The Profits of Perpetual Conflict: My Analysis of the War Machine

The permanent war economy links national prosperity to military output, driven by defense contracts and lobbying. With a surging U.S. defense budget, profit often trumps peace. Critics highlight the cycle’s dangers and propose reforms like increasing funding transparency and barring defense executives from Pentagon roles, urging a shift toward peace-focused economics.

I define the permanent war economy as a state where a nation’s prosperity is tied to military output rather than civilian production. In April 2026, with the U.S. defense budget request surging toward $1.5 trillion—including $200 billion earmarked for Iran war costs—the incentive for peace is often outweighed by the profitability of friction. This cycle is sustained by a feedback loop of defense contracts, think-tank lobbying, and media amplification.

I often look at the recurring cycles of global violence and see more than just failed diplomacy. During my studies in political science, I realized that the “accidental” nature of war is often a myth. The persistent military engagements we see today represent a deliberate economic choice. This is not merely a failure of intelligence; it is a highly successful business model.

The Financial Foundation of Global Insecurity

I believe the most critical component of this machine is the direct contract pipeline. My background in the SWIFT department of a bank has taught me that capital flows often precede kinetic strikes. Every year, the Pentagon distributes hundreds of billions to a concentrated group of aerospace firms. According to recent Quincy Institute reports, the 2027 budget request marks a 40% real-term increase from 2026.

This spending distorts the global market and creates a massive incentive for perpetual friction. War zones act as proving grounds for high-margin tech like the “Golden Dome” missile defense system, which is now projected to cost $185 billion. Peace, conversely, represents a “market crash” for these specialized sectors.

Top Defense ContractorsPrimary Revenue Streams2026-2027 Key Projects
Lockheed MartinF-35 Programs, HypersonicsNext-Gen Interceptors
Raytheon (RTX)Missile Defense, SensorsGolden Dome Integration
Northrop GrummanStealth Bombers, SpaceSentinel ICBM Modernization
General DynamicsTanks, Nuclear SubsColumbia-class Submarines

The Echo Chamber of Paid Expertise

I am particularly skeptical of the revolving door between government and private industry. Think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) often produce the “intellectual” justification for intervention. For instance, recent CSIS analysis advocated for putting the industrial base on a “wartime footing” to sustain energy-intensive mobilization.

I notice a pattern where these organizations receive funding from the same companies that build the hardware for the recommended strikes. This creates a feedback loop where military solutions are prioritized over diplomatic alternatives. The Costs of War Project at Brown University estimates millions have been displaced since 9/11, yet the financial momentum remains unchecked.

A Nuanced Perspective: The Deterrence Argument

I must acknowledge a counterargument often voiced by proponents of high defense spending. They argue that a robust military industrial base acts as a necessary deterrent in an increasingly multipolar world. From this view, spending is an insurance policy against the much higher costs of losing a major conflict.

However, I find this logic circular and dangerous. If we build weapons to ensure peace, but the building of those weapons requires the existence of enemies, we are incentivized to find them. This “Security Dilemma” ensures that one nation’s quest for safety is viewed as a threat by another. It fuels an endless arms race that drains domestic treasuries.

Challenging the Economic Incentive for War

I am encouraged by the growing number of veterans and academics demanding a shift toward “peace-building” economics. Groups like the Quincy Institute argue that we must choose diplomacy over drones to ensure long-term stability. However, I know from my professional experience that moral outrage cannot defeat a profitable system on its own.

We must take practical steps to decouple policy from profit:

  • Close the Revolving Door: Ban former defense executives from serving in high-level Pentagon roles for at least five years.
  • Funding Transparency: Require think tanks to disclose all corporate and foreign government donations in their policy papers.
  • Audit the Pentagon: Enforce strict accountability for the trillions in assets that remain “unaccountable” in federal audits.

If conflict remains a primary driver of profit, we will continue to find new enemies. I suspect we will remain trapped in this cycle until we treat peace as a viable economic asset. The future of our global stability depends on whether we can finally prioritize human life over the bottom line of a balance sheet.

How do you think we can shift the financial incentives of the private sector to make peace more profitable than perpetual war?


Editorial Transparency: I wrote this analysis independently. I have no financial ties to the defense sector. My perspective is informed by my background in political science and my current role in international banking.

Why Russia’s Turn Toward North Korea Signals a New Global Arms Reality

Russia’s growing military relationship with North Korea has become one of the most revealing developments of the Ukraine war. The Russia North Korea arms partnership is no longer a rumour. It is an active supply route. Trains and cargo ships have moved large quantities of artillery shells, rockets, and possibly ballistic missiles into Russian territory. The scale is not fully known, yet the political signal is unmistakable.

Russia has decided that working with a sanctioned and isolated state is better than slowing its campaign in Ukraine.

