Falling incomes, rising prices, the destruction of jobs, the cold in homes - this is the price that ordinary Americans and Europeans will have to pay for the economic war with Moscow over Ukraine. In the future, this will seriously affect the domestic politics of Western countries, whose populations will feel the effects of the global confrontation with Russia for the first time.
Last year, the World Bank published an investigation, after which Bulgarian Georgieva was suspected of lobbying in favor of China, which started the pandemic. Therefore, the validity of such an emotional prognosis can be questioned.
But in essence Georgieva is of course right, at least nobody argues with the assertion that the current crisis will result in major losses for the global economy, be it losses of brands leaving Russia (McDonald's alone assessed its downtime at $50 million a month) or a sharp rise of prices for export commodities of Russia - oil, gas, grain, some metals and later also timber.
These losses will be so significant that governments of Western countries honestly warn the population of the inevitable decline in living standards.
In the U.S., inflation is at a record high of almost 8% in 40 years, and mainly because of rising oil prices. Against this background, Biden imposes an embargo on the purchase of energy from Russia, shamelessly calling it "Putin's markup" (he has already called it twice), but still admits - this is the result of "crippling" sanctions imposed on the Russian economy.
The image of the ordinary American who clutches his heart at the sight of the price tag at the gas station was suggested by Biden himself. Thus, the economic war with Russia has acquired a popular dimension in the U.S.
In Britain, they expect a decline in living standards by 2,500 pounds per family per year and stress that this is precisely because of the sanctions.
In France, they call for a decrease in the temperature in homes by several degrees.
In Germany, they are announcing an increase in the cost of gas by May by more than a quarter - despite the fact that it is already very expensive in Germany. And every German understands that it would be cheaper if Nord Stream-2, which has already been completed, was launched, but its certification is stopped by the political decision of Berlin due not even to the special operation, but to the recognition of the independence of the DNR and LNR by Moscow.
Thus, Europeans and Americans are offered to pay for the economic noose around Russia's neck out of their own pockets. Will they go for it? There is no doubt that they will.
The level of support for Ukraine in Western society should not be underestimated, especially since the media in the EU and US countries present either an American or Ukrainian view of what is happening (there are some differences, but this is a subject for a separate discussion), and the tone of publications has become openly hysterical.
In the Czech Republic and the Baltic states, support for Russia's actions in Ukraine was generally recognized as a criminal offense.
Rallies of thousands in support of Ukraine, fundraisers to help Ukrainians with the participation of international stars, headlines in the vein of "We must pay for freedom" - it is all there, it will all happen. And it works.
For example, the rating of French President Emmanuel Macron, who has taken an absolutely categorical position on the issue of sanctions, rose from 25% to 33%. This practically guarantees his reelection in the second round of elections, which will take place this spring. The journalist and philosopher Eric Zemmour, who proposes a fundamentally different approach to relations with Russia, no longer looks like a serious competitor to the current master of the Elysée Palace.
However, in the future, the economic war now underway threatens domestic politics of the countries involved, and not at all in favor of those who started this economic war. At least because it is accompanied by a historical epiphany of society - the conflict with Russia costs money. A lot of money.
It has always cost a lot of money, and smart people understood this: the "arms race" during the Cold War and proxy wars with the USSR around the world was paid for by the American taxpayer. But it was presented by the government as a common mission to fight for its (non-Soviet) way of life, and the spending was spread across the nation, not felt by each individual (unless they were sent directly to the front).
Besides, Washington knew the measure - the average American (unlike, incidentally, the average Soviet) never had the feeling that he was undernourished in order to produce another tank.
The Crimea-Donbass sanctions of 2014 also brought losses to the Western world, but they were more often referred to in the context of lost profits - money that big business could have earned, but did not, as the "Russian spring" interfered, you see.
The consequences of this wave were felt on their own skin mainly by European farmers and other producers of agricultural products, for whom the counter-sanctions of Moscow closed the Russian market, but the discontent was muted by additional subsidies from Brussels, unusual for their industry (in developed countries, agriculture is often unprofitable - too expensive land, too expensive labor, as a consequence - too high prices for products for anyone to buy them).
Not so now. Despite the 2014 sanctions and Russian import substitution, the number of threads connecting Russia's economy to the economies of the West has become so great that their current simultaneous rupture will be felt by most - rich and poor alike. This is the loss that the average European would be able to calculate for himself - by price tags and bills. It is a concrete figure, deducted from the family budget as early as the next month. This was not the case before.
Since everyday people are also voters, this will inevitably create an electoral demand for national-egoism in Europe and strengthen "neoisolationists" with views like those of Carlson and Trump in the United States. Importantly, this national egoism will have a Russian flavor for a long time to come.
This process cannot be absolutized by being self-righteous, to the point of hoping that ravenous Europeans will finally elect a pro-Russian government that will rush to Moscow with apologies.
A Central Bank survey promises 20% inflation in Russia (compared to 8-9% in the US and 7-8% in Britain) and an 8% contraction of GDP in 2022. In other words, while the Europeans, having moved on from their present anti-Russian hysteria, will be thinking about other, less expensive ways to sort things out with Moscow, the Russian economy will be shaken.
But in this experience, the long-term effect is truly valuable and geopolitically useful for us. From now on, the hawkish rhetoric associated with containing and confronting Russia will, for the first time in Western history, be associated with a sharp drop in living standards, rising prices, and shrinking incomes. When the emotional blackmail in the media subsides and the voter is alone with these thoughts, their choice may come as a great surprise to the current leaders of public opinion, who have made it their mission to fight everything Russian.
Not this season, but the Breton fishermen who supported Zemmour and the Pennsylvanian workers who voted for Trump will inevitably have many unexpected supporters who have learned firsthand that Russophobia comes at a price.
You must be logged in to post a comment.