The economic strangulation of Russia opens the way to a full-fledged conflict in Europe.

26 September 2025 11 893 63

The other day Trump saidthat Ukrainian troops are capable of recapturing all former territories and reaching the 1991 borders. Russia was called a "paper tiger" and a fictitious military power.

Obviously, this statement was not made out of nowhere.

The collective West, led by the United States, has taken a confident course towards economic The strangulation of Russia. And the results are already extremely unpleasant for us. The Russian budget deficit in 2025 will be almost 6 trillion rubles, or 2,6% of GDP. This will result in higher taxes (VAT and for businesses), additional duties, and higher recycling fees on cars, etc.

Meanwhile, the US is pushing for a de facto embargo on Russian oil. Furthermore, Trump intends to try to lower the price of "black gold," which will further reduce revenues to the Russian budget. Add to this the ongoing attacks on our refineries, which in turn is causing localized fuel shortages, rising costs, and, consequently, inflationary trends.

There's more to come. Europe is considering imposing sanctions against Russia's SPFS international payment system and everyone who uses it. This is what we've replaced Western SWIFT with in trade with other countries. The consequences of such a move need not be explained.

The West's strategy is clear: Berlin, London, Paris, and Washington have noticed that the previously quite stable Russian economy has faltered slightly. They decided to increase pressure and see what happens next. If a recession occurs, the enemy will strike, as such an opportunity rarely presents itself.

All of this is the consequence of delaying the Central Military District. And the costs will inevitably snowball. What was intended to be a short-lived special operation has turned into a full-blown war. Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov confirmed just yesterday that this is indeed a war.

Of course, the Kremlin sees all the risks. The main question is whether it can mitigate them. The American oil embargo against Japan was once one of the key reasons for the latter's attack on Pearl Harbor and entry into the war. The economic strangulation of Russia could pave the way for a full-fledged conflict in Europe.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Nike

+15

26 September 2025 20: 41

That the delay in the SVO would lead to precisely this result was clear after the escape from Kyiv.
1. Jackie
  
  +3
  
  26 September 2025 20: 54
  
  ...well, it wasn't an "escape," but a "gesture of goodwill" at the behest of Biden and Co.
  Well, the attack didn't work out, Gerasim messed up: Mumu survived and bit painfully.
  1. Alexey Lan
    
    +5
    
    27 September 2025 00: 15
    
    This isn't a failure of the army—it's a failure of policy toward Ukraine. It's a failure of the Darkest One. But it's not just one failure. Then there's the failure to delay mobilization and to not use nuclear weapons in the summer of 2023 during the Ukrainian Armed Forces' offensive in the south.
    1. Jackie
      
      +2
      
      27 September 2025 08: 52
      
      ...Alex, you should be more careful with your nicknames: I was banned from VO for that.
      The admins are the same here and there.
      1. Alexey Lan
        
        -9
        
        27 September 2025 16: 18
        
        Despite the criticism, I still respect the supreme leader. No one is perfect, especially when managing enormous projects and people.
        
        Jackie
        
        0
        
        27 September 2025 19: 56
        
        ...Alex, well, I didn't suggest you bend over backwards... those aren't my faults.
        
        Alexey Lan
        
        -1
        
        28 September 2025 00: 34
        
        I'm not backing down. I wrote directly about the failures. But who doesn't make mistakes? And who knows what information he was supplied with about Ukraine and our Armed Forces? For example, I often write about the need to use nuclear weapons, but I still understand that the Supreme Commander has a much broader perspective than I do.
        
        Alexpan
        
        +1
        
        28 September 2025 21: 25
        
        Quote: Alexey Lan
        Despite the criticism, I still respect the supreme leader. No one is perfect, especially when managing enormous projects and people.
        
        With such responsibility, at such a time... "Nobody's perfect" sounds completely out of place. It needs to be better, otherwise it's all over.
        
        Alexey Lan
        
        -1
        
        28 September 2025 21: 39
        
        It needs to be better, otherwise it's all over.
        
