Probabilities and “Experts”

We are a little off-topic, but because “Naked Capitalism” recently published current tensions within the Russian Financial Environment, we thought your readers might find it interesting to read. These inner tensions most always effect the amount of money left for the Russian Military, which, in turn, affects how effective the Russian Military is in fighting against both the West and Ukraine.

“This what Glazvev revels about what Russian Oligarchs and President Putin are actively doing. The impression is that there are pressing issues between which financial way President Putin is wanting to go vs the route the Russian Oligarchs are going.

Glazyev, Khazin, Delyagin and the Communist Party parliamentary faction in Moscow were asked how they assess the Forbes Russia list. In the redistribution of the foreign assets, they were given three questions — do they see evidence that the pre-war oligarchs have not been gaining the advantage which might have been predicted? Do they recognize the interests represented by the new names on the list? What does the list indicate about the way in which the government is planning for the future direction of asset control in the economy?

All four refused to answer by telephone or by email.

In a lengthy lecture he published on January 13, Glazyev was sharply critical of what he called the Russian military strategy in the Ukraine, but he directed his blame at the Central Bank, its encouragement of continuing capital export by the oligarchs, and the government’s failure to replace oligarch profit schemes with state mobilization methods.

“The whole uncertainty of the coming year lies in the lack of strategy in Russia. Our leadership tried to seize the strategic initiative from the United States by accepting the LDNR [Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics], Zaporozhye and Kherson regions as part of the Russian Federation. But it is impossible to keep it without a clear ultimate goal, a clear ideology and a full-scale mobilization of resources to win the hybrid war with the collective West.”

“The first condition is the mobilization of all available resources to provide the army and the population with everything necessary. The most dangerous thing in military affairs, as you know, is the underestimation of the enemy. Having run into the fierce resistance of the neo-fascists, we continue to fight the collective West half-heartedly, if not to say carelessly. Following the seizure of more than $300 billion in reserves, the leadership of the Bank of Russia continued to condone the export of capital, the volume of which exceeded $200 billion last year [2020]. Of this total, $150 billion were payments abroad authorized by the monetary authorities on the credit obligations of Russian enterprises. Basically, in the jurisdiction of unfriendly countries which have begun to confiscate our foreign exchange reserves in order to use them to pay off military loans to Ukraine. Is it possible to win a war against an enemy that is many times superior in financial power by supplying him with money received from the export of raw materials to his own address? “

“We agree that the transition to a Soviet-style mobilization economy in a market economy is impossible. But the mobilization of resources through the targeted use of the same market mechanisms is absolutely necessary. From the capricious arguments of some official commentators of the Ministry of Defense that the supply of foreign equipment does not fundamentally change anything on the battlefield, it is necessary to move on to a sober assessment of the enemy’s potential. The military spending of the NATO bloc countries is an order of magnitude higher than ours. The USSR found itself in the same position by the end of 1941, when the economic potential of Europe united by the Nazis was an order of magnitude higher than ours. But we persevered because we used our potential to more than 100%, while in Germany the holidays were kept and the production of consumer goods continued. The slogan ‘Everything for the Front, everything for the Victory” is relevant again. The impediment by the leadership of the Bank of Russia to the full utilization of production capacities and connivance with the export of capital is incompatible with the achievement of Victory.”