By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russian leader Vladimir Putin acknowledged a significant economic slowdown in 2025, with growth reaching only 1%, falling short of projections. This marks a departure from the war-driven expansion seen in preceding years. While Putin attributed the slowdown to deliberate anti-inflationary measures, the reduction in growth coincides with the prolonged war in Ukraine, which has strained the economy and led to decreased revenues. The Russian economy now faces stagflation, a challenging environment where inflationary and recessionary pressures coexist.
Read the original article here
The Russian economy has seen its growth significantly slow to a reported 1% in 2025, a stark indicator of the immense strain the ongoing war in Ukraine is placing upon it. This figure, even if considered an accurate reflection, suggests a reality on the ground that is likely much more challenging. It’s a situation where one might ponder what Russia’s economic standing could have been had its leadership chosen a different path, perhaps one not involving such a costly and destructive conflict. The notion that an economy of Russia’s size and resource wealth should ideally mirror that of a country like Saudi Arabia, which thrives on its energy exports, highlights the perceived self-inflicted wounds borne from its current geopolitical decisions.
The very act of channeling resources into military production – building, deploying, and ultimately losing vast quantities of military hardware along with human lives in Ukraine – is a fundamental drain on any nation’s prosperity. It represents a direct diversion of capital, labor, and industrial capacity away from productive civilian endeavors that could genuinely benefit the population. This relentless expenditure, fueled by the war effort, suggests a nation cannibalizing its own future to sustain a conflict that shows no immediate signs of resolution. The economic costs, therefore, are not just about the immediate loss of assets but about mortgaging the nation’s long-term potential.
Furthermore, the idea that sanctions are having a tangible effect is evident in the reported inability to import essential capital goods. This forces Russia to rely on older or less efficient domestic production, or worse, to dismantle existing infrastructure for parts. The compounding effect of this, coupled with the sheer cost of prosecuting a large-scale war, points towards a severe depletion of reserves. For Russia to achieve even a modest 1% growth under these circumstances, with financial taps running wide open and considerable spending from its reserves, is less a sign of economic strength and more an indication of unsustainable economic activity driven by wartime necessity.
Even if the conflict were to end abruptly, the economic scars would remain deep and long-lasting. The demographic damage, including significant casualties and emigration, is not easily undone. The immense cost of rebuilding occupied territories to a level of productivity that could even begin to offset the war’s expenses would run into hundreds of billions of dollars, a staggering sum for an already strained economy. This scenario paints a grim picture, especially when considering that Ukraine shows no inclination to surrender in the foreseeable future, extending the economic agony.
The discussion often touches upon the belief that Russia’s economic plight might be exacerbated by external factors or leadership compromises. However, the internal economic realities speak volumes. While some might point to predictions of Russia’s imminent economic collapse, others observe a resilience, albeit a fragile one, stemming from its vast natural resources, substantial gold reserves, and a population of over 100 million, even accounting for war-related losses and emigration. Yet, tangible signs of economic strain are emerging, such as the utilization of gold reserves for payments and the distribution of some oil revenues, indicating a need to tap into every available asset to maintain the facade of economic stability.
The war itself appears to have evolved into a strategic race, with Ukraine actively targeting Russian oil infrastructure. This suggests a deliberate effort to cripple Russia’s primary source of revenue, underscoring the interconnectedness of the conflict and its economic consequences. While 1% growth might be considered a positive by some in Russia, for a developing nation, this figure is far from ideal. The goal for such economies is typically rapid growth to catch up with more developed nations, and 1% signifies stagnation in relative terms.
It’s crucial to remember that economic growth figures can be misleading, especially when they are heavily influenced by military spending. The production of weapons, their deployment, and their subsequent destruction all contribute to GDP, yet they do not translate into long-term economic benefit or improved living standards for the populace. In Russia’s case, this means that while the headline growth might appear to be 1%, the non-military sector of the economy has likely experienced a significant downturn, with much of the reported growth driven by the unsustainable expenditures of the war machine.
The sheer potential of Russia, with its vast landmass, abundant resources, and significant population, is often juxtaposed with its current economic trajectory. Many observers believe that with competent leadership and a commitment to good governance over decades, Russia could have become an economic powerhouse. However, this potential seems perpetually hampered by what is perceived as flawed leadership, characterized by corruption, a lack of regard for its own people, and short-sighted decision-making. The country’s leadership is often described as corrupt, immoral, and exceptionally myopic, constantly engaging in self-serving practices while sending its citizens to die in a war that offers no tangible long-term benefit, especially now that the territories Russia seeks to control are largely devastated and heavily mined.
The comparison is often made to countries like Saudi Arabia, which, despite its own challenges with corruption, appears to have a leadership that, at least to some extent, prioritizes its people’s well-being. The question of whether Russia has neighbors who are content with its presence and amicable relationships is also raised, suggesting that a more diplomatic approach could foster a more stable environment conducive to economic growth.
The authoritarian nature of the Russian government is also a significant factor. Authoritarian regimes often prioritize controlling information and maintaining power above all else, a strategy that can provide a false sense of stability until a collapse occurs, which, as historical examples show, can be sudden and swift. The potential for Russia’s economic situation to mirror that of the USSR, which experienced a rapid decline from a state of perceived stability, is a cautionary tale.
Ultimately, Russia’s 1% economic growth, heavily skewed by unsustainable military spending and occurring within the context of a devastating war, points to a nation grappling with profound economic challenges. While its vast resources and population offer a theoretical advantage, the current trajectory suggests that this potential remains largely unfulfilled, hindered by its leadership’s choices and the immense costs of its geopolitical ambitions. The future economic health of Russia appears inextricably linked to the outcome and resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, with the path forward likely to be arduous and fraught with significant economic hardship.