        Who could argue with that? Of course it's necessary. However, the conduct of military operations is far from perfect. This is obvious even from the couch, but of course, only in hindsight.
      2. R-R-AV
        
        +1
        
        27 September 2025 17: 21
        
        Evgeniya, I hope Vadim Smirnov and his vo (administrative director) aren't here.
        
        Jackie
        
        0
        
        27 September 2025 19: 54
        
        Thanks for your sympathy, I'm not sure...
      3. E NOT
        
        0
        
        28 September 2025 10: 26
        
        What is VO?
        
        The comment was deleted.
2. Botrops
  
  -9
  
  27 September 2025 02: 08
  
  What result, may I ask? GDP growth during Western sanctions?
3. yuri bakster
  
  +1
  
  27 September 2025 06: 38
  
  Or we could also introduce martial law, in which all income remains with the state, and we could fight peacefully for fifty years.
Wandering

+3

26 September 2025 21: 20

In 2015, the same US president declared that the Russian economy was in tatters. Is the author of this article unaware of this? What strangulation? Russia hasn't had an economy since 15.
1. Jackie
  
  0
  
  27 September 2025 19: 58
  
  The author of the article is not aware of this...
  Vova, what have you been saying since February that has given you three points down?
  1. Wandering
    
    +1
    
    27 September 2025 23: 16
    
    The author's reasoning is superficial, in my opinion. But we have freedom of speech, right? P.S. Sticks? Lowered? I don't even know such words.
    1. Jackie
      
      0
      
      28 September 2025 09: 31
      
      ...sorry, I'm talking about the profile rating.
      1. Wandering
        
        0
        
        28 September 2025 09: 59
        
        And you're talking about the rating. It doesn't affect the ability to write or read here, so it's pointless. And you can read what I wrote there, in my profile. If you haven't already.
Ales

+3

26 September 2025 21: 57

It's ridiculous to discuss a budget deficit equal to half the banking sector's profits, unless it's the only profitable sector (which wouldn't be surprising)—it will be necessary—banks will operate without profits "for a living"; they can't just suck blood. Putin will divide all these indicators between us first, and then he and his cronies will tighten their belts. But we must win, and then it will all pay off handsomely—there is no other way, and the West is in the same position: either victory or economic collapse. The war is for our future or the West's.
1. Sarcastic realist
  
  +9
  
  26 September 2025 22: 08
  
  and then he and his friends will tighten their belts,
  
  Ah ha ha ha!
2. Jackie
  
  0
  
  27 September 2025 20: 03
  
  "between us" - between whom is this?
  1. Ales
    
    0
    
    28 September 2025 00: 17
    
    Citizens of Russia.
Sarcastic realist

+1

26 September 2025 22: 07

The Russian budget deficit in 2025 will amount to almost 6 trillion rubles, or 2,6% of GDP.

This is a complete lie. Mishustin didn't say anything like that, and neither did Putin.
1. Wandering
  
  +4
  
  26 September 2025 22: 27
  
  Quote: Sarcastic realist
  This is a complete lie. Mishustin didn't say anything like that, and neither did Putin.
  
  But now it was good...a real meta joke.
2. Botrops
  
  +2
  
  27 September 2025 02: 10
  
  That is, to achieve a national debt of around 40% of GDP (which is considered quite acceptable for all "democratic countries"), we could continue fighting for another 15 years.
Kiril

0

26 September 2025 23: 13

It's high time the author got used to the fact that Trump is talking nonsense, rather than examining him under a microscope. Although, try to decipher Trump's "Ethiopians built a small dam on the Nile—the largest in the world."
Alexpan

+10

27 September 2025 00: 24

Military axiom: war must be fast. A slow war, i.e., a strategic military offensive, gives the enemy time to react, so a strategic military offensive would be a historic defeat for Russia. Those who disagree, check in on me in 20 years.
Botrops

-6

27 September 2025 02: 07

Russia's budget deficit is simply laughable, as is its national debt. At this rate, Russia can withstand another 10 years of economic downturns. But what does this have to do with the economic downturn and the Russian economy? Even with the sanctions imposed against it (which would make even the hegemon and its printing press breathe heavily), the Russian economy is perfectly capable of fulfilling its stated objectives—providing its army with everything it needs in the context of a conflict with the West. Last year, GDP growth was around 4%, and in the second quarter of this year, it was 1,1% (the consequences of the Central Bank's key rate hike). It's worth noting that some of Europe's leading powers have recently experienced negative GDP growth. And this is without any sanctions.
1. Kristallovich
  
  +3
  
  27 September 2025 09: 06
  
  Russia's budget deficit is simply laughable, as is the national debt.
  
