Nobody is saying Russia hasn’t expanded its military production, but it’s clearly not a war economy because majority of the economic activity is occurring in the civilian sector. Russian overall economy is very clearly not oriented around military production. For comparison, the US isn’t officially at war and around 10% of manufacturing demand is dependent on defense spending, with overall military budget absolutely dwarfing Russia. Meanwhile, the US obviously was not a war economy when it was invading Vietnam either.
The lack of ability to produce explosives in large volumes is just part of the bigger problem of the deindustrialization in the west. Western economies became financialized, and most industry moved out to cheaper labour markets. The west now finds itself facing a peer adversary, it’s run through its existing stocks of weapons, and it is unable to marshal production to keep up. Russia has won the war of attrition against NATO. The US is stating to realize this, but Europe is still utterly delusional.
You’re being intentionally obtuse here. 40% of the economy being devoted to the military obviously means that civilian economy becomes affected and society is restructured around military effort. That’s what makes it a war economy. If you go to Russia today, you’ll hardly know there’s a war going on. From the perspective of a typical Russian, it’s the same as when the US was invading Iraq. They know in the abstract sense that there is a war going on, but it does not affect their daily lives in any way.
You’re right WEST BAD. Is that what you want to hear? That was never in question.
I don’t know why you’re braying at me now in all caps. I merely pointed out that the reason the west is losing the proxy war in Ukraine is due to the fact that the west is unable to keep up with Russia in terms on industrial production. 🤷
The difference between World War I and World War II and all of the subsequent wars that explains the military spend is that it was the end of the second industrial revolution in the West. War was fully mechanized in the first half of the 20th century. So until a technological breakthrough of the magnitude of the second industrial revolution happens next to such instability as the beginning of the 20th century there will never be another “war economy country” by your measures. Armenia hit 18% of GDP just to lose Artsakh, that’s literally the biggest percentage spend in the post WW2 era.
Whether there will or will not be another war economy is not the argument here. What I’m trying to explain to you is that calling Russia a war economy is a misuse of the term. A true war economy means subordination of civilian production to military needs. Russia fails this test because there is no civilian sacrifice. Consumer imports have rebounded, unemployment is at record lows, and civilian sectors such as retail and hospitality show growth. Moscow restaurants aren’t turning into shell casing workshops.
There is also no visible economic reorientation, and civilian industries operate near-normal, with no mass conscription of factories or labor. Nor is there any austerity to support the war. The state still funds non-war priorities avoiding wartime measures like rationing or forced savings.
Referring to this as a war economy grossly exaggerates Russia’s mobilization. It’s an economy funding a war, not one restructured for survival-level warfare.
This is literally modern rationing, except capitalist realism style since Governments are no longer powerful enough to keep market-clearance price by volume alone with a globalized market.
Anecdotally, my friend has been running a pretty successful consumer good for Russians, 3d printed war gaming figurines. He expanded like crazy 2020-2023 quit his job and everything had 3 employees somewhere near 30 printers. He’s back working SE for a western company because the sales have been unstable and he didn’t want to fire someone, but he cannot work on it full time anymore.
Ah yes, Kaliningrad, Kamchatka, and Tartarstan, the pillars of Russian economy. It’s incredible how you’re utterly incapable of just admitting you’re wrong.
None of what you said matters in regards to economic reorientation of a war economy. You’re just saying the top line of the economy was good in 2024. Most war economies are boom economies. You are just incapable of staying on topic even on your own terms with your own definitions.
No, I’m saying that the civilian economy had not had to make any meaningful sacrifices to finance the war. I’ve explained this to you repeatedly in several different way, yet you continue to ignore what I actually say. At least I actually provided a definition of what a war economy is, meanwhile you haven’t even bothered doing that. You just declared that Russia is a war economy without any actual justification for that statement. You are just incapable of staying on topic even on your own terms with your own definitions.
Nobody is saying Russia hasn’t expanded its military production, but it’s clearly not a war economy because majority of the economic activity is occurring in the civilian sector. Russian overall economy is very clearly not oriented around military production. For comparison, the US isn’t officially at war and around 10% of manufacturing demand is dependent on defense spending, with overall military budget absolutely dwarfing Russia. Meanwhile, the US obviously was not a war economy when it was invading Vietnam either.
