaws in their constitutions. It is, however, not the only way to accrue legitimacy. Ayatollah Khomeini once opined "economics is for donkeys", and for his administration, it was entirely true: their legitimacy was based on religious grounds. If you're entering into an era when the fundamentals of your economy are a declining asset (being a petro-state when everybody is switching to renewables), you are diplomatically isolated, your industries are uncompetitive, it makes sense to look for other sources of legitimacy. Putin's attempt to push 'Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality', is kinda classic.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  If Putin was smarter, he could take to heart the words of Sheikh Rashid[0] who was in a similar situation. Russia has so many smart people, it's insane the state failed to support them in creating truly great things. [0] "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel"
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    > it's insane the state failed to support them in creating truly great things. Insane, and tragic. I blame Stalin. He created a state where the only people who could stomach being an apparatchik had no moral center, where real power always flowed through backchannels, and where limits on official power were always provisional and informal. Putin is just the cynical dregs of this system.

hangonhn 5y ago

One narrative I've heard is that Russia is the only petro state in Europe and gets as much as 50% of their revenue from oil and gas. However, Ukraine also have some fossil fuel resources in the eastern and western edges of its territory along with huge gas reserves off of the Crimea peninsula. So maybe Russia is not so much served by the chaos of war as much as it needs to maintain a strangle hold over the gas and oil trade to Western Europe. Annexing the Crimea and the Donbas region gives it control over most of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources.

pasabagi 5y ago

In straight terms you're right: going to war will almost certainly not help the Russian economy, almost regardless of how well it goes. I think the question is a bit more deeper, though. Economic growth is fundamentally useful as a means to accrue legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled - that's how the CCP remains in power in China. That's how countries like the UK or USA have managed to avoid serious pressure to reform, despite obvious (and often comical) systemic flaws in their constitutions. It is, however, not the only way to accrue legitimacy. Ayatollah Khomeini once opined "economics is for donkeys", and for his administration, it was entirely true: their legitimacy was based on religious grounds. If you're entering into an era when the fundamentals of your economy are a declining asset (being a petro-state when everybody is switching to renewables), you are diplomatically isolated, your industries are uncompetitive, it makes sense to look for other sources of legitimacy. Putin's attempt to push 'Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality', is kinda classic.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
If Putin was smarter, he could take to heart the words of Sheikh Rashid[0] who was in a similar situation. Russia has so many smart people, it's insane the state failed to support them in creating truly great things. [0] "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel"
- pasabagi 5y ago
  > it's insane the state failed to support them in creating truly great things. Insane, and tragic. I blame Stalin. He created a state where the only people who could stomach being an apparatchik had no moral center, where real power always flowed through backchannels, and where limits on official power were always provisional and informal. Putin is just the cynical dregs of this system.