  Public debt servicing will account for 8,8% of the total budget in 2026, and up to 9,1% in 2028. It's truly laughable. Through tears.
  1. Botrops
    
    +1
    
    27 September 2025 11: 20
    
    Everything is known through comparison)))
    
    France's public debt is growing inexorably. In the second quarter of 2025, it exceeded €3,4 trillion, or 115,6 percent of GDP, according to data published Thursday by the statistical office INSEE. This is the highest figure among European countries.
    
    The UK's national debt has been steadily growing for several years, and by the end of July, it was dangerously close to its pandemic peak. For example, the country ended the acute phase of the coronavirus pandemic, 2020, with a debt ratio of 96,6% of GDP, and the following year, 2021, was similarly low at 96,4%. By the end of July, the debt ratio stood at 96,1%. Thus, under Starmer, who has been prime minister since 2024, the national debt averages 96% of GDP.
    This is significantly higher than the average level of public debt under his predecessors. For example, under Rishi Sunak, public debt averaged 95,05% of GDP, under Boris Johnson it was 92,8%, and under Theresa May it was 81,93%.
    
    Japan's national debt, and it is the leader in this area, is over 200 percent. I won't even mention the US.
    The same applies to China.
    
    China's public debt will continue to gradually increase in the coming years and reach 116% of national GDP by 2030, according to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) latest Fiscal Monitor report.
    
    So, we see the state of public debt in the world's leading economies, especially those not under sanctions. Overall, Russia has room for improvement.
    Experts believe that a safe threshold for government debt is somewhere around 60%. Furthermore, the key interest rate in Russia significantly influences the amount of government debt payments. However, it is gradually declining, and with the inflation forecast for Russia at 4%, it will undoubtedly trend toward 12-13% in 26.
    In general, if there is any point in raising a fuss, it clearly has nothing to do with the Russian Federation's national debt.
    1. Kristallovich
      
      +3
      
      27 September 2025 12: 41
      
      You're right, everything is relative. And a proper comparison, at that. So, the cost of servicing the national debt is far more important than the national debt itself. You cited France as an example. Paris spends 1,7% of GDP on servicing its external debt. The US spends 3,4% of GDP. And we spend 8,8% or more, with a national debt of 14,5% of GDP. In other words, Western countries pay 3-4 times less than we do to service their enormous debts (based on GDP).
      1. Botrops
        
        -1
        
        27 September 2025 13: 05
        
        I agree, literacy, especially financial literacy, never hurt anyone. So let's grab a calculator and start counting.
        
        Almost 1,5 trillion rubles were spent on servicing the national debt in the first half of the year—1,5 times more than in the same period in 2024. These figures are presented in the Accounts Chamber's report on budget execution for the first half of the year.
        The majority of these funds, 1,5 trillion rubles, were used to repay domestic obligations—federal loan bonds and government guarantees. The remaining 67,7 billion rubles were allocated to external government debt.
        Russia's external debt decreased to 4,2 trillion rubles this year. Domestic debt, on the other hand, increased by almost 2,5 trillion rubles to 26 trillion rubles.
        
        That is, converting one and a half trillion rubles into dollars yields approximately $17 billion. Over the course of a year, that's approximately $34 billion. Note that this is at the Central Bank's current key rate. If it were to decrease, debt servicing would also decrease. Furthermore, the structure of Russia's public debt is such that external debt accounts for 4,2 trillion rubles (that is, owed to foreign investors), while domestic debt accounts for approximately 26 trillion rubles. I think there's no need to explain that payments on domestic debt (which constitutes approximately 80% of Russia's public debt) are easier to control (since you set the key rate yourself). This problem has only arisen with a key rate below 20%. If it were to decrease—and the trend toward this is obvious, as it has already been reduced several times recently—public debt payments (domestic) would also decline.
        And as for your beloved France-
        
        The cost of servicing France's national debt could rise to €100 billion per year in the coming years, posing a major risk to the country's sovereignty. Prime Minister François Bayrou stated this in an interview with the weekly Le Journal du Dimanche (JDD).
        