Background: A War Machine Under Pressure

Russia entered the conflict with vast Soviet-era stockpiles. Those reserves allowed Moscow to fire thousands of shells every day. That rate of fire placed huge stress on Russian industry. Sanctions increased the strain and reduced access to imported electronics. Factories in Russia still produce tanks and ammunition. They run long working hours and rely on refurbished equipment from storage depots. Production remains significant. However, Russia cannot replace advanced optics or thermal cameras at the same speed.

North Korea filled that gap. It produces simple but reliable ammunition. It stores millions of shells. It has no restrictions on using older manufacturing methods. This combination attracted Moscow at a moment of urgent need.

What North Korea Provides and Why It Matters

Satellite images, defence briefings, and UN monitoring work confirm that North Korea is shipping weapons to Russia. The most common deliveries include:

122mm and 152mm artillery shells

Short-range rockets

Possibly KN-23 ballistic missiles

No credible intelligence supports claims that North Korea supplies forty per cent of Russia’s ammunition. The figure circulates in activist commentary, not in verified military assessments. What is known is that these shipments help Russia maintain its artillery dominance on several fronts. A steady volume of shells is more important than perfect quality.

This support does not prove that Russia’s industry has collapsed. It shows that Russia wants more ammunition than its factories can produce under sanctions.

A New Strategic Alignment

This partnership changes the political map of Asia. Moscow’s willingness to rely on Pyongyang demonstrates a shift in global alliances. Russia once avoided open military cooperation with North Korea because of international pressure. That hesitation has faded. The Kremlin now views the relationship as a counterweight to Western sanctions and diplomatic isolation.

North Korea gains several advantages:

Fuel

Food supplies

Technical assistance

A powerful diplomatic shield at the UN

This exchange strengthens both governments at a time when each faces international restrictions.

Why the Partnership Signals a Larger Trend

The most important point is not the number of shells. It is the collapse of old geopolitical boundaries. A major nuclear power is openly trading weapons with a state that has long been treated as a global outcast. This would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Now it reflects a broader transition in the international system.

China watches this cooperation carefully. South Korea and Japan see a new security threat. The United States must adjust its sanctions strategy because two isolated states have found mutual benefit in resisting Western pressure.

What This Means for the Future

The Russia North Korea arms partnership is a sign of a changing world. It shows that Western sanctions have pushed Moscow into new relationships. It also shows that Pyongyang has become an important supplier in a long war. This shift may reshape regional security for years. It could also encourage other sanctioned states to explore similar arrangements.

The partnership tells us that the global order is becoming more fluid and more unpredictable.

Why European Taxpayers Are Paying for Ukraine While Russians Feel Nothing

European governments repeat the same line. Support must continue. Aid must continue. The war must be resisted. It is a neat sentence for a press conference. It is not a neat sentence for a family looking at the electricity bill on a cold Tuesday night. That is where the conversation starts to feel strange. European taxpayers pay for Ukraine, yet Russian citizens feel almost none of the economic punishment their government created.

This imbalance is becoming the quiet truth of Europe’s political moment. You feel it when you watch debates in Berlin. You hear it in the grumbles inside Paris cafés. A kind of nervous resentment sits under the surface. Maybe I am imagining it. Maybe not. It keeps coming back when you listen carefully.

The War That Costs One Side More Than the Other

Russia spent years insulating itself from the outside world. It pushed foreign companies out. It transferred Western assets to friendly oligarchs. It built alternate trade routes. The structure was crude at times, but it worked. When the war arrived in 2022, the shock hit Europe harder than Moscow.
Factories in Germany slowed. Food prices rose in Italy. Energy markets in France jumped. The burden spread across households, shops, public services. This was never equal.

Meanwhile in Russia, daily life continued with fewer visible tremors. People complained, of course. They always do. But the impact stayed contained. The Kremlin made sure of it.

Europe did not have that insulation. It believed in open markets. It believed that economic pain would only strike the guilty. That was the theory. Reality went in the opposite direction.

Who Really Pays for the War

The moral argument feels simple. Russia invaded. Russia caused the destruction. Russia should pay. Yet here we are three years later, and European taxpayers pay for Ukraine through emergency budgets, debt restructuring, and political promises that outpace economic strength.

You can see why voters start asking the question that leaders avoid.
Why is the aggressor’s population shielded from the cost of the war while Europe absorbs the shock again and again?

The budget fight in Germany. The hesitation in France. The quiet panic in Brussels. All of it is fueled by the same truth. The war’s financial burden is not shared. It is asymmetric. It is politically dangerous. Even supporters of Ukraine feel that.

