Since the Ukraine war started there have been regular calls that the Russian economy is collapsing. 4+ years later, its now war economy hasn’t.
Yet Russians running businesses tell me the economy stinks; Ukrainian strikes on its energy are seeing huge damage; and the below rumour suggests Russia is hurting badly.
It points to large-scale financial repression of savings; tighter capital controls; and any Russian firm that isn’t part of the war economy being unable to access FX.
We won’t have long to wait until we find out if it’s true or not.
1/2
Yet Russians running businesses tell me the economy stinks; Ukrainian strikes on its energy are seeing huge damage; and the below rumour suggests Russia is hurting badly.
It points to large-scale financial repression of savings; tighter capital controls; and any Russian firm that isn’t part of the war economy being unable to access FX.
We won’t have long to wait until we find out if it’s true or not.
1/2
https://x.com/TheMichaelEvery/status/2048841110198292655
Those who think Russia and the BRICS can only ever win will of course try to Red Square all kinds of circles to explain this away if it happens, just as some western cheerleaders do for the U.S. and/or Europe.
Yet the rumour above —and a massive energy crisis looming— underline that *wars usually do real damage to economies*.
Ones that don’t, as the West has experienced them until recently, and Russia tried to at least in Moscow and St Petersburg, are very much the historical exception.
Years ago, when I was merely predicting major wars ahead rather than describing them, I mused how ADHD algo financial markets might cope with a new global conflict. “Not well,” I suspected.
Today, as two are happening and conflating, the collective view of many in markets who ‘don’t do geopolitics’, e.g., government bond experts who don’t have any knowledge of how war is intertwined with yields, seems to be that things ‘have to end soon or well’,… “because markets.”
For that reason we won’t end up with massive borrowing, at least localised high inflation, financial repression, tariffs, export controls, capital controls, price controls, nationalisation, and even limits on free movement, etc.
Ironically, that view is only going to prove right if U.S. military statecraft wins vs Iran in short order, which we already see (as I had flagged beforehand) then requires a base of economic statecraft to sustain it.
So the Panglossian view is wrong even if it’s right.
2/2
Yet the rumour above —and a massive energy crisis looming— underline that *wars usually do real damage to economies*.
Ones that don’t, as the West has experienced them until recently, and Russia tried to at least in Moscow and St Petersburg, are very much the historical exception.
Years ago, when I was merely predicting major wars ahead rather than describing them, I mused how ADHD algo financial markets might cope with a new global conflict. “Not well,” I suspected.
Today, as two are happening and conflating, the collective view of many in markets who ‘don’t do geopolitics’, e.g., government bond experts who don’t have any knowledge of how war is intertwined with yields, seems to be that things ‘have to end soon or well’,… “because markets.”
For that reason we won’t end up with massive borrowing, at least localised high inflation, financial repression, tariffs, export controls, capital controls, price controls, nationalisation, and even limits on free movement, etc.
Ironically, that view is only going to prove right if U.S. military statecraft wins vs Iran in short order, which we already see (as I had flagged beforehand) then requires a base of economic statecraft to sustain it.
So the Panglossian view is wrong even if it’s right.
2/2
Exhibit B 
Nobody gets to say, “This isn’t our war.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