        Currently, the cost of servicing the national debt (and France's, unlike Russia's, is primarily external) is about 67 billion euros per year, or about 80 billion dollars if converted into dollars.
        That is, even now France pays 80 billion against Russia’s 34.
        This is such a competent comparison))))
        
        Kristallovich
        
        +1
        
        27 September 2025 13: 34
        
        That is, if we convert one and a half trillion rubles into dollars, we get about 17 billion dollars. Over the course of a year, about 34 billion dollars.
        
        This is brilliant! Convert rubles into dollars ))) The question is – why?
        
        It's easier to control payments on domestic debt (which makes up about 80% of Russia's national debt)
        
        It doesn't matter. Debt is debt, and it needs to be serviced.
        
        And a similar problem arose only with a key rate of 20 percent.
        
        At 17%, nothing much changes. And the high rate will be with us for a long time.
        
        The cost of servicing France's public debt could rise to €100 billion per year in the coming years, posing a major risk to the country's sovereignty.
        
        And this will be only 3% of GDP.
        
        Currently, the cost of servicing the national debt (and France's, unlike Russia's, is primarily external) is around 67 billion euros per year, or around 80 billion dollars. That is, even now France pays 80 billion, compared to 34 billion for Russia.
        This is such a competent comparison))))
        
        Ah, so that's why you converted rubles to dollars! Brilliant – 2! The size of the national debt is usually measured based on GDP, not nominally!
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        27 September 2025 13: 56
        
        Ah, so that's why you converted rubles to dollars! Brilliant – 2! The size of the national debt is usually measured based on GDP!
        
        ))))Congenial!!!
        Now you will have GDP))))
        Let's start with how "naked GDP" is calculated (not based on parity). Let's say France produced 100 liters of gasoline. Its price in France is $190 per liter. A total of $190 is included in GDP calculations. Russia produced the same 100 liters of gasoline, of the same brand, at a price of 60 rubles (about $0.80). So, for producing the same product, Russia will receive $80 in GDP growth. That is, France gains $110 on just one hundred liters of gasoline. Out of nowhere. Therefore, to understand how much Gross National Product a given country produces, we need to take into account domestic prices on the country's market. And then evaluate GDP in global economic terms (that is, in dollars). And this indicator is GDP at purchasing power parity. Russia ranks fourth in the world in this indicator. Consequently, the debt servicing rate, given Russia's higher position in GDP at parity and the smaller amount of debt repayment, will be incomparably lower than that of France. That's not all. Let's look at the GDP structure of the US, France, and Russia. Services account for 79% of GDP in those same states. The real sector accounts for about 1,9-20%. Agriculture accounts for another 1%. In Russia, the real sector accounts for about 40% of GDP. In China, it's even higher. What does this mean? Do you own Gazprom or Sibneft shares? Do you often play the stock market? But in the States, where I lived for about a year, it's a common sport. Many Americans own stocks and play the stock market. I personally knew quite a few of them. That is. Let's say Bill bought $200 worth of John's shares on the New York Stock Exchange. John, in turn, bought $500 worth of shares in another company from Bill. As we see, a $700 movement occurred, which is included in GDP. Now the question is: what profit does the real sector gain from the government shifting money from one pocket to another? Correct—nothing. The fact that someone bought someone else's shares in a company doesn't change the amount of tangible assets, the number of employees, or labor productivity. So there's no point in puffing out one's cheeks over the size of the bare GDP, as Western countries regularly do and adjust such ratings to.
        The best evidence is that Russia's share of global GDP was estimated at 1 percent. But as soon as the European Union imposed severe sanctions against one percent of global GDP, why did the "locomotives of Europe" themselves go into economic decline?
        You gave me a D?))) I won't even give you a grade. Evaluate yourself)))
        
        At 17%, nothing much changes. And the high rate will be with us for a long time.
        
