learning · Russian — bilingual opening

Военная экономика заболела голландской болезнью: рост цен на нефть и доходов экономики ведет к «обратному импортозамещению»

Russia’s windfall from higher oil prices and a stronger ruble is not reviving the civilian economy but deepening its militarized distortions, with domestic demand increasingly satisfied by imports, above all from China.

Re: Russia · 21 April 2026 · read the original in Russian →

Подпишитесь на Re: Russia в Telegram, чтобы не пропускать новые материалы!

Subscribe to Re: Russia on Telegram so you don’t miss new articles!

Подпишитесь на Re: Russia в Telegram!

Subscribe to Re: Russia on Telegram!

The extra revenues that have fallen into the Kremlin’s lap as a result of the sharp rise in oil prices and the weakening of sanctions have not revived the Russian economy. On the contrary, the inflow of foreign currency is helping to strengthen the ruble further; its exchange rate has returned to prewar levels. As a result, the revival of domestic demand is being covered by expanding imports. Russia’s war economy has run into a classic case of Dutch disease: the economy is experiencing “reverse import substitution,” while additional revenues from exports of Russian energy resources are turning into gains for Chinese producers. The main increase in imports in the first quarter of 2026 came from motor vehicles, machinery, and equipment from China.

April’s industrial data, like the data for the first quarter, indicate that growth is being sustained almost exclusively in sectors connected with the war in one way or another, whether the production of drones, electronics, or medicines, while civilian industries have been reducing output in recent months. The vectors of overall industrial output and civilian-goods output, as calculated by expert centers, are diverging ever further.

For now, however, Rosstat’s data are only obscuring the picture, owing to the agency’s shift to a new base year for calculating industrial indices. In this case, such a transition is by no means a merely technical event. The new base year, 2023, was a year of sharp structural reconfiguration in the economy and of investment in the military sector. The militarized structure of the economy will now become the norm, and the weight of military sectors will increase. This will help the Russian authorities camouflage contraction in the civilian industrial sector and obtain better aggregate figures for industry and the economy as a whole, while the imbalance in production continues to grow. Under conditions of high raw-material revenues, this gap will be balanced by rising imports; if those revenues fall, it will lead to stronger inflation linked to insufficient supply.

While oil rain quite literally fell on Tuapse as a result of Ukrainian strikes on the local refinery, a metaphorical oil rain has been watering the Russian economy for the third month in a row thanks to the continuing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. Russia has become one of the main beneficiaries of the US and Israeli war against Iran, but a substantial share of the gains from the crisis-driven rise in oil prices will accrue not to Russian producers, but to Chinese ones. In economics, this effect is known as Dutch disease.

According to the Ministry of Economic Development, the taxable price of Russia’s Urals crude was $94.9 per barrel in April, after $77 in March, $44.6 in February, and $41 in January. According to estimates in the International Energy Agency’s May review, Russia’s revenues from exports of oil and petroleum products jumped by 85% in March-April compared with January-February, reaching $38.3 billion versus $20.6 billion. Compared with March-April 2025, however, they were also up 40%, and even compared with the same period in 2024, by 7%. In physical volume, meanwhile, they were virtually unchanged from the beginning of the year and were lower than deliveries in 2025 and 2024, by 5% and 9%, respectively.

A concomitant effect of rising export revenues, however, has been a further strengthening of the ruble. Over the past year it had already grown heavier by almost 25%, falling from 102 to 79 rubles per dollar (→ Re: Russia: A Victim of Disinflation, Sanctions, and the “Chinafication” of Trade), and by the end of May this year the dollar exchange rate set by the Central Bank had slipped to 71 rubles. In effect, the exchange rate has thus returned to the prewar era: 71-75 rubles per dollar in the second half of 2021. According to Bloomberg, for the second year in a row the ruble is outperforming analysts’ forecasts of devaluation, becoming the world’s best-performing currency against the dollar.

The strengthening of the ruble increasingly looks like an integral feature of today’s Russian economy. In the view of the Central Bank and economic analysts, this is being helped by the positive trade balance, the absence of capital outflow, the Finance Ministry’s suspension of foreign-currency purchases under the fiscal rule, the expansion of foreign trade bypassing the dollar (cryptocurrency, ruble offsets, as a result of which the ruble’s share in import payments has reached almost 60%, according to the Central Bank), and even the Central Bank’s high key rate, which has a restraining effect on consumption and on enterprises’ interest in investment imports.

At the same time, a substantial strengthening of the national currency naturally leads to increased demand for imports from consumers whose purchasing power is rising. Higher-quality imported goods become more affordable in ruble terms. This effect was clearly visible in the first quarter of 2026: after two years of stagnation in 2024-2025 (a slight cumulative decline of 2.2%), imports in January-March, according to fragmentary Federal Customs Service data, rose by 6% compared with the first quarter of last year, from $62.9 billion to $66.9 billion. The main increase came in “machinery, equipment, and vehicles,” up $3.5 billion, or 12%, as well as food, up $0.7 billion (7%), and chemicals, up $0.7 billion (5%). The strengthening ruble is thus leading to “reverse import substitution.”

Russia’s Federal Customs Service does not disclose data by individual country, but materials from China’s General Administration of Customs show that this country in particular accounted for the main growth in Russian imports. In January-March 2026, deliveries to Russia increased by almost 22%, from $22.7 billion to $27.7 billion, and by the end of April to $38 billion. Thus, Chinese deliveries for the quarter rose by $5 billion, while the overall increase in imports was $4 billion. Accordingly, China’s share of Russian imports rose from 36% to 42%, both because of this increase and because other importing countries were being displaced.