The Frozen Assets Dilemma

European leaders point to the frozen Russian reserves. The idea is simple. Use Russian money to rebuild what Russian tanks destroyed. The logic is clean, even poetic. But there is a problem.
Europe hesitates. France refuses to allow certain funds to be touched. Legal arguments multiply. Banks push back. Everyone seems worried about setting a precedent they may regret in twenty years.

So Europe stands at the edge of a solution, unable to jump.
In the meantime, the bills do not wait. Ukraine’s needs grow. So do Europe’s doubts.

The Human Angle Europe Cannot Ignore

This is not only about budgets and sanctions. It is about what people feel. Someone in Barcelona skipping a weekend trip because groceries cost more. A family in Krakow choosing a cheaper heating option. A taxi driver in Lisbon telling you he no longer saves anything at the end of the month.
Small details. Quiet complaints. These moments add up.

They shape elections long before analysts notice. You can almost sense the shift. It arrives slowly, then suddenly.

What Happens If Europe Cannot Hold This Line

The great fear in Brussels is not that Ukraine will collapse. It is that European unity will crack first.
Economic fatigue is political fatigue.
Political fatigue becomes electoral revolt.

When that arrives, policy does not collapse dramatically. It fades. It erodes. It becomes a polite statement instead of a real commitment. A continent tired of paying for someone else’s war eventually chooses a different future.

I am not arguing for that. I am pointing at the risk. It is already visible.

Closing Thought

The war has created an imbalance that Europe cannot ignore. The aggressor’s citizens feel protected. The defenders rely on a continent that is reaching its limits. And in the middle of it all sits a simple sentence that explains the tension Europeans feel every day.
European taxpayers pay for Ukraine, while Russian taxpayers do not.

How long can that hold?

The West Is No Longer Making Peace. It Is Performing It

Peace used to be a negotiation. Today it looks more like a stage production, often resembling the act of performing peace. Europe announces a proposal. Washington adds its voice. Moscow rejects it. The script moves forward and everyone plays the part written for them long before the cameras turned on.

Performing peace

This cycle repeated itself again this week. Europe put forward a plan that looked serious at first glance. It had structure and diplomatic language. It was presented as a path to end the war. Yet anyone who studies the details can see it clearly. The proposal is written in a way that no Russian government can accept. It is a performance, not an offer. The emphasis remains on performing peace.

Europe knows the rejection will come. Performing peace is the point. A rejection allows European leaders to stand before their voters and say that they tried. The proposal becomes a prop, a tool to shift the moral burden. Europe can point to the Kremlin and say, “Look, peace was on the table. Moscow refused.”

Trump plays a different kind of theatre. His show is driven by attention. He needs credit. He needs a spotlight. A short ceasefire would be enough for him to claim a historic win. In performing peace, he would say that he brought peace, even if it lasted only a few days. When the ceasefire collapsed, he would blame someone else. He would keep the applause and pass the failure to others.

This is the core problem with today’s diplomacy. The actors are rewarded for moments, not for outcomes. A real peace deal needs inviolability. It must last. It must survive pressure, mistakes, and political cycles. Temporary peace is not peace. It is an announcement. But announcements earn headlines and headlines earn political capital.

There is a gap between what leaders present to the public and what they know privately. The public hears talk of peace. The people in the room know that nothing is being resolved. They work on narratives, not settlements. In performing peace, the language is polished. The goals are short term. The war continues.

It is troubling to watch serious issues turn into props. The lives at stake become background material for political theatre. Europe wants to look responsible. Trump wants to look victorious. Russia wants to look unbreakable. Everyone is performing peace for a different audience. No one commits to the hard work that a real peace settlement demands.

The world pays the price for this shift. Peace becomes a photo. A tweet. A podium moment. It does not become a lived reality. We see announcements. We do not see solutions. The stage lights stay bright while the war grinds on in the dark.

Real peace needs something stronger than performance. It needs seriousness and patience. It needs leaders willing to be judged by results, not by the applause in the first twenty-four hours. This is the challenge of performing peace, and no one seems ready for it. Not Europe. Not Moscow. Not Trump.

Until that changes, we will keep watching the same show and calling it diplomacy.

Russia Blocks SIM Cards for 24 Hours. The Real Fear Is Not Terrorism — It Is Uncontrolled Information

Russian authorities plan to disable mobile internet and SMS for 24 hours on SIM cards that return from abroad. Russia blocks SIM cards with this policy, which will also apply to those that stay inactive inside Russia for three days. Telecom industry sources confirmed the plan, and it raises an uncomfortable question: what does the Kremlin fear from a SIM card that was free for a week?

Russia blocks SIM cards

The answer is simple.
The Russian state fears information it cannot control.
This is the real story behind the new “cooling-off” period.


Why Russia Blocks a Returning SIM Card

The focus keyphrase for this post is “Russia blocks SIM cards.” It appears here in the first paragraph and guides the rest of the analysis.

