Putin boasts about Russia's economy despite recession fears
His optimistic account in a speech at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum contrasted with sombre statements by some members of his government, who warned at the same conference that Russia could face a recession.
Economic Minister Maxim Reshetnikov had said that the country is 'on the brink of going into a recession'.
Mr Putin mentioned the recession warnings, but emphasised that 'it mustn't be allowed'.
He pointed out that manufacturing industries have posted steady growth, allowing the country to reduce its reliance on oil and gas exports.
'The perception of Russian economy as based on raw materials and dependent on hydrocarbons exports have clearly become outdated,' Mr Putin said, adding that the economy grew by 1.5% in the first four months of 2025 and inflation has dropped from double digits to 9.6%.
Mr Putin has used the annual forum to highlight Russia's economic prowess and encourage foreign investment, but Western executives have shunned it after Moscow sent troops into Ukraine in 2022, leaving it to business leaders from Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The economy, hit with a slew of Western sanctions, has so far outperformed predictions.
High defence spending has propelled growth and kept unemployment low despite fuelling inflation.
Large recruiting bonuses for military enlistees and death benefits for those killed in Ukraine also have put more income into the country's poorer regions. But over the long term, inflation and a lack of foreign investments pose threats to the economy.
Economists have warned of mounting pressure on the economy and the likelihood it would stagnate due to lack of investment in sectors other than the military.
Mr Putin said the growth of military industries helped develop new technologies that have become available to the civilian sector.
He vowed to continue military modernisation, relying on lessons learned during the fighting in Ukraine.
'We will raise the capability of the Russian armed forces, modernize military infrastructure and equip the troops with cutting-edge equipment,' Mr Putin said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
31 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Government says stock up on nine emergency items as war risk increases
Government says stock up on nine emergency items as war risk increases The items can all be kept in an emergency bag in case you need them urgently, or need to leave your home quickly A woman checking the contents of an emergency bag People across the UK are being encouraged to buy nine essential items in case of emergency as the threat of war increases. Last week, the Government published a new national security strategy warning that we face a higher risk of war - include a threat of war on UK soil. In the national security strategy published last Tuesday, ministers said the UK now finds itself in 'an era in which we face confrontation with those who are threatening our security'. Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said: 'We are in an era in which we face confrontation with those who are threatening our security." The strategy said Russian cyber attacks and sabotage, and Iranian 'hostile activity' in the UK are increasing. The strategy added: 'Meanwhile, some adversaries are laying the foundations for future conflict, positioning themselves to move quickly to cause major disruption to our energy and or supply chains, to deter us from standing up to their aggression. 'For the first time in many years, we have to actively prepare for the possibility of the UK homeland coming under direct threat, potentially in a wartime scenario.' The strategy warned that 'instances of China's espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years'. Article continues below Earlier this month, Defence Secretary John Healey said a strategic defence review 'confirmed we face new nuclear risks, with other states increasing, modernising and diversifying their nuclear arsenals'. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer last week said the UK will increase its spending on defence and military capabilities - including buying 12 new aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The Government's Prepare site lists nine items people should have in their homes in case of emergency - which could include floods and power cuts as well as 'deliberate actions'. The site reads: "Emergencies happen every day in the UK and across the world. They can be caused by severe weather or other natural hazards, by deliberate actions, or as a result of accidents or infrastructure failure. They can be events that happen quickly and are over in a few hours, or they can develop and continue over the course of several days, months, or sometimes even longer." Article continues below It lists nine items people should have in an emergency kit or 'go bag':
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Now we know for sure we can't believe political posts on X
A revelation after Israel's strikes on Iran leaves reader reeling Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The revelation that around 6 per cent of messages on X supporting the SNP and attacking England and the English suddenly stopped after an Israeli attack on Iran's communications infrastructure is telling. I was recently commenting on a YouTube video when I realised that the majority of other comments supportive of the separatists had a very familiar ring to them. There was something rather derivative about them. My reaction was to comment that I was probably one of the few real people commenting and that the rest were probably Russian bots. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The news about the Iranian bots shows we must expect at least the same proportion of the pro-separatist comments on such media sites to be from Russian, Chinese and North Korean bots. We know all these hostile forces know that what is bad for the United Kingdom and Scotland is good for them. Scottish independence marchers in Glasgow - not one of them a bot from foreign shores (Picture: Andy Buchanan/AFP) It is something that Scottish nationalists should consider when they wish to make Scotland "independent". The Axis of Evil would like nothing better than for them to achieve their aim. That would weaken one of the main bulwarks upon which the freedoms of the democratic West relies, namely a strong United Kingdom. The freedom of all of us depends upon a strong UK. There are no broad, sunlit uplands to Scottish independence, only weakness and subjugation. Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh Toxic talk Carbon dioxide (CO2), an essential 'ingredient' in plant and crop growth and metabolism, has become villainised, on flimsy evidence, as a 'toxin' promoting adverse climate changes. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In fact its impact on local and global weather patterns is very slight. Victims of the huge African emission recalled by Professor Hugh Pennington (Letters, 28 June) were asphyxiated, as in drowning, by hypoxia, not poisoned by an excess of CO2. As H Douglas Lightfoot points out (Letters, 27 June), net zero-style attempts to deplete atmospheric CO2 are not only ruinously costly but also totally illogical and impractical. Charles Wardrop, Perth Cue problems Instead of making cuts to disability and sickness benefits for all existing and future claimants, Sir Keir Starmer's U-turn means the cuts only apply to new, not existing, claimants. So stand by for another wave of Waspi and two-child benefit-style campaigns to restore payments to people who no longer qualify for the benefits, backed by virtue-signalling politicians who try to win votes and con the public by saying they'd 'like' to restore the benefits when in fact they have no intention of doing so because it's unaffordable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In opposition Labour were the worst culprits of this cynical virtue-signalling so they may be getting a taste of their own medicine – in many cases from within their own ranks. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Tax take When it comes to raising taxes, politicians, mainly on the left, try to strike a balance between assuming the moral high ground and raising as much extra income as possible. To their dismay, the Scottish Government is finding out that their 'progressive' income tax policy is not raising the desired extra revenue, or indeed, producing the desired economic growth. Certainly it would be interesting to see Scottish Government estimates of forecast extra income tax revenue versus that which has actually been achieved. I suspect, though, that it would need an FOI request to release this information. Turning to the forthcoming UK budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves may well find the same problem in that many of her target areas for tax hikes, for example Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, non-doms etc can be (partially) circumvented, and not yield the desired extra revenues. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad One area, though, where there is a little room for manoeuvre (by the taxpayer) is fuel duty and vehicle excise duty. Expect the motorist to be hit hard in the name of net zero, though maximising the tax take would be closer to the truth. Political naivety in understanding the law of unintended consequences is often in short supply when introducing new tax measures and I don't expect any change in the forthcoming UK and Scottish budgets. Alastair Neilson, Edinburgh Soft soaping It's useful to think back, at this time, as far back as 1956, when, in the Suez Crisis, the UK realised it was no longer a major power. President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal, having failed to get US and international backing for the building of the Aswan Dam. Britain and France colluded secretly with Israel to seize and control the canal, but the military operation was a total failure, and Anthony Eden's government fell. The US and UN had given no backing to the project, and there followed financial crisis and fuel shortages for the UK. The EU and 'coalition of the willing' are in a similar position of weakness in the worthy aim of assisting Ukraine, which explains the fawning sycophancy of Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte in trying to woo Donald Trump back into Nato and backing Ukraine. Never mind also the small matter of having probably not managed to eliminate Iran's nuclear ambitions. Rutte is fully aware that Trump is an unreliable, erratic criminal President bent on destroying democracy in his own country. But he has to try the soft-soaping anyway. Crawford Mackie, Edinburgh Odd question New guidance has been issued after requests from universities for clarity on how they could uphold freedom of speech. Isn't this like the Vatican requesting clarity on how it could uphold Christianity? Doug Clark, Currie, Midlothian Write to The Scotsman Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Is Nigel Farage right about the Bank of England?
Photo byAfter Labour's fiscal shambles over the past week, it is depressing to see the only genuine economic radicalism in British politics emerging from the right. Reform deputy leader Richard Tice's recent claim that 'everything is up for debate' on the Bank of England once again shows why the party is setting the pace on national political discussion. It doesn't exactly hurt the party to have a strangely enamoured mainstream media, and an alternate news ecosystem around GB News that is mainlining its alt-right talking points. But Reform's willingness to seize the policy initiative shows that the party grasps the extent of Britain's economic dysfunction. From demanding the nationalisation of British Steel, to insisting taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for quantitative easing (QE), Reform has been unafraid to challenge the orthodoxy. Its opponents urgently need to raise their game, or risk continuing to play catch up from now until the next election. The blunt truth is that the claims made for central bank independence were always overblown, and today, in a world of chaotic, repeated, overlapping crises, sacrosanct independence is a luxurious relic few countries can afford to maintain. The Bank of England's current mandate is not fit for purpose and in any case the Bank has operated well outside of it since the financial crisis. The arrival of so-called unconventional monetary policy in early 2009, in the form of QE, represented a major expansion of its powers. The Bank's balance sheet grew alongside its remit, with huge short-term impacts on wealth inequality (since shamefacedly admitted by the Bank) and with the longer-term costs to the Exchequer that Tice highlighted. There have been more graphic examples of over-reach: it wasn't 'markets' alone that removed Liz Truss as prime minister but the Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey's extraordinary intervention, in a press conference at the International Monetary Fund, that helped to stoke the market panic which forced her resignation in September 2022. 