Moscow has been stealthily funding much of its war costs with risky, off-budget financing overlooked by the West. That funding is now under pressure, offering new leverage to Ukraine and its allies.
This thing they call “off budget funding scheme” is actually a mechanism Russia has used for many years way before the invasion of Ukraine.
Basically Russia allow the military industrial complex to export weapons for profit. This helps finance development and allow the Russian government to purchase equipment at prices they basically dictate themselves, generally at a loss to manufacturers. So exports are required to keep the system going.
After the Invasion exports have plummeted, in part because Russia use everything themselves, and in part because Russian equipment was exposed as not being as good as advertised. This has caused huge deficits in Russian weapons industry, so they have had to borrow to cover their expenses.
This fact has been covered many places already, where weapons industry normally benefit from increased budgets of war, that is not the case in Russia.
I suppose it can be seen as an “off budget funding scheme”, where Russia is actually undermining their own defense industry.
This is opposite Ukraine that has a more traditional approach, and probably the reason we see more innovation from Ukraine than from the 3-4 times richer and more populous Russia.
It’s not that the article is wrong per se, the observation is correct, but it is taken from a different indirect angle/perspective than the usual. But absolutely, the debt build-up and lack of profits in the Russian military industrial complex will be a huge problem, that the government will need to solve somehow and soon. Either cover the debts, or accept to lose most of their military industry in a future not too far away.
It can absolutely also be said that this scheme hides the real cost to the Russian economy. I think that’s probably the best and most important point of the article. The war is actually way more expensive than it seems from the official budgets.
And I’m pretty sure Russian military industry will never quite recover to its former “glory” before the war with Ukraine.
It’s pretty much the same story with their efforts to appease the masses. There’s lots and lots of specific handouts that don’t make it into the official figures, and pretty much every large-ish business is roped into being an extension of the treasury to some degree.
If the war doesn’t end immediately, they have maybe a year before shit gets really real for the Russian war machine, probably right around the same time they run out of Soviet armour.
The Russian military industry is already mostly owned by the government. The war related industry took on $200-250billion in new debt. That is about the Russian pre war federal budget for a year.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/may-just-might-just
“Just” here is part of an idiom that conveys possibility and does not mean “simply” or have any meaning that suggests the problem is small.
“Might just” and “might simply” do not mean the same thing in English.
just adverb (ONLY)
only; simply:
“Would you like another drink?” “OK, just one more.”
It was just a joke.
In the context:
Russia might just bail out or nationalise their military industry.
Simply is absolutely implied by adding “just” in this context. Possibility is already implied by might without adding “just”. So that would be a double of the same meaning. Like Dog Kennel. Ergo “just” must mean “simply” or “only” as in “they only have to” in this context as far as I can tell.
To just show possibility you would leave the just out like this: Russia might bail out or nationalise their military industry.
This idiom works differently than you think. This thread
https://old.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/161uisc/what_does_it_mean_you_just_might/
Captures the basic meaning of the idiom
“Just” in isolation can mean something different than when it’s added to a phrase.
Don’t take my word for it though, Google “might just idiom” for more discussion. This is the thing about idioms, phrasal verbs and the like: they take words that have different meaning in isolation and by joining them alter the meanings of the individual words.
This thing they call “off budget funding scheme” is actually a mechanism Russia has used for many years way before the invasion of Ukraine.
Basically Russia allow the military industrial complex to export weapons for profit. This helps finance development and allow the Russian government to purchase equipment at prices they basically dictate themselves, generally at a loss to manufacturers. So exports are required to keep the system going.
After the Invasion exports have plummeted, in part because Russia use everything themselves, and in part because Russian equipment was exposed as not being as good as advertised. This has caused huge deficits in Russian weapons industry, so they have had to borrow to cover their expenses.
This fact has been covered many places already, where weapons industry normally benefit from increased budgets of war, that is not the case in Russia.
I suppose it can be seen as an “off budget funding scheme”, where Russia is actually undermining their own defense industry.
This is opposite Ukraine that has a more traditional approach, and probably the reason we see more innovation from Ukraine than from the 3-4 times richer and more populous Russia.
It’s not that the article is wrong per se, the observation is correct, but it is taken from a different indirect angle/perspective than the usual. But absolutely, the debt build-up and lack of profits in the Russian military industrial complex will be a huge problem, that the government will need to solve somehow and soon. Either cover the debts, or accept to lose most of their military industry in a future not too far away.
It can absolutely also be said that this scheme hides the real cost to the Russian economy. I think that’s probably the best and most important point of the article. The war is actually way more expensive than it seems from the official budgets.
And I’m pretty sure Russian military industry will never quite recover to its former “glory” before the war with Ukraine.
It’s pretty much the same story with their efforts to appease the masses. There’s lots and lots of specific handouts that don’t make it into the official figures, and pretty much every large-ish business is roped into being an extension of the treasury to some degree.
If the war doesn’t end immediately, they have maybe a year before shit gets really real for the Russian war machine, probably right around the same time they run out of Soviet armour.
Russia might just bail out or nationalise their military industry.
The Russian military industry is already mostly owned by the government. The war related industry took on $200-250billion in new debt. That is about the Russian pre war federal budget for a year.
Bail out? With what money? Money they print? Well, have fun with the hyperinflation from that.
No amount of accounting boondoggles will change the fact Russia just fundamentally doesn’t have much good stuff.
I’m Lithuanian. I WILL have fun with that even if that’s the last thing I do.
Nice.
“just” 😋
I don’t think you appreciate the size of the problem here.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/may-just-might-just “Just” here is part of an idiom that conveys possibility and does not mean “simply” or have any meaning that suggests the problem is small. “Might just” and “might simply” do not mean the same thing in English.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/just
In the context:
Simply is absolutely implied by adding “just” in this context. Possibility is already implied by might without adding “just”. So that would be a double of the same meaning. Like Dog Kennel. Ergo “just” must mean “simply” or “only” as in “they only have to” in this context as far as I can tell.
To just show possibility you would leave the just out like this:
Russia might bail out or nationalise their military industry.
This idiom works differently than you think. This thread https://old.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/161uisc/what_does_it_mean_you_just_might/ Captures the basic meaning of the idiom “Just” in isolation can mean something different than when it’s added to a phrase. Don’t take my word for it though, Google “might just idiom” for more discussion. This is the thing about idioms, phrasal verbs and the like: they take words that have different meaning in isolation and by joining them alter the meanings of the individual words.