That’s a lot of fancy paragraphs just to miss the point that he could have done this, not because his finances are in the red since he made the abysmally stupid blunder of invading Ukraine, but to benefit society within his borders.
This kind of things are not done “because the finances are in red”, countries do not “go red” in finances, they are simply allocating more money to the military because now it is some pressing matter that needs more funding. I cannot think of a single reason why invading Ukraine has been a bad movement for Russia. Gas prices have skyrocketed in Europe and they are buying Russian gas branded as Indian for exorbitant prices; it has opened new commercial opportunities for them and Asia; it has produced dedolarisation; and whatever you may say about the war, who’s winning or who’s loosing, wars are money makers. Look at almost every war the US has caused since Vietnam, they have lost most of them in a tactical standpoint when it comes to fulfilling its objectives, yet they have make a lot of money because the military-industrial complex gets its share and it gives back something to the State. In Russia this is even more profitable for the State since their military-industrial complex is not privatised as the one in the US and production isn’t that expensive. They could very well lose the war and win in the economical side of things, while Ukraine could win the war and be left in an economically destructed scenario.
Still, that was never the point I tried to make, because what the news article is trying to argue, is that this is some kind of bad scenario for Russia. It is not, I’m not talking about morality or ethics, or what Russia should have done to benefit its people. I’m simply stating this is not some bad case scenario, this is the best strategy Russia could have taken in order to secure military funding without risking any economical implosion. I just mentioned the thing about the working class because in simple economical terms, if you diminish the purchasing power of the working class, you trigger inflation, and the neoliberal solution for inflation is to lower/stagnate wages and start cutting on funding for welfare in general, which just worsens inflation and lowers quality of life. And basically a right wing news site is arguing this is something bad, which makes perfect sense because they want to maintain this narrative that the solution to things is never to tax the bourgeoisie, but attack the proletariat, only they painted with a coat of “Russia bad” and left wing liberals falling to this trap.
That’s a lot of fancy paragraphs just to miss the point that he could have done this, not because his finances are in the red since he made the abysmally stupid blunder of invading Ukraine, but to benefit society within his borders.
This kind of things are not done “because the finances are in red”, countries do not “go red” in finances, they are simply allocating more money to the military because now it is some pressing matter that needs more funding. I cannot think of a single reason why invading Ukraine has been a bad movement for Russia. Gas prices have skyrocketed in Europe and they are buying Russian gas branded as Indian for exorbitant prices; it has opened new commercial opportunities for them and Asia; it has produced dedolarisation; and whatever you may say about the war, who’s winning or who’s loosing, wars are money makers. Look at almost every war the US has caused since Vietnam, they have lost most of them in a tactical standpoint when it comes to fulfilling its objectives, yet they have make a lot of money because the military-industrial complex gets its share and it gives back something to the State. In Russia this is even more profitable for the State since their military-industrial complex is not privatised as the one in the US and production isn’t that expensive. They could very well lose the war and win in the economical side of things, while Ukraine could win the war and be left in an economically destructed scenario.
Still, that was never the point I tried to make, because what the news article is trying to argue, is that this is some kind of bad scenario for Russia. It is not, I’m not talking about morality or ethics, or what Russia should have done to benefit its people. I’m simply stating this is not some bad case scenario, this is the best strategy Russia could have taken in order to secure military funding without risking any economical implosion. I just mentioned the thing about the working class because in simple economical terms, if you diminish the purchasing power of the working class, you trigger inflation, and the neoliberal solution for inflation is to lower/stagnate wages and start cutting on funding for welfare in general, which just worsens inflation and lowers quality of life. And basically a right wing news site is arguing this is something bad, which makes perfect sense because they want to maintain this narrative that the solution to things is never to tax the bourgeoisie, but attack the proletariat, only they painted with a coat of “Russia bad” and left wing liberals falling to this trap.