Their opinion is circling the drain in the same way the russian economy is.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
And the sanctions make the numbers bigger. Russia needs to spend more to get the same, which means they're getting less for the same amount of money, sweat, genius and hopes.
And that's a win.
So really everyone should be sanctioning Russia, for their own good.
Of course this person is full of shit, but there's a grain of truth in what they're saying since Russia didn't suffer from the sanctions nearly as much as expected. I don't mean to legitimize tankie talking points, but sanctions against have been a failure as far according to their stated goals and will likely continue to be if I'm not grossly misunderstanding the situation.
Sanctions arent a magical stop when not everyone follows them, Russia still trades with China, India and some others. Europe is still buying their gas. This has avoided a worst-case scenario for them but their limited buyers know this and can get more from Russia for cheaper. Gazprom stock is down 20% over 5y. The point isnt to kill them just weaken. Sanctions are a large reason behind Russian inflation which as of March 2025 was at 10.3% yoy. Theyre why protests still happen even in Moscow despite the fear. Hell a couple years ago now their main finance minister tried to resign because of the sanctions and war effects on the long-term economic outlook in Russia.
Usually high inflation is a driver of domestic upset at those in power. Biden had a couple months around 9% despite a yoy of around 5% and he got skewered for it. Sanctions have also allowed the capture and sale of some oligarch assets to help fund Ukraines defense. Economic collapse driven by sanctions is not immediate but a long-term effect, there are months-years of signs such as inflation before it comes crashing down.
It's normal for a war economy to "grow". When a government is buying all the tanks, guns and bullets it can, that's absolutely amazing for the economy as a whole. Government spending increases generally drive growth (never mind that this just drives debt up and can send your country into a spiral)
Inflation, usually as a result from the former, also makes numbers go up. And if you
intentionally undercountaccidentally underestimate inflation, it goes up even more! You can always increase interest to keep up (if you dont have massive debt from the former).You reduce exports of cheap raw materials and start using them yourself to make expensive war materials that look great on your books (but which don't actually make your country any money, unlike the raw materials).
Getting more soldiers is great for employment numbers, and industry will also need more people. Governments competing with industry drives wages up (and government reserves down).
War generally requires new infrastructure, which is great for countries that have neglected it for decades (unfortunately getting bombed tends to make said improvements rather short term, and only to places nobody wants to go).
So as long as you're not collapsing under debt (and if you can steal from private citizens, you can keep going for a bit) and your civilian industry hasn't quite collapsed yet (Russians excel at suffering) and you haven't undergone population collapse (15 and 70 make for great soldiers, right?) your economy looks great to anyone not looking too closely.
I can't tell if they call them "rulers" over their specific disdain for Europe or if they call them "rulers" because that's what they think a leader is supposed to be.
Honestly? They're fully right.
Russia has benefitted massively from the sanctions which only harmed the countries putting them on Russia.
That's why the sanctions should of course be kept indefinitely.
Not really true. People tend to look at GDP as the measure of an economy but war time economies distort the picture of economic productivity that GDP provides. If I go out and buy a car, I have first of all put money into the economy but then I drive the car and do things like go to work or shop and further contribute to the economy. If the government buys a tank and at worst it is destroyed or at best it goes off to fight a war to expand territory that is of little value in the long run, it has made no further contribution. That value is completely lost once the tank is paid for. Now if the government builds a bridge. Then, like the car, that will increase economic activity like allowing people to travel and go to work. However, bridge, the tank, and the car are all counted toward GDP just the same.
Patrick Boyle has a pretty good run down on youtube of why GDP is a misleading measure when applied to war time economies.
Wow, finally got past the bot and found a human. Unless they've started telling the bots to add in random typos to throw us off the scent.
