Four years after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Russian economy is showing clear signs of structural exhaustion. The contours of a genuine economic endgame are coming into view for Russia. This is the finding of a new Kiel Report published by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics.
Yes, because war spending is still spending, and acts as a stimulus, increasing GDP. The amount of increased spending accounts for a bigger share of GDP than their GDP growth figures account for, so without this extra spending their GDP growth would be negative, due to sanctions.
You’re right, I had my numbers mixed up. The NWF spending accounted only for $70B (5.3T Rubles)
It’s the gutting of the liquidity of Russia’s banks that accounted for the majority of the stimulus and was even higher than the $300B that I remembered, at $446B (36.6T Rubles) by early 2025 https://navigatingrussia.substack.com/p/russias-hidden-war-debt-full-report
This plus the NWF spending accounts for 20% of GDP, or roughly 5% per year over 4 years. Russia’s growth numbers were significantly lower than that at between -2.1% and + 4.3%. So on average, without the stimulus spending not a single year since the beginning of the war would have been positive economic growth.
Admit you don’t know calculus without telling me you don’t know calculus. You write the letter, you don’t spell it out.
And the non-monetary consequences of sanctions, that you also keep ignoring. From your own source:
Which is why the Iskander production figures are fluctuating for example, and are much lower than they would be without sanctions. To come back to your favourite weapon, the ballistic missile.
Nothing more to say to embarrass yourself? Or simply admit you were wrong?
And you had the audacity to accuse me of arguing in bad faith…
wow, living rent free in your head, eh?
don’t worry, I’m just caught up with a thing called “responsibilities”
Come on, do a little better… you were soooo funny! With your little straw man arguments and thinking you actually had a real argument
That’s funny, because:
And I never claimed the sanctions were having no effect at all. So another bad faith argument by you. So let’s stick to the discussion. The thing we are discussing is:
My claim, (in other words) that:
But that (and again, I quote, not my exact words, but VERY similar):
So that now (this is a self-quote):
So you don’t have to try to make a case against something I never claimed, which is that the sanctions are not having any effect at all on the Russian economy. They are and I never claimed the contrary.
They just weren’t draining the economy in 2022, like Von der Leyen (and many others) claimed. For this I have provided ample evidence, against your: “nah uh!” without any evidence to back it up and endless straw man arguments.
Yeah in a work document, paper or math assignment. Nobody does in an online discussion with some other guy. Also the entire language was completely different from the rest of your comments. It was clear it was LLM output. Stop embarrassing yourself, triangle boy.
I have not been ignoring it. It’s just that I never claimed anything about it, nor that it is part of a discussion about draining the economy. You’re just making another straw man. This discussion is entirely about the economy draining in 2022, or have you forgotten that in all your wisdom?
Why is it so hard for you to say: “yeah, okay, with all this evidence, I see that you’re right. Von der Leyen and many others have indeed been claiming similar things about the Russian economy since 2022 and they haven’t come true, so let’s indeed wait and see before we believe another such message.” ?
And maybe apologise for acting like a jerk right off the bat too, Mr. “asking questions“.
That would get you way more respect than this mindless rambling, this pathetic whining, this narcissistic behaviour, trying strawman after another that all fail miserably.