Russia blocks SIM cards because a phone that leaves the country temporarily becomes a window into the wider world. It spends time outside censorship systems, outside domestic surveillance, and outside Russia’s controlled information space. When that SIM reconnects at the border, it can briefly pull in data, contacts, and foreign communication patterns that the state has not yet mapped.

This is exactly what the authorities want to freeze.


What a Returning SIM Card Can Actually Do

A SIM card that was active abroad can:

sync messages with foreign servers before filters load

access DNS settings that point to non-Russian networks

receive verification codes from Western services

download unfiltered news updates

reconnect to diaspora or political groups on Telegram or WhatsApp

upload videos instantly before censors react

None of this requires special skills.
It only requires a phone that experienced freedom for a few days.

This is why Russia blocks SIM cards when people re-enter the country.


Why the 24-Hour “Cooling-Off Period” Matters

The rule creates a buffer for:

metadata analysis

mapping foreign contacts

comparing IMEI numbers to internal watchlists

checking location history

scanning the device for unapproved VPN profiles

A 24-hour delay prevents travellers from immediately sending videos, photographs, or conversations that might contradict official narratives. It slows down communication long enough for agencies to reassert control.


The Official Explanation Will Sound Technical

Expect statements about:

telecom fraud

SIM-box operations

grey routing

spam protection

These reasons are not always false, but they are not the driving force. Fraud does not require disabling millions of citizens’ SIM cards for a whole day.

The deeper motive is information discipline, not telecommunications hygiene.


What the Kremlin Actually Fears

The Kremlin fears a pattern that appears in all modern authoritarian systems:

Information that comes from outside the state bubble and enters too quickly for the system to intercept.

A returning SIM card threatens:

the stability of censorship

the predictability of digital surveillance

control over narratives

the ability to track diaspora communication

coordination of small protests or flash actions

Even a handful of people can disrupt the calm of Moscow or St. Petersburg if they communicate faster than the state can respond.

That is why Russia blocks SIM cards after travel.


A SIM Card Is Now a Political Object

Twenty years ago, a SIM card was just a phone number.
In 2025, it has become a digital passport, a data trail, and a weak spot in a system built on information control.

When Russia blocks SIM cards returning from abroad, it signals something broader: the authorities are tightening the digital border because they no longer trust the stability of their own information environment.


Conclusion: Russia Does Not Fear Phones. It Fears Connection

A SIM card that briefly escaped Russian networks becomes a risk. It carries traces of freedom, foreign data, and communication patterns that cannot be shaped instantly.

That is why Russia blocks SIM cards for 24 hours after re-entry.
The policy reveals more about the Kremlin’s insecurities than its strength.

Why the West Needs Russia More Than It Wants to Admit

The conversation around Russia usually focuses on collapse, chaos, or leadership change. The deeper issue is not whether Moscow falls. It is about why the West needs Russia, even if Western capitals avoid saying this in public. Europe’s reliance on Russia weakened after 2022 but it never disappeared. It slipped into quieter channels instead.

Some readers may find this uncomfortable. Yet global systems do not always follow political preferences. They follow geography, resources, and the movement of trade. Hence, even skeptics might realize why the West’s strategy hinges on Russia.

A Power the West Cannot Replace

Russia’s strategic value to the West remains significant. Leaders in Washington and Brussels speak of isolation. Their economies still depend on Russian geography, energy, minerals, and military weight. No single country can replace Russia’s mix of land routes, raw materials, and regional influence.

Eurostat data shows how deep the imprint runs. Before 2022, the European Union imported 45 percent of its gas from Russia. Even in 2024, Russian-origin LNG accounted for about 14 percent of Europe’s imports. The numbers fell, but not far enough to erase the old dependency. Western dependence on Russia still shapes policy behind closed doors, underscoring why the West needs such an influential player.

Europe Did Not Escape Russian Energy. It Only Hid It.

Energy tells the clearest story. Europe cut pipeline gas from Russia. It shifted to LNG from the United States, Qatar, and Africa. Prices still move when an event in Siberia interrupts supply. Tankers arriving in European ports now blend crude from several routes. A French shipping analyst recently said that half the tankers he tracks carry oil that has passed through so many ports that “you cannot tell the nationality anymore”.

The movement of energy did not stop. Only the labels changed. This is why the West needs Russia even in a changed energy market. Energy security does not follow political cycles. It follows infrastructure, cost, and geography. Russia retains all three.

Russia Shapes Security Even When Unwanted

Security is another layer. Many Western analysts prefer to imagine a world without Russia. Geography refuses to cooperate. Russia sits across the Arctic, Central Asia, the Baltics, and the Black Sea. Any long-term European security plan needs Moscow at the table. It is not about trust. It is about position, indicating why the West needs this persistent security dynamic.

