The Russian treasury has been hit by the reduction of oil and gas revenues and the deterioration of the economy.
The Russian authorities need to look for additional revenues for the treasury, which has been hit by the reduction of oil and gas revenues and the worsening situation in the economy. The head of the Federation Council Committee on Budget and Financial Markets Anatoly Artamonov said this on Wednesday, The Moscow Times reports (link to article in Russian).
The senator said measures need to be taken “urgently” as “assessments of economic indicators” have become “more pessimistic” and commodity revenues are declining.
“We need to use all available resources to increase the revenue base,” Artamonov urged. In particular, he said, it is necessary to consider the abolition of some tax benefits, the amount of which has now reached one third of the federal budget.
In addition, Artamonov continued, the level of shadow employment in Russia remains high, when individuals avoid paying income tax and contributions to social funds. We are talking, in particular, about salaries “in envelopes”, the volume of which was previously estimated by the authorities at 10 trillion rubles a year.
Also, “our persistent reluctance to deal with privatization issues is perplexing,” the senator said, adding that all the measures he listed are “reserves to replenish the budget” (quoted by Interfax).
Money is increasingly needed by the federal treasury, which spends every third ruble on the war - a record share since the Soviet Union. According to the Ministry of Finance, oil and gas revenues fell by 17% in the first half of this year, while total revenues grew by only 3%, meaning that in real terms (adjusted for inflation) they began to shrink. At the same time, expenditures jumped by 20%. As a result, in six months the budget has a “hole” of 3.7 trillion rubles - 6 times more than in the same period a year ago.
Reserves for patching budget “holes” are nearing exhaustion: the liquid assets of the National Welfare Fund, which before the war reached $120 billion, by July 1, 2025 reduced to $52.6 billion, that is, almost 2.5 times. If oil prices remain low, this reserve will be completely used up as early as next year, economists at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration warned.
…
So it is a capability that needs to be built. But building that capability should not be dependent on Trumps ramblings.
Problem is say for instance some small bridge in some village needs to be renewed. It is scheduled to cost 5 Million and be suitable for up to 7t trucks passing it. Now because some quota needs to be filled, instead a bridge for 70 ton tanks is built and cost 30 million.
The 5 Million bridge could have been built by a local company. The 30 million bridge needs one of few national specialists to build it. So now it gets delayed further as these companies have more contracts in the pipeline while smaller companies starve.
These types of quotas that are not based on actual needs create bad economic incentives and they create an environment which helps to foster corruption.
It all depends on how it all will get managed, but there are already longer term infrastructure projects that now got some funding and now also it counts under 5% NATO target. I think that more resources will go towards rail infrastructure, bridges are just more illustrative, but still for a couple of these village 7 ton level bridge there will be one 30 ton bridge in town nearby that will get overhauled
Which is why i am bothered by these quotas. They create an environment for mismanagement. Maybe i am also more sensitive to it in general, because we see a lot of it in Germany, in particular with the military equipment procurement being riddled with corruption, inefficiencies and incompetence. I am worried the same will expand to general infrastructure as well.
well, i see a large category of infrastructure problems (that will be 99% civilian use anyway - and not only transport, also telecomms, you can even put healthcare training in there) that is solvable by pouring money at them, and now it’s politically convenient to let it rip even among pro-austerity neoliberals. if you want an example of what can this do, look at eastern eu countries and how they changed after funding went in
I agree that the spending is needed. If we tie it to “defense” though, what will happen if there is no threat to defend against?
In a way we saw this already in Germany in the 90s where a lot of disaster relief structures like alarm sirens, emergency communications, technical equipment for excavations, mobile generators and the like has been left to rot, because the cold war had ended (or it seemed so at the time). When we got his by natural disasters like floods and forest fires, the resources weren’t there to quickly manage the situations.
I understand the opportunist approach to taking the funding while we get it, but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem of neoliberalism. Instead it will come back double with the next wave of austerity being argued even harsher because of all that defense spending (whether direct or in “defense infrastructure”) and debt.