        I don’t know whether I’ll disappoint you or make you happy.
        
        At the beginning of 2026, the key rate will remain above 12-13%, but could fall below this range by the end of the year, according to Freedom Finance Global analyst Vladimir Chernov. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov previously stated that the draft 2026 budget includes a key rate of 12-13% per annum. The Ministry of Finance is focusing on the Bank of Russia's baseline scenario.
        
        Kristallovich
        
        0
        
        27 September 2025 14: 18
        
        So much writing... And all to no avail. I'll let you in on a little secret: the public debt-to-GDP ratio is calculated using nominal GDP. Exclusively. Calculating GDP using PPP simply doesn't exist because it distorts the numbers. International organizations (the IMF, the World Bank, and various rating agencies) use the debt/nominal GDP method. You can calculate it however you like, it's your personal business, but nowhere in the world is PPP used. GDP using PPP reflects domestic purchasing power and the standard of living in a country, and has nothing to do with public debt. These are two completely different metrics. So the "2" is completely justified.
        
        I don’t know whether I’ll disappoint you or make you happy.
        
        We are not talking about what will be (or will not be), but about what already is.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        27 September 2025 19: 35
        
        I'm well aware that the public debt-to-nominal GDP ratio is calculated. And I was trying to convey to you the idea that nominal GDP significantly distorts economic development data for various countries.
        Countries where the cost of almost all services and goods is significant gain a colossal advantage here. Then, for the same service, a country with expensive services and high prices receives a much larger sum when calculating GDP, while de facto producing the same volume of goods or providing the same service. This means it doesn't provide an objective picture. But for Western rankings, it's extremely advantageous. This calculation puts Western countries at the top of such rankings, which is precisely what's needed. We're interested in the true state of affairs, not in show-offs. So, right off the bat, you get a 1. GDP based on PPP in no way reflects the purchasing power of the population or the standard of living. Sorry, I'll have to write a lot again; what can you do if you have to teach a crash course in every post?
        So, let's return to the example of gasoline prices in France and Russia. In one country, it costs $1,99 per liter, while in the other, it costs $0.80 per liter. Since nominal GDP yields very distorted indicators of economic development, PPP-based GDP was introduced. The idea is that if the same service is produced in different countries in equal volumes, it should be accounted for using an economic equivalent so that the same volume of goods or services produced in different countries has a single economic equivalent. Such an equivalent exists—the dollar. And if the American currency is used as an equivalent, then we use American prices as a benchmark. Let's assume a liter of gasoline in the US costs $1 (for convenience). Therefore, to ensure that countries are in the same situation when producing a liter of gasoline, it is necessary to introduce coefficients into the calculations that would convert the cost of a liter of gasoline in all countries to one dollar. For the Russian Federation, this will be a coefficient of 1/0,8 = 1,25. For France, 1/1,99 = 0,5. That is, if the Russian Federation produces (conditionally!!!) a million liters of gasoline per year, then its GDP growth will amount to 1 million * 1,25 = 1,25 million dollars. If France produces conditionally 500,000 tons of gasoline per year, then its GDP growth will amount to 0,5 * 500,000 = 250,000 dollars. That is, a liter of gasoline in all countries is equal to 1 dollar (the cost of gasoline in the USA). And so on for all produced goods and services. I am speaking generally, the calculation formulas are more complex, but this is the principle. So, GDP according to PPP is the value of all goods and services produced in a given country, taking into account the cost of these goods or services, subject to the sale of these goods or services on the domestic market of this country.
        It's clear that exports are calculated and added to GDP using PPP differently—because the prices at which goods are sold on the global market will differ in the case of Russia, for example. This indicator certainly doesn't determine the population's standard of living. While coefficients can be used to estimate the cost of living in a country, they in no way reveal the population's purchasing power or standard of living.
        Because it does not take into account the income level of the population.
        
        If the dollar hits 200, the economy will become even larger in PPP terms. Nominally, everyone will become richer.
        although in fact they became poorer.
        