The lack of ability to produce explosives in large volumes is just part of the bigger problem of the deindustrialization in the west. Western economies became financialized, and most industry moved out to cheaper labour markets. The west now finds itself facing a peer adversary, it’s run through its existing stocks of weapons, and it is unable to marshal production to keep up. Russia has won the war of attrition against NATO. The US is stating to realize this, but Europe is still utterly delusional.
Then the US in WW2 ALSO DOESN’T COUNT because it was only 40% of GDP. What the fuck is your argument?
You’re right WEST BAD. Is that what you want to hear? That was never in question.
You’re being intentionally obtuse here. 40% of the economy being devoted to the military obviously means that civilian economy becomes affected and society is restructured around military effort. That’s what makes it a war economy. If you go to Russia today, you’ll hardly know there’s a war going on. From the perspective of a typical Russian, it’s the same as when the US was invading Iraq. They know in the abstract sense that there is a war going on, but it does not affect their daily lives in any way.
I don’t know why you’re braying at me now in all caps. I merely pointed out that the reason the west is losing the proxy war in Ukraine is due to the fact that the west is unable to keep up with Russia in terms on industrial production. 🤷
The difference between World War I and World War II and all of the subsequent wars that explains the military spend is that it was the end of the second industrial revolution in the West. War was fully mechanized in the first half of the 20th century. So until a technological breakthrough of the magnitude of the second industrial revolution happens next to such instability as the beginning of the 20th century there will never be another “war economy country” by your measures. Armenia hit 18% of GDP just to lose Artsakh, that’s literally the biggest percentage spend in the post WW2 era.
Whether there will or will not be another war economy is not the argument here. What I’m trying to explain to you is that calling Russia a war economy is a misuse of the term. A true war economy means subordination of civilian production to military needs. Russia fails this test because there is no civilian sacrifice. Consumer imports have rebounded, unemployment is at record lows, and civilian sectors such as retail and hospitality show growth. Moscow restaurants aren’t turning into shell casing workshops.
There is also no visible economic reorientation, and civilian industries operate near-normal, with no mass conscription of factories or labor. Nor is there any austerity to support the war. The state still funds non-war priorities avoiding wartime measures like rationing or forced savings.
Referring to this as a war economy grossly exaggerates Russia’s mobilization. It’s an economy funding a war, not one restructured for survival-level warfare.
Kaliningrad has literally reintroduced the card system this year. Kamchatka has also done this. Tatarstan is likely next if they don’t just put the kibosh on the whole thing and tell people to deal.
This is literally modern rationing, except capitalist realism style since Governments are no longer powerful enough to keep market-clearance price by volume alone with a globalized market.
Also the CB is dropping rates because the first quarter of this year was a 1.4% vs 5.4% in 2024.
Anecdotally, my friend has been running a pretty successful consumer good for Russians, 3d printed war gaming figurines. He expanded like crazy 2020-2023 quit his job and everything had 3 employees somewhere near 30 printers. He’s back working SE for a western company because the sales have been unstable and he didn’t want to fire someone, but he cannot work on it full time anymore.
Ah yes, Kaliningrad, Kamchatka, and Tartarstan, the pillars of Russian economy. It’s incredible how you’re utterly incapable of just admitting you’re wrong.
It’s pretty silly to use anecdotal arguments when there’s actual statistical data available. The World Bank just reclassified Russia as a high income country. The IMF forecasts that Russian economy is set to grow faster than all the western economies. Those are the facts of the situation.
None of what you said matters in regards to economic reorientation of a war economy. You’re just saying the top line of the economy was good in 2024. Most war economies are boom economies. You are just incapable of staying on topic even on your own terms with your own definitions.
No, I’m saying that the civilian economy had not had to make any meaningful sacrifices to finance the war. I’ve explained this to you repeatedly in several different way, yet you continue to ignore what I actually say. At least I actually provided a definition of what a war economy is, meanwhile you haven’t even bothered doing that. You just declared that Russia is a war economy without any actual justification for that statement. You are just incapable of staying on topic even on your own terms with your own definitions.