The growth in Chinese deliveries falls above all on the machine-building sector and high-tech products. After the break with the West, China became an almost exclusive source of technological equipment for the Russian economy. Imports of Chinese vehicles grew by $1.07 billion, up 41% from January-March 2025, from $2.62 billion to $3.69 billion; imports of electrical machinery and electrical equipment rose by $0.86 billion, up 26%, from $3.2 billion to $4.04 billion. In the first quarter of 2026, the Federal Customs Service recorded a $3.5 billion increase in imports in the category “machinery, equipment, vehicles, and other goods,” from $28.8 billion to $32.3 billion; as we can see, more than 50% of this came from China.

In addition, there was a noticeable jump in deliveries of Chinese goods not classified by type (Section XXII): in the first quarter, their exports increased almost fourfold, from $480 million to $1.78 billion. For the most part, these are goods for personal use cleared under simplified customs procedures, explained Andrei Gnidchenko, an expert at the Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting (CMASF); the growth in this import category is linked to the introduction of a trial visa-free regime between Russia and China on September 15, 2025, which led to the emergence of so-called new shuttle traders. It was probably through this channel, and through marketplaces, that “other imports” from other countries were replaced by Chinese goods.

China, however, although the largest beneficiary of rising Russian economic revenues being translated into import growth, is not the only one. Strange as it may seem, part of the gain is also accruing to Europe, through increased deliveries of pharmaceutical products, which have still not come under sanctions, according to mirror data from Eurostat. These deliveries to Russia in January-February (March data have not yet been published) rose by 11%, from $4.97 billion to $5.5 billion, with the total increase of more than $500 million accounted for by medicines, from $1.47 billion to $2.15 billion.

Throughout 2025, the growth rate of consumer demand slowed substantially. The growth rate of retail trade, for example, decelerated from 8% to 4%. Yet already in March 2026 a new surge was observed: up 6.2% compared with March 2025, Rosstat records. Food products continue to slow, while growth is being redistributed in favor of nonfood goods: in March, the year-on-year increase in these two categories was 3.1% and 9.1%, respectively. But the acceleration in demand is not translating into gains for manufacturing industries, as producers had hoped.

In annual terms, industrial production, according to Rosstat, grew by 1.9% in April. Compared with March, growth adjusted for calendar and seasonal factors in Rosstat’s calculations showed a modest increase of 0.4%, with extraction down 0.5% and manufacturing up 0.7%. As before, however, growth in manufacturing is concentrated in military and military-adjacent sectors: the production of fabricated metal products, up 23% year on year; the production of other transport equipment, up 57.4%; and the production of medicines and materials, up 15.4%. Splitting manufacturing output into military and civilian components reveals contraction in the civilian sector (manufacturing excluding military industries). According to CMASF calculations, the decline occurred in the first three months, with output stagnating in April; according to calculations by the Higher School of Economics (Bessonova), the contraction falls specifically in April, as follows from CMASF’s brief April review (chart 2). Both calculations lead to the same conclusion: despite the revival of demand in March, the data do not point to a corresponding revival in civilian production.

Since the beginning of 2026, however, experts have questioned the correctness of Rosstat’s industrial-production figures, implying that the scale of the decline may be deeper. The agency switched to a new base year in calculating the production index, 2023 instead of 2018, but the old and new series do not match one another, CMASF’s review of industrial-production dynamics said. Thus, according to the raw data, the industrial-production index for March rose by 2.3% compared with the corresponding period of the previous year, while the chain index adjusted for seasonal and calendar factors gives growth of 4.6%. In April the discrepancies persisted: CMASF estimates that annual industrial growth was no more than 1.5%, not 1.9% at all, as Rosstat reports. CMASF experts note that after switching to the new base, 2023, Rosstat does not reconcile chain indices, month to month, with indices against the corresponding period of the previous year.

But this is not the only consequence of the “technical” transition to a new base year. The transition also changes estimates of the structure of Russian industry: the base year is used to calculate the weights of subsectors and types of production within the structure of industry. The previous transition took place in 2018, shortly after the crisis of 2015-2016 and against the backdrop of a relatively neutral price environment. But 2023 was a year of very significant structural changes in the economy. After the blow from sanctions, the government massively supported the economy with budget funds and investments from the National Wealth Fund, which were directed toward the rapid expansion of military production, emergency import substitution, and the creation of new infrastructure to redirect trade flows. Accordingly, the share of value added created in the relevant sectors and industries increased. And now, when assessing the contribution of their output, they will receive greater weight in the aggregate indicator for industry and the economy as a whole.

Quite predictably, with the change in the base year, the shares of military and military-adjacent production and of the corresponding industries and subsectors increased substantially. This means that the growth continuing in them thanks to budget injections will have a greater influence on aggregate industrial indicators. And this, in turn, will help the Russian government conceal contraction in civilian production through the contribution made by military production. In the new base, the weight of mineral extraction declined slightly, from 38.9% to 38.3% of the industrial-production index, in a sector where stagnation or a decline in oil output is expected. The manufacturing sector, by contrast, increased its weight, in particular through such items as the production of fabricated metal products, from 5% to almost 7%, which includes the output of heavy military equipment and has been one of the main drivers of manufacturing since the second half of 2022; and the production of computers, electronic and optical products, from 3.8% to 5%, where rapid growth driven by military needs has also been observed. The share of production of medicines and materials used for medical purposes also grew significantly, from 1.5% to 2.2%; these have shown steady growth, evidently linked to the number of wounded returning from the war.

Thus, the transition to a new base year in Rosstat’s calculations facilitates the normalization of the militarized economy and the concealment of negative dynamics in the sector whose products are consumed on the domestic market. Improved aggregate indicators will help hide accumulating structural imbalances. Under conditions of high revenues, these imbalances will be balanced by imports; under unfavorable external conditions, they will contribute to shortages of goods for domestic consumption, provoking price growth.

Y done · S save · G great · B bad · N not for me