        -more nonsense.
        If the dollar were to trade at 200 rubles, how would GDP change based on purchasing power parity (PPP)? Let's say the dollar was trading at 200 rubles. That is, the ruble depreciated. Incomes fell, but remained unchanged. How much would the price of gasoline rise in this case? If it rose to the previous level of $0,8 per liter, that is, to 170 rubles per liter, then nominal GDP would remain unchanged, since the price of a liter of gasoline would be calculated at $0,8 per liter. However, if the price in rubles jumped to 250 rubles per liter, becoming, say, $1,2 per liter, then nominal GDP would increase, but PPP-based GDP would not (assuming the same level of fuel production).
        Because they will introduce a reduction factor of 0,9, which will reduce the average cost of one liter of gasoline to $1.
        
        Kristallovich
        
        0
        
        27 September 2025 19: 50
        
        And I tried to convey to you the idea that nominal GDP significantly distorts the data on economic development of various countries.
        
        Not at all. You wrote this:
        
        And this indicator exists—GDP at purchasing power parity. Russia ranks fourth in the world in this indicator. Consequently, the debt servicing rate, given Russia's higher ranking in GDP at purchasing power parity and the smaller amount of debt repayment, will be incomparably lower than that of France.
        
        The educational program you provided on GDP PPP is completely unclear as to what it is for.
        
        Botrops
        
        +1
        
        27 September 2025 20: 19
        
        And this indicator exists—GDP at purchasing power parity. Russia ranks fourth in the world in this indicator. Consequently, the debt servicing rate, given Russia's higher ranking in GDP at purchasing power parity and the smaller amount of debt repayment, will be incomparably lower than that of France.
        
        And I confirm this statement again. So how are we interested in the real balance of affairs in the Russian economy? Not inflated ratings created solely to extol the Western way of life. Because GDP at PPP measures the total value of goods and services produced in dollar-denominated prices. This means that public debt servicing will also be based on true, not inflated, GDP. Russia's GDP at PPP is higher than France's. Public debt is 15% of GDP (the French are over 100%). And even at a 17% interest rate, debt servicing will cost less. Currently, the French debt is $67 billion per year, according to their prime minister.
        
        Kristallovich
        
        +2
        
        27 September 2025 14: 27
        
        Incidentally, let's not forget where Russia's fourth-place ranking in GDP based on PPP comes from. This calculation method artificially inflates the country's economy, where goods and services are cheaper than on the global market. These prices are lower not least because the ruble has fallen by two to three times. If the dollar were to reach 200, the economy would become even larger based on PPP. Nominally, everyone has become richer, although in reality, they've become poorer. Fourth place doesn't mean Russia can pay its debts or buy goods abroad like the world's fourth-largest economy—it merely reflects its domestic capacity and the relative cheapness of its economy.
        
        isofat
        
        -1
        
        27 September 2025 18: 42
        
        Comrade Kristallovich, what do you suggest, give up?
        
        Botrops
        
        +1
        
        27 September 2025 19: 55
        
        Here's a question for you. According to data for 24 years-
        
        In 2024, Russian GDP grew by 4,1% instead of the previously expected 3,9%.
        and for the first time reached 200 trillion rubles.
        That is, in dollars, this is about 2,3 trillion dollars.
        
        Let's remember this number.
        On the website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation (https://minfin.gov.ru/ru/perfomance/public_debt/
        As of September 1, the national debt was estimated at 26 trillion rubles (311 billion dollars) internally and 52 billion dollars externally.
        A total of $363 billion. This is around 15% of Russia's GDP (remember, the $2,3 trillion GDP). Once again, I'll point out to you personally that France
        It's over 100% of GDP, the US has 127%, and the UK has under 100%. Next, the key rate in Russia is currently 17%. Right?
        This means that domestic debt is serviced at this rate. Taking the domestic debt of $311 billion and multiplying it by 0,17 yields $52,9 billion.
        This is the exact amount that will go toward servicing the domestic debt. The $53 billion in external debt is even simpler. Interest rates there are around 3-4%. The question is: what percentage of $52 billion is $2,3 trillion? You cited the figure of 8,9% of GDP. Right?
        That's around $200 billion. What's the figure, sir? It turns out that servicing the domestic debt won't cost 9% of GDP, but around 2,5%. Explain your arithmetic, excellent student.
        