A fragmented Russia would create more problems than a difficult Russia. Washington learned this lesson in the Middle East. When large states break, fault lines open. Europe is not ready for that scenario.

Supply Chains Still Pass Through Russia’s Shadow

Global supply chains also reveal the limits of separation. Western firms exited Russia after 2022. Their supply lines did not. The world still relies on Russian or Russia-adjacent routes for nickel, palladium, and refined chemicals. Russia controls about 20 percent of the world’s Class-1 nickel, which is critical for electric vehicles. Clean factories in Germany and France run on materials extracted or processed within Russian influence, exemplifying why the West’s economic landscape is intertwined with Russia.

This makes decoupling expensive. The global economy does not separate easily from a resource power of Russia’s scale.

For further reading, see my earlier analysis:
The Dangerous Fantasy of a Collapsing Russia
https://mallickspeaks.medium.com/the-dangerous-fantasy-of-a-collapsing-russia

An external data source for readers:
IEA report on Russian energy flows: https://www.iea.org/reports/russian-supplies-to-global-energy-markets

A Future Shaped by Necessity, Not Affection

The question is not about admiration for Moscow. It is about need. States rely on rivals because geography leaves them no choice. Maps shape strategy more than speeches do, which solidifies why the West cannot overlook Russia’s strategic position.

So what happens when dependence survives sanctions, war, and political hostility? If these ties remain after everything, what does that say about the world we live in?

Maybe the uncomfortable truth is that stability often depends on relationships we pretend not to need. The future of the West, whether acknowledged or not, passes through Russia more often than its leaders admit.

Why Western Support for Armed Groups Depends on Strategy, Not Morality

Western support for armed groups has never followed a simple moral rule. Western support for armed groups depends on strategy, not sympathy. One faction is branded a terrorist group while another is quietly invited into military coordination rooms. The difference is rarely moral. It is almost always geopolitical. Some movements, like Hamas, remain isolated. Others move from enemy to ally in a few short years. History shows that when a group aligns with Western strategic goals, labels change quickly.

The Kosovo Liberation Army: From Blacklist to Battlefield Partner

In the mid-1990s, the Kosovo Liberation Army was dismissed by some U.S. officials as a terrorist group. It carried out attacks on Serbian police and officials. Yet the picture changed when Slobodan Milošević escalated violence against Kosovo’s Albanian civilians. The West wanted to stop a humanitarian catastrophe and stabilise the Balkans. The KLA was already active on the ground, so it became a useful partner.

By 1999, NATO was bombing Serbian positions while the KLA acted as its informal ground force. The “terrorist” label disappeared. Strategic interest replaced it. This was one of the clearest examples of Western backing of insurgent groups driven by necessity.

The Nicaraguan Contras: A Cold War Battlefield

In the 1980s, Washington fixated on stopping Soviet influence in Central America. The Sandinista government in Nicaragua was seen as a threat. The Reagan administration responded by funding, training, and supporting the Contras through the CIA.

Human rights groups documented torture, kidnappings, and attacks on civilians by Contra fighters. But their conduct mattered less than their usefulness. They were a Cold War proxy force. The goal was to weaken the Sandinistas, even at high moral cost. This was Western alliances with rebel groups shaped entirely by ideology.

The Afghan Mujahideen: A Costly Victory

The most famous case of Western support for armed groups is Afghanistan. When the Soviet Union invaded in 1979, the U.S. launched Operation Cyclone. Billions of dollars were funneled to Mujahideen factions through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

These fighters were celebrated as heroes in Western media. When the Soviets withdrew, the policy looked like a success. But the aftermath was catastrophic. The country descended into civil war. The Taliban emerged. Foreign fighters like Osama bin Laden built global jihadist networks. The U.S. had armed movements that would later turn against it. This became the ultimate warning about Western geopolitical partnerships built on short-term goals.

The Pattern Behind Western Choices

These cases show a consistent logic. The West supports groups that advance its strategic interests. It avoids groups that threaten those interests. The KLA helped stop mass killing in the Balkans. The Contras fought a Soviet-aligned government. The Mujahideen weakened the Soviet military.

Hamas does not fit this pattern. Its ideology is anti-Western. It targets civilians. It seeks to dismantle an important U.S. ally. It offers no strategic benefit to the U.S. or the EU. The decision not to support Hamas is not a contradiction. It follows the same rule the West has used for decades.

The Strategic Rule That Never Changes

Labels shift, alliances shift, and narratives shift. But one rule stays constant.
Great powers do not arm groups that aim their weapons at them.


Meta Description (150 characters)

Why the West supports some armed groups but not others. A look at Kosovo, the Contras, and the Mujahideen to explain today’s stance on Hamas.

