The whispers started subtly, like a draught through a cracked windowpane. Not about Ukraine, not at first. They were about butter. Prices had ballooned, a 36% jump according to the Rosstat figures, and everyday Russians, accustomed to the familiar rhythm of stable costs, were grumbling. State media, usually a chorus of Kremlin praise, couldn’t ignore it. Food prices, they reported, were up over 11%.
President Putin, ever attuned to the public mood, summoned Prime Minister Mishustin. The televised meeting, a carefully choreographed display of leadership, highlighted the “good result” – a 4.1% economic expansion, mirroring the previous year’s surprising resilience. But Putin’s brow was furrowed. “The task,” he declared, “is to… achieve a reduction in inflation.”
Mishustin, nodding earnestly, acknowledged the “main challenge.” The narrative spun by the Kremlin was that this inflation was a temporary hiccup, a side effect of the nation’s strength. But the truth, whispered in back rooms and murmured in worried phone calls, was far more complex.
It wasn’t just about Ukraine. It was about using Ukraine. The seeds of this economic strategy had been sown long ago. The friendly ties forged during the Soviet era, the shared history and cultural connections, were deliberately being twisted. A small-scale regional conflict, carefully nurtured and prolonged, served a dual purpose.
First, it justified a massive surge in state spending. Defense and security, Putin had announced, were swallowing nearly 9% of GDP. This colossal injection of cash, while fueling inflation, kept factories humming and jobs secure, at least for now. It masked the deeper structural problems that had plagued Russia for years – the sluggish growth, the stagnant living standards that followed the annexation of Crimea. The conflict, however limited, provided a convenient scapegoat for any economic woes.
Second, it allowed the Kremlin to rally nationalistic fervor. The narrative of a besieged fortress, bravely standing against Western aggression, resonated with a population weary of instability. It distracted from the rising cost of living, the shrinking purchasing power. The narrative painted any dissent as treasonous, any criticism as playing into the hands of the enemy.
The West, with its sanctions, had played its part, unwittingly reinforcing this narrative. They had hoped to cripple the Russian economy, but instead, they had inadvertently fueled it. Russia, now more than 6% larger than before the conflict, had become a master of economic manipulation. The small-scale war wasn’t just a military campaign; it was an economic engine, fueled by inflation, nationalism, and the carefully cultivated hostility towards a neighbor once considered a brother.
The long-term consequences, however, were a different story. Economists predicted a slowdown. The central bank, worried about the “overheating” economy, had hiked interest rates to a two-decade high, angering businesses and households. The whispers now included a new concern: how long could this precarious balancing act continue? How long before the artificially inflated economy, built on the back of a simmering conflict, finally imploded? The butter, it seemed, was just the beginning.
All names of people and organizations appearing in this story are pseudonyms.
Comments