By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a show of support, EU officials visited Kyiv on Sunday, coinciding with the signing of Russia’s 2025 budget by President Vladimir Putin. This budget allocates a record 13.5 trillion rubles (€119 billion), or 32.5 percent, to national defense, a significant increase from the current year’s allocation. The substantial military spending reflects Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine. This action follows the Russian legislature’s approval of the budget plans in November.
Read the original article here
Putin’s recent approval of a new budget reveals a staggering prioritization of national defense, allocating a record-breaking 32.5% – a hefty 13.5 trillion rubles, or approximately €119 billion – to this sector in 2025. This unprecedented commitment represents a significant portion of Russia’s overall budget and raises numerous questions regarding the country’s economic stability and future.
The sheer scale of this allocation is striking. Comparing this expenditure to other global powers, like the European Union with its significantly larger GDP, highlights the relative strain on Russia’s resources. The EU, with a GDP roughly ten times that of Russia, could easily allocate far more to counter any potential Russian aggression without crippling its own economy.
This massive investment in defense raises concerns about potential consequences for the Russian population. Such a large proportion of the national budget dedicated to military spending inherently means substantial cuts in essential public services, leading to potential widespread discontent. The question arises: at what point will the Russian people reach a breaking point and challenge the current leadership?
The rationale behind this extraordinary defense expenditure is also questionable. While labeled as “national defense,” the allocation seems excessive, especially considering the ongoing conflict and the existing state of Russia’s military capabilities. Some suggest the spending reflects an overestimation of external threats, while others believe it disguises internal problems, such as rampant corruption. The potential for embezzlement and misuse of funds is substantial, further diminishing the actual defense capabilities strengthened by this spending.
The situation invites comparisons to the Soviet Union’s eventual collapse, partly attributed to excessive military spending. This historical parallel raises serious doubts about the long-term sustainability of Russia’s current economic strategy. The parallel is striking: prioritizing military buildup at the cost of societal well-being may ultimately prove self-destructive.
The value of the ruble further complicates the situation. The currency’s declining value means that the allocated 13.5 trillion rubles may not translate into the same purchasing power as previously anticipated. This could mean less actual military hardware and resources are acquired than planned, highlighting a potential inefficiency in the allocation.
This situation also highlights a wider issue: the distinction between “defense” and “military” spending. While defense spending can encompass a wide range of activities, the current context suggests the focus may be more aligned with offensive capabilities, creating a dangerous cycle of escalation.
The implications of this budget are far-reaching. The focus on defense spending has enormous implications for internal stability in Russia, with severe cuts to other critical sectors. The potential for social unrest is significant, particularly given the country’s existing economic vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, this situation underscores the need for accurate portrayal of Russia’s political system in the international media. The budget approval, described as “Putin approves,” reveals a reality far removed from a true democratic process. This points to a critical need to dispel the false narrative of Russia as a democracy.
The sheer scale of the budget – a sum dwarfing many other countries’ entire defense budgets – raises eyebrows globally. The cost is immense, especially considering the current economic climate and the ruble’s diminished value. It prompts the question: what, ultimately, is the true return on this massive investment in national “defense”?
Beyond the immediate financial implications, the long-term effects on Russian society are deeply concerning. The potential for further hardship and societal unrest, fueled by cuts in essential services, cannot be ignored. The question remains: is this a strategic move, a desperate attempt to bolster a failing system, or a combination of both? Only time will tell the true consequences of this unprecedented budget allocation.