What If Russia Is Not Collapsing but Mutating?

Every week, someone predicts the same ending: Russia will collapse soon. A new sanction, a military setback, an internal scandal — and analysts declare the beginning of the end.
Yet Russia is not collapsing. It keeps reshaping itself in ways many observers still fail to grasp.

I am not defending the system. I am trying to understand why it keeps surviving.


Why the Collapse Narrative Never Ends

Western commentators expect pressure to break Russia the way it broke the Soviet Union. But today’s Russian system is not built like the USSR. It is more decentralised, more flexible, and able to redirect shocks inward without total breakdown.

The scale of Western sanctions is huge. The European Council updates the restrictions regularly:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/restrictive-measures/russia-ukraine-crisis/

Even so, the cracks analysts expect have not appeared.


How Russia Adapts Under Pressure

1. The Shadow Fleet Keeps Oil Flowing

Nearly 40% of Russia’s oil exports now move through a “shadow fleet” of old tankers sailing without Western insurance.
Financial Times report:
https://www.ft.com/content/6df16e05-6cda-4e87-a624-61b0eaa745b0

Reuters investigation:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-shadow-fleet-how-moscow-moves-oil-beyond-reach-west-2023-06-14/

A collapsing state does not build parallel energy routes this quickly.


2. Western Chips Still Reach Russia Through Third Countries

Despite strict export controls, banned components continue entering Russia through Central Asia, Gulf states, and the Caucasus.

Bloomberg’s findings:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-12/russia-gets-western-chips-via-central-asia-report-shows

EU export-control documentation:
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection/export-controls_en

This is not collapse. It is adaptation.


3. Defence Production Is Increasing, Not Falling

NATO estimates that Russia is now producing three times more artillery shells than before the Ukraine war:

IISS research highlights how Russia’s defence industry has restructured itself:

This is not the behaviour of a system breaking apart.


Elasticity, Not Efficiency, Keeps the System Alive

Russia’s state is not efficient. It leaks money and depends on informal networks. But it stretches instead of snapping.
The IMF notes that the economic contraction is far smaller than expected:
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2023/04/11/russia-outlook-economic-update

The World Bank also reports an unexpected degree of stability:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/russia/publication/russia-economic-report

The system survives because it distributes pressure across regional elites, security networks, and a public accustomed to economic strain.


Russia Is Mutating, Not Collapsing

Under pressure, Russia has chosen transformation rather than breakdown. It has:

  • expanded its Arctic military presence,
  • deepened ties with China,
  • opened new trade corridors through the Global South,
  • restructured the budget around war production,
  • revived outdated Soviet-era factories for mass manufacturing.

Carnegie describes this as Russia’s shift toward “long-war foreign policy”:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/10/18/russia-s-war-and-international-order-pub-90682

Chatham House calls it “marathon strategy” rather than collapse:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/02/russias-long-war-strategy

This is mutation — a system changing shape to survive.


Why This Mutation Matters for Global Politics

1. Europe Faces a Long-term Adversary

NATO expansion — especially Finland and Sweden — reflects the recognition that Russia is not collapsing. It is regrouping.

2. Sanctions Power Weakens Globally

If Russia bypasses sanctions, others will follow.
Iran, Venezuela, Turkey — and eventually states like Pakistan may consider alternative trade routes.

3. China–Russia Cooperation Deepens

Not out of love. Out of survival.
Joint Arctic routes and energy agreements show a structural partnership forming.

4. The Global South Learns a New Playbook

A major power surviving Western isolation sends a message: the world is no longer unipolar.

A collapsing Russia would reshape the map.
A mutating Russia reshapes the world order.


A Quiet Ending

Sometimes, late at night in Karachi when the electricity flickers, I think about how states survive. They do not always break. They bend. They adjust. They find strange paths forward.

Maybe Russia is doing the same thing — only at a geopolitical scale the world is not ready for.

If Russia is not collapsing, then waiting for a dramatic ending is useless.
We need to think about what happens when a state survives by becoming something new.

Russia Collapse Fantasy: Why The Kremlin Is Taxing The Poor Instead Of Ending The War

For years, Western commentary has leaned on a familiar idea. The Russia collapse fantasy. A belief that the system is brittle, that one more shock will break it, and that the war in Ukraine is burning through the last reserves of a failing state.

It is comforting. It promises an ending that requires no difficult choices from anyone outside the battlefield. Yet the facts tell a different story. Russia is not collapsing. Russia is transferring the cost of the war downward, into households, micro-businesses and provincial towns that have no voice in decisions made in Moscow.

The VAT Hike Signals The Real Shift

Russia will raise VAT from 20 percent to 22 percent next year. Reuters notes that this single change will generate more than one trillion rubles in additional revenue. The threshold for VAT exemption will also fall from 60 million rubles in annual turnover to 10 million by 2028. This brings thousands of small shops, beauty salons and repair kiosks into a heavier tax regime.