        Retired from the digital age
        
        0
        
        28 September 2025 11: 39
        
        I'm not an economist, so please correct me if I'm wrong. In my opinion, the size of two individuals' wallets is crucial when comparing their spending. As far as I understand, the national debt is serviced from the budget.
        
        The Russian Federation budget for 2025 amounted to approximately 40 trillion rubles, or about 430 billion dollars (367,263,000 euros).
        France's budget for 2025 is €492 billion.
        
        According to the Ministry of Finance's forecast, the cost of servicing the Russian government debt in 2025 will amount to 3,18 trillion rubles (32,554,500 euros).
        The cost of servicing France's public debt in 2025 is €67 billion.
        
        Thus, the cost of servicing Russia's public debt amounts to 8,86% of the budget, while France's is 13,62%. This means that for France, the debt is relatively heavier than for Russia.
  2. The comment was deleted.
2. Alexey Lan
  
  0
  
  27 September 2025 19: 16
  
  At this rate, the Russian Federation will be able to withstand another 10 years of the Cold War.
  
  It will hold up, of course, but most of the population will only have enough money to buy bread and pay utility bills. Housing construction will die, and the death toll will be around 1 million, or maybe a little less. This fall will show what we're worth. If we reach a stalemate, which is very likely, then it's either mobilization or a nuclear strike. And God forbid, a new Ukrainian offensive, which isn't out of the question.
  1. Botrops
    
    0
    
    27 September 2025 20: 20
    
    So, has your standard of living dropped significantly in the four years since the Second World War? Are you living on nothing but bread and utilities?
  2. Botrops
    
    +1
    
    27 September 2025 21: 30
    
    Well, if you argued with me as an economist, I'll argue now as a former military man with a military education. There's no sign of a positional stalemate. Yes, we're not advancing as quickly as we'd like, but we nonetheless hold the initiative. There are about 700 troops in the Northern Military District, which isn't enough for a large-scale offensive, but for the type of fighting currently underway, given the nature of the conflict, it's quite sufficient. And the Ukrainian Armed Forces don't have the resources or equipment for a new offensive, at least not at the moment. The use of tactical nuclear weapons is entirely possible, by the way, if Europe loses its nerve and rushes to actively engage in the conflict. But that's hard to believe. They can talk a lot, but they're not ready to actually engage in any kind of conflict right now. Neither for a short-term conflict, nor, especially, for a long-term one.
    1. Alexey Lan
      
      0
      
      28 September 2025 00: 02
      
      For the type of battles currently underway, given the specific nature of the fighting, this is quite sufficient. But the Ukrainian Armed Forces, at least at the moment, have neither the means nor the equipment for a new offensive.
      
      The blind man said we will see, the deaf man said we will hear. In about a month and a half the situation will become clearer.
      
      As for nuclear weapons:
      The use of nuclear weapons certainly has its drawbacks, as well as its advantages. However, there's also some very unpleasant arithmetic to consider: our losses. And they're not eight times smaller, as someone claimed a couple of years ago. A year of war means tens of thousands killed, died of wounds, and were maimed. But what if two years or more? Then it's hundreds of thousands. For example, I estimated our losses over three and a half years. They're clearly over 200,000. So consider the losses from the tactical nuclear weapons of a peaceful enemy state, which, if used wisely, wouldn't be significant for us either.
      1. Wandering
        
        0
        
        28 September 2025 10: 01
        
        For example, I estimated our losses over 3,5 years (C) What data did you use to make your estimates? What documents did you use?
        
        Alexey Lan
        
        0
        
        28 September 2025 15: 14
        
        What documents were used?
        
        General Staff reports on our losses.
        
