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.
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.
It takes time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For $5 billion, like for the regime change in Ukraine (2014)?
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nuland_Testimon...
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
USSR: kicked their educated jews out (twice -- pogroms & doctors plot), kicked most of their educated gentiles out in 1917, used up their remaining human capital as cannon fodder against hitler. Everything USSR had was gifted from the west to keep the west's military-industrial grift running (see Antony Sutton's works for details). They were a boogeyman used by western elites to extract wealth from their own taxcattle.
Modern Russia is a gas station and strip mine with decent relations to the south and the east. Not a phenomenal position, but a hell of a lot better than what they had. Building up their defense sector so that they don't get internationally looted again (i.e. the 90s) is the right move for them, and an unfortunate reality for us.
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.
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.
- nuclear threat rhetoric
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47051983
- news are propaganda
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47052056
- Unsustainable debt
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.
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.
So what's the point of the comment? Your fear that it might be superior?
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.