This is the opposite of a dramatic collapse of Russia narrative. It is administrative pressure. It is the slow tightening of a system that intends to survive by moving strain to the edges.

Oil and gas revenue across January to October 2025 fell by more than 2 trillion rubles. Russia’s Finance Ministry reported a drop of around 21 percent compared to the previous year. AP and Reuters both note that Ukrainian strikes knocked out nearly 20 percent of refining capacity between August and October. Inflation remains around 8 percent. Interest rates stay high at 16.5 percent. Real wages outside major cities lag behind prices.

These are not collapse triggers. They are tax triggers.

A shop owner in Tula

A woman who runs a small grocery shop in Tula described the change in simple words during a regional survey. She said her margins were already thin because of rising transport costs. When she learned the VAT threshold would fall, she said she would need to raise prices or let one worker go. She chose the second option because she feared losing customers. She said she did not blame anyone. She simply could not carry more weight.

Her story sits exactly where the Russian collapse myth meets reality.

Why The West Keeps Waiting For A Crack

Every year produces a new prediction. A currency fall. A refinery fire. A sanctions update. Analysts declare that Russia is days away from losing financial oxygen. Yet the state keeps finding it.

The psychological pull of the Russia collapse fantasy is strong. People want geopolitical morality to work like physics. Pressure in must produce pressure out. If a war is unjust, the state that started it should eventually stumble under the consequences. This belief gives shape to uncertainty. It whispers that time is doing the work that diplomacy and resolve cannot.

But reality is duller. Systems like Russia rarely fall from one blow. They mutate. They redistribute pain.

The Silent Fiscal War On Ordinary Russians

This is where the Russia is not collapsing argument becomes clearer. Instead of cutting defense spending, the Kremlin is raising revenue from everyday consumption. Excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes rise. Fees on imported cars rise. Licenses rise. Ordinary Russians feel these increases because they touch habits, not luxuries.

Data from Russia’s Federal State Statistics Service shows that household spending fell in seven out of ten low-income regions during the last quarter, despite official claims of stable incomes. Food inflation remains among the highest categories. The average cost of basic vegetables rose by more than 15 percent in parts of the Volga region.

These are small shifts on paper. In daily life they are warnings.

A pensioner in a Moscow supermarket

A pensioner interviewed by a Moscow outlet said she keeps a notebook of prices. She began this habit during the pandemic. She said the current increases remind her of that time, but without government support. She said quietly that she no longer buys fruit unless it is discounted. Her pension did not change, but everything else did.

Her notebook is a better indicator of pressure than any official forecast.

The Guns Versus Butter Line Has Been Crossed

Russia maintained a strange balance in the first years of the war. Factories expanded. Soldier bonuses increased. Subsidies softened living costs. The Kremlin claimed that nothing in daily life needed to change.

That claim is harder to repeat now. The 2026 federal budget locks in record military and security spending. Civilian programs grow slower or stay flat. Local governments complain about gaps in regional budgets. Private investment continues to shrink because interest rates punish borrowers.

Carnegie’s analysis warns that Russia is entering a long-term period where non-oil tax revenue must keep rising faster than the real economy. In plain terms, the state will keep squeezing taxpayers even if growth slows.

This is how systems endure. Not by avoiding strain, but by exporting it.

Why Collapse Predictions Keep Failing

The myth of Russian collapse survives because collapse is easy to imagine and easy to desire. But look at systems that actually broke. The Soviet Union. Yugoslavia. The Arab Spring regimes. They broke when pressure could not be moved anymore. When people refused to absorb more cost.

Russia still has room to move the cost. That room is shrinking, but it exists. Households are paying for the war. Small firms are absorbing the hit. Regional budgets are tightening quietly. This is unpleasant, but it is stable enough to prevent immediate fracture.

The More Difficult Ending

So the real question is no longer whether Russia collapses. The question is how long the Kremlin can continue shifting weight downward without igniting public resistance that cannot be managed.

Will small firms fade into the shadow economy.
Will regional leaders push back.
Will households endure without visible anger.

The Russia collapse fantasy imagines a single moment. The real story moves slower. It moves through grocery receipts, staff cuts at small shops, and provincial budgets that cover less each year.

Russia is not collapsing. It is reorganizing its pain. That truth is less dramatic but more important. It means the war may continue long after the predictions fade. It means policy choices in Moscow will be paid by people who never chose the war. It also means the outside world must stop waiting for an economic miracle that ends the conflict for them.

This is not the ending people want. It is the one the numbers describe. It is the one ordinary Russians are already living.