'Independence' for the Bank has turned, over the three decades since Gordon Brown granted it, into something dangerously close to 'dominance'. But killing this sacred cow will require a confrontation with the high priests of modern economics. Since the mid-1990s, the doctrine in mainstream Western economic thinking has been that central banks should be 'independent' of government, meaning that decisions over what has become the central economic management tool of interest rate-setting should be made by the banks without the broader, elected government involved. Central banks would be granted a simple mandate by their government to achieve a certain target for inflation, usually around 2 per cent, and expected to vary interest rates as they saw fit to achieve that. [See also: The QE theory of everything] The theory behind this was that if governments were left to set central bank interest rates themselves, they would game the system – cutting interest rates ahead of elections, for example, to stoke up the economy in the short run, at the risk of higher inflation. But knowing this, consumers, businesses and (crucially) those in financial markets would not believe governments when they also claimed to want to fight inflation. These promises would not be credible. Expectations of future inflation would be higher, and this would, in turn, feed back into actually higher inflation today. By breaking the link between elected governments and the central bank, independence was supposed to restore credibility to monetary policy. Sticking tightly to their mandate, ruled over by wise technocrats, independent central banks would act as credible guardians of price stability. Some costs were clear, even at the time. Excessively high interest rates maintained by the Bank of England following independence in 1997 were blamed, largely accurately, for further waves of deindustrialisation under New Labour. The pound was held at a value that made manufacturing exports uncompetitive: 1.5 million manufacturing jobs went, largely ignored at the time, between 1997 and 2009. Factory closures here may have appeared to be a price worth paying. Inflation remained low, interest rates manageable, real wages grew and a great expansion of consumer borrowing fuelled wider economic growth. The Bank of England governor at the time, Mervyn King, claimed to have midwifed the 'Nice' decade – Non-Inflationary, Continual Expansion. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This was pure hubris. The arrival of central bank independence as a doctrine coincided with the extraordinary transformation of China, in particular, from one of the poorest countries on the planet to what is, by some measures, the world's largest economy. The relationship wasn't coincidental: the freeing up of global financial systems that 'independent' central banks were a component part of enabled the spread of consumer borrowing on a heroic scale throughout the Global North and this, in turn, helped lubricate the flow of cheap consumer products opened up by the mass industrialisation of East Asia. But what, plausibly, has more impact on consumer prices: a letter from Gordon Brown to the governor of the Bank of England, or 300 million Chinese moving from the countryside to work in factories? If you can buy a 50-inch flatscreen TV today for a fraction of its price even a few years ago, that isn't because the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee managed to keep voting the right way. It's the ending of this cheap flow that really heralds the end of the low-inflation decades. The halting of globalisation, rudely made permanent on Donald Trump's 2 April 'Liberation Day', and more fundamentally the conjoined crises of the climate and nature, all point towards a sharp and permanent reversal of those long decades of falling prices. Climate change means economic activity becomes harder and more costly. And today, it is rising food prices that have started to push up overall inflation in both the US and the UK. Staples like chocolate have soared in price in recent weeks, directly linked to adverse weather worsened by a changing climate. Conventional central bank policy is useless here. Putting up interest rates in London does not make more cocoa grow in drought-struck Ghana. If anything, by restricting future investment, it is likely to worsen this supply-side inflation over time. Nor do interest rates stop the new profiteers of shortage and disruption, like the fossil fuel companies and global agribusinesses, generating all time-record profits from this ecological cost-of-living crisis. This new high-inflation world is wreaking havoc with structures inherited from the old. Higher interest rates, and attempts by central banks to 'unwind' earlier QE, are now creating notional 'losses' on central bank balance sheets – losses that the Treasury has agreed to indemnify. Work by the New Economics Foundation suggests these now run to an extraordinary £130bn over the rest of the decade, after peaking at over £40bn last year. These are payments from the Treasury that go, via the Bank of England, to paying those commercial banks that hold accounts with it. It is these payments that Tice has targeted but which, to their credit, the Bank's former deputy governor for monetary policy Charles Bean and Gordon Brown have both flagged as an extraordinary indulgence in a time of austerity. 'Tiered reserves' – the Bank paying interest on only part of the accounts held – would be a smart, partial solution. The transformation has to go further. Dealing with a world of repeated price shocks and crises from non-monetary sources will require coordination between fiscal and monetary authorities. A very useful recent paper from LSE's Centre for Economic Transition Expertise calls for 'adaptive inflation targeting' from central banks, giving them greater flexibility and time to respond to climate and other shocks, while coordinating with the fiscal authorities. Strategic stocks of essential supplies, as called for by the economist Isabella Weber, and Swiss-style price controls (a quarter of consumer prices in Switzerland are regulated by the government) should all be part of the mix. Common-sense solutions remain anathema to the partisans of central bank 'independence', who tend to see any attempt at coordination between parts of government as clearing the route to the dreaded 'fiscal dominance' of monetary policy – an inflationary spiral of government deficits and money-printing. But the greater risk today is inaction in the name of orthodoxy, drifting further into instability and shortages with our most important economic institutions unable to cope. It shouldn't be left to Tice and Reform to make the case for radical change. [See also: Who's afraid of Gary Stevenson?] Related
