The war in Russia serves as a tool for President Putin to control the country and prevent dissenting voices from speaking out. This has led to a generation of opponents being turned into exiles, while even those within the government who may be unhappy remain silent as long as the war continues. The fear is that ending the war could lead to a potential revolt among the more than a million-strong army and high-ranking war veterans who would return to civilian life with potential resentment towards Putin’s regime.
The economy in Russia has been fully reshaped to support the war effort, with the government operating under the principle of “Everything for the front, everything for victory.” The military-industrial complex now has a significant influence on the state apparatus, with figures like Sergey Chemezov, a longtime colleague of Putin and head of Rostec, playing key roles in the economy. The war has revitalized parts of the country that were previously in economic decline, as defense factories are now running at full capacity and creating jobs in financially struggling regions.
While some Russian business leaders argue that the war has benefited economically depressed regions, there are concerns about the potential impact of peace. A warning sign was seen when a prominent war veteran and president’s envoy dared to criticize a potential minerals deal with America, indicating potential resentment among veterans towards Putin’s regime. As long as the war continues, these veterans cannot afford to step out of line, but peace could lead to a revolt against Putin and his government.
The war in Russia has also had political implications, with key government positions not being filled by war veterans despite extensive reshuffling at the defense ministry. Putin’s political survival is tied to the continuation of the war, as he cannot allow for potential dissent from veterans. The entwining of political power, the war, and the economy is evident in the reshaping of the state apparatus to support the military-industrial complex, with figures like Chemezov playing influential roles in the economy.
The Kremlin’s adoption of military Keynesianism, redirecting the economy to meet the war’s needs using oil revenues, has largely been successful in revitalizing economically depressed regions and ensuring support for the war effort. This restructuring has seen a shift in wealth distribution away from major cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg towards regions benefitting from government funding for defense contracts. Putin’s continued reliance on the war for political survival and economic stability highlights the complexities and challenges facing Russia as long as the conflict persists.