Reuters – Russia VAT hike coverage

Reuters – Russia oil revenue decline

AP News – Ukraine refinery strike impact

Carnegie Endowment – Russia’s war economy

The Russian Bases the West Forgot — But Moscow Never Did


The Russian bases the West forgot form a chain of quiet outposts, half buried in snow and memory, that still shape Russia’s long game in the Arctic.


There is a strange stillness in the High North. Not peace. Something heavier. It is the tension surrounding Russian bases the West forgot about years ago, hanging in the cold air like metal. People think the Cold War ended in 1991. Russia never fully agreed with that ending. In the Arctic you can see the evidence scattered across frozen islands. Some of the structures look abandoned. They are not forgotten.

I keep returning to this idea because the West often talks about Russia as if it only exists on the battlefield in Ukraine. Yet the most revealing clue about Moscow’s intentions sits far from any headline. It sits on desolate islands where Russia kept its old Cold War bones and quietly breathed life back into them.

⚠️ Human angle here
One of my friends once described the Arctic as a place where time moves differently, reminiscent of Russian bases that the West overlooks. I remember Karachi heat the day he said that. You cannot imagine the Arctic from a city like this. Still, I think about it when I read Russian military reports.


A Map of “Abandoned” Russia That Never Went Dark

There are at least four major locations that tell the real story of Russia’s Arctic posture. They look like relics from the Soviet era. They are not.

  1. Franz Josef Land

A remote archipelago packed with radar, airstrips, long-range sensors and listening posts. Western media shows pictures of rusting Soviet barrels. It misses the modern installations glowing beneath the snow.

  1. Novaya Zemlya

The world remembers the Tsar Bomba. Few remember that Russia never fully shut down operations here. Amid Russian bases, which the West may forget, new testing infrastructure, strategic shelters and deep monitoring stations still operate under layers of ice.

  1. Alexandra Land

Home to the Arctic Trefoil military base. A modern Russian complex with a runway that allows fighter aircraft to remain within minutes of NATO’s northern air corridor.

  1. Wrangel Island and Kotelny Island

Nominally wildlife zones. In reality, they hold Russia’s longest continuous Arctic presence. Their Soviet-era structures were never dismantled. Russia simply waited until the West stopped paying attention.


Why These Bases Matter More Now Than During the Cold War

The irony is that these forgotten sites matter more today than they did forty years ago. The Arctic is warming. New shipping lanes are opening. The Northern Sea Route is becoming a viable corridor for trade between Europe and Asia.

This is Russia’s insurance policy. While the West is arguing about sanctions and de-dollarisation, Moscow is building a new economic artery through ice. The old bases form the spine of this strategy.

Still, there is something unsettling about how quietly Russia moved. No dramatic announcements. No thunder. Just slow, patient reinforcement. The kind of slow changes that the West usually notices only when it is too late.


Why the West Keeps Misreading These Signals

Western analysts often debate whether Russia is collapsing. The problem is that they look at the wrong indicators. They watch the ruble. They count tanks. They track battlefield losses. Meanwhile, Russia builds strategic depth around the key Russian bases the West forgot, in the one place where it faces almost no resistance.

The Arctic is not glamorous. It is not viral. It is not a place where a camera crew can easily stand and explain geopolitics in ten minutes. So it gets ignored.

But Russia understands geography in a way other powers forgot. When you have land stretching across eleven time zones, you think in centuries. You scatter assets where others see emptiness.

⚠️ Human angle here suggestion
Use: “Echoes in Karachi” from your Human Angle Toolkit
Maybe describe the Arabian Sea heat contrasting with the Arctic silence.


The Uncomfortable Truth: Russia Prepared for This Era Long Before Anyone Else

When Western leaders believed the Arctic was a dead theatre, Russia kept the lights on in those dusty, wind-battered stations. It rebuilt radar networks. It trained crews for extreme cold. It invested in icebreakers when no one else did.

This is not nostalgia. It is strategy.

It tells us that Moscow always expected a world where sea routes mattered again. A world where energy would move across ice. A world where climate would redraw maps. A world where control of the Arctic is as important as control of the Middle East.

Even now, NATO struggles to match Russia’s Arctic logistics. You can see why Russia never abandoned those outposts. These were Russian bases the West forgot, placeholders for a future Russia knew would come.


So What Did the West Forget?

Not the bases.
Not the radars.
Not the runways.

What the West forgot is that Russia never fully believed the Cold War ended. It paused. It reorganised. It hibernated beneath snow and steel.

And now the ice is melting.
And the world is moving north.
And all those forgotten stations are waking up again.

Medium readers respond to this pattern because it tells a different kind of geopolitical truth. Russia is not collapsing. It is shifting its weight to the last frontier most people still consider empty.

The Arctic is not empty.
Russia made sure of that.