Skip to main content

Russia: The Financial Storm becomes a Hurricane

For a long time this blog has warned of the dangers of the aggressive regime in place in the Moscow Kremlin. In common with commentators like my friend Edward Lucas, I have pointed out the consequences of the lack of property rights and the extraordinary level of corruption in modern Russia.

This prickly and aggressive approach has had an impact on any country that is the focus of Russian policy. As Vygaudas Uzackas- the Ambassador of Lithuania in London- observed in a conference last week, Russia still has trouble escaping the mindset that it must deal with other states either as enemies or as vassals. This zero-sum world view of the Kremlin looks not only old fashioned, but self defeating.

The Russian Federation , during the past five years, has built up an extraordinary war chest of liquid reserves. Indeed, although there is some uncertainty about the actual level of reserves, it seems clear that they are now around the third largest in the world. This gave confidence that the Russian economy had indeed stabilised after the dramatic collapse of 1998. However, as I have noted in the past, the Russian balance sheet may have been liquid, but it had failed to address the lack of investment of decades. Much of the Russian infrastructure is in a critical condition, and the investment level is below what is needed even for care and maintenance. Even the much vaunted naval exercises in the Bay of Biscay, far from demonstrating strength, showed the huge decline in Russian capabilities- in fact the flotilla comprised almost the entire serviceable fleet available to the Russian Federation- including unarmed spy-trawlers. The Jane's Weekly report on the Russian attack on Georgia, despite the quick victory, pointed out that the Russian army is no match for the more flexible and better armed forces of NATO.

Thus, as I have previously argued, despite the corruption and bellicosity of Putin's Kremlin, the problem the global community faces in Russia stems not from burgeoning Russian strength, but an almost catastrophic weakness.

I fear that this weakness will now be revealed in a spectacular financial collapse which could have incalculable consequences and even lead to an overtly fascist regime in Russia. The precipitate decline in global oil prices has left Russia facing a large and unforeseen deficit. The emerging Russian banking collapse is set to be more complete than any except Iceland, and rather than mergers to protect depositors, several banks will fail altogether, leaving thousands to be financially ruined. The Russian government has already been forced to spend around 20% of their reserves in such areas as currency support, and now they face the real prospect of being forced to make massive capital injections in order to secure the banking system and the teetering and sometimes debt laden empires of the Oligarchs.

It is exceptionally difficult to foresee how the Russian government can continue their longer term policies without having the oil and gas bonanza to finance them, and when those carefully built reserves will now have to be largely allocated to financial rescue.

Yet for the West, this is a major opportunity. After the overconfidence- indeed arrogance- of the Kremlin in the last five years, there is now the chance to create a genuine partnership. As such, the interests of the NATO states can be secured - as can the security position of Ukraine, and even Georgia. As the crisis is addressed in the West, there will be a window of opportunity to offer support to the Russian Financial system- partly repayable in Russian good behaviour.

It should certainly be an early priority for the in-tray of President Obama.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Cicero

A small caveat man for man equipment for equipment maybe but then the same appplied to the Wherhmacht and the old Red Army. But they won in the end didn't they. Quite simply the Russians on past form are willing to suffer casualties on a scale the West can't comprehend. Besides Nato struggles to raise a force for Afghanistan, and unless the Russians directly assault an existing Nato member no one will be queuing up to start a direct shooting war least of all the Russians.


Lepidus
Cicero said…
Except that NATO has absolutely no intention of attacking Russia, only of defending itself. That should be well within our capabilities. Estonia -with british support- beat the Red Army in 1918, and NATO has a capbility over the Russian Army rather similar to that of the Coalition over the Iraqi army - with was destroyed quite quickly.
The morale of invading troops is rather different to that of defending troops.
Anonymous said…
Cicero


The Red Army in 1918 was little more than an armed militia. It was not led by officers of the calibre of Zhukov and Chuikov. While the Russians now are not man for man match you are very silly to equate them with the Iraqi army. They have some very effective kit in certain parts.

But at any rate direct armed confrontation? Unlikely in the extreme. The West is overstretched as is Russia. The Balts or existing Nato members could possibly suffer a bit of harassment but that's it. The game is on the periphery.

Lepidus

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...