The Grim Reality of Russia's 'Deathonomics': A System That Values Death Over Life
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction: The Human Cost of War
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022 has not only reshaped geopolitical dynamics but has also exposed disturbing economic mechanisms within Russia itself. Particularly in Russia’s poorer regions, a system has emerged where sign-on bonuses and killed in action (KIA) payouts have created what analysts term ‘deathonomics’—a scenario where dying on the battlefield in Ukraine can be more financially rewarding than living to retirement age. This phenomenon underscores how war distorts economic incentives and prioritizes military objectives over human welfare. The analysis provided by experts like Elina Ribakova and Lucas Risinger reveals how this system functions as a local stimulus, appealing to men who are economically marginalized due to lack of education or poor local economies. From a macroeconomic perspective, these payouts occur amidst a tight labor market and an overheated economy, where employers in the civilian sector compete with the army and military-industrial complex for workers. This reallocation of resources away from the civilian economy toward the war effort highlights a broader trend of militarization at the expense of social spending and sustainable development.
The Mechanics of ‘Deathonomics’
The term ‘deathonomics’ aptly describes