        Wandering
        
        0
        
        28 September 2025 15: 42
        
        Do you have access to the Russian General Staff's documents on Russian Armed Forces losses? Then you know the exact numbers, not estimates. And yes, these are classified documents. Do you have clearance?
      2. Botrops
        
        0
        
        2 October 2025 09: 25
        
        I apologize for not responding right away—I was off on a boar hunt. And I see, comrade, in the post below, you answered everything correctly. What sources did you use to compile our loss figures? I haven't seen any publicly available statements from the MORF on this topic.
Foe Pshekov

+7

27 September 2025 13: 04

Why should WE complain about this here? The boss decided to pick a fight? So let him declare war on all countries that impose sanctions against Russia. Let him strike the factories and plants of all the countries that supply weapons to the Ukrainians. If conventional strikes aren't enough, let him threaten them with nuclear ones, and then destroy the enemy. They've put the blame on the people: taxes, rising prices, and even the duffel bag with the machine gun...
I never once set conditions for my enemies that made it clear that for such and such an action I'd receive nuclear explosions in Poland and London. Not once. A small piece of paper for scaring them...
1. rotkiv04
  
  +2
  
  27 September 2025 15: 51
  
  He can only threaten them, but they are no longer afraid of him and do not fall for him, so the people have to pay for all these tricks of the Kremlin thinker, he is only good at showing off from the podium and saying the right words, otherwise he is a zero
  1. Wandering
    
    0
    
    28 September 2025 10: 03
    
    Yes, no one's afraid of anything. How many gatherings were there, the Coalition of the Willing? How did it all end? Oh, nothing. They got together, had a tasty meal, declared themselves strong, and that was it. Oh yeah, and they also drew lines, as people like you say, red ones, although maybe theirs are a different color.
2. Pembo
  
  -2
  
  27 September 2025 16: 06
  
  Otherwise, they put everything on the people: taxes, rising prices, and a duffel bag with a machine gun.
  
  And you want to hang atomic bombs on the people? It would be fine if we went to heaven, but this is back to the Stone Age.
3. Alexey Lan
  
  0
  
  28 September 2025 00: 16
  
  If conventional strikes are not enough, let them frighten and then destroy the enemy with nuclear ones.
  
  I applaud. I support you. Just don't talk about NATO, that would be World War III. Enough about Ukraine, especially the Western part. Ukraine is hardly of any use to anyone.
Tan San

0

27 September 2025 15: 48

The situation is such that it's time to launch the fly trap.
GN

+5

27 September 2025 18: 13

The SVO is a "police" operation, not a war! In '22, Western "partners" started helping the Ukrainian Reich with helmets and forks! But after goodwill gestures, they accelerated: they calmly blew up SP2, accepted the Finns and Swedes into NATO, invaded Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova, swept away 300 billion of sovereign funds, and continue to "offend" on all "fronts." What about our side? We advanced 100-200 meters and took a couple of villages! So we were legitimately awarded the title of Paper Tigers! To change this essentially losing situation, the fascists should have been hurt long ago! So much so that the mere mention of "Russians" would send them running for cover and make them afraid to breathe! But alas! You can't cure an alcoholic with vodka! And We are taking some completely useless and harmful steps of some kind of good will, which is driving them even further into a state of complete madness!
kovaleff

+1

27 September 2025 19: 02

hmm, it looks like there's only one person to blame for this, basically
Slast

0

27 September 2025 20: 05

I wonder if the West was strangling us with sanctions before 2014?
Rust1981

0

28 September 2025 01: 17

Shura, cut down the transatlantic cable. Let everyone get sour.
Avtandil

+1

28 September 2025 18: 06

It's a bit chaotic, but to the point and from the heart. I want to tell Vladimir Vladimirovich once again: the longer the SVO lasts, the worse things will be for Russia. Do something, boss!
Alexpan

0

28 September 2025 21: 48

Quote: Alexey Lan
It needs to be better, otherwise it's all over.

Who could argue with that? Of course it's necessary. However, the conduct of military operations is far from perfect. This is obvious even from the couch, but of course, only in hindsight.

It's not just about military operations. The Kremlin made a very serious miscalculation by going into this war without believing how strong the enemy—the West plus "Ukraine"—was.