Russia should be a rich and prosperous country today. It had cutting-edge science, relative gender equality, and many of its scientists were on the frontier of knowledge in the late 1980s. But today, Russia is a middle-income country, taking its last imperialist breath before becoming an economy. isolated and irrelevant.
The transition from communism to a market economy was a disaster. Worse, it was a disaster not only in Russia, but also in every other country of the former Soviet Union. An economic disaster, with economic depression and hyperinflation, that would make the average Brazilian who lived through the inflation of the 80s and the confiscation of the 90s, believe that Brazil was doing very well.
In Russia, GDP contracted for six consecutive years, from 1991 to 1996, and in two years, 1992 and 1994, the fall was double-digit (14.5% and 12.6%, respectively).
And yet the performance of the Ukrainian economy was much worse. These are the GDP growth data for Ukraine from 1991 to 1999: -8.4%, -9.7%, -14.2%, -22.9%, -12.2%, -10.0 %, -3.0%, -1.9% and -0.2%. Inflation (measured by the GDP deflator) reached 3,000% in 1992 and dropped to “only” 400% in 1995; it would be another 7 years before she dropped below the double digits.
Stagflation was the keynote of the 1990s for all former Soviet republics. From 1991 to 2000, the first year of growth was in Armenia, in 1994 and only in 2000 there was no economic downturn among any of the new countries.
The Ukrainian economy has since recovered, but the country’s per capita income is still lower than it was in the Soviet Union (in constant 2015 dollars, the country’s income was $3,300 in 1989 and did not reach $2,500). in any year of the past decade; in Brazil, the per capita income is almost US$ 9,000).
Some people attribute this to the mistakes of foreign consultants. Of course, economists from international organizations who parachuted into a country they knew nothing about, drew up absurd plans, but the blame for the economic situation in Russia, Ukraine and other countries in the 1990s is, ultimately, with the rulers. locations.
In Russia, no one indicated that public assets should be distributed to the tsar’s (I mean politicians’) friends, but they did. Consultants, political pressure and international bodies do not ultimately have the decision-making power.
More interesting is what has happened in Russia since Putin separated political and economic power. Russian oligarchs do not have the political power as one might think. They can feast on football teams and yachts, but power rests with politicians loyal to Putin. Those who tried to oppose Putin ended up in prison, expropriated or worse.
Russia was looted. By the Russians themselves. It’s the Russians’ choice to see the rest of the world as enemies. It didn’t have to be this way. Whoever supports this blubber that NATO, the western military alliance, would be to blame for the Russian reaction is trapped in the cold war mentality, with the “West” as an enemy to justify “self-defense” policies against the evil neoliberals.
Russia could integrate into the world, but it chose an imperialist path. The Russian attack on an independent country is an inexcusable atrocity that will reverberate in the world economy for years, if not decades. And the damage will be worse than in the 1990s. But this time, the world is giving the right advice. It remains for Putin to listen.
I have over 8 years of experience in the news industry. I have worked for various news websites and have also written for a few news agencies. I mostly cover healthcare news, but I am also interested in other topics such as politics, business, and entertainment. In my free time, I enjoy writing fiction and spending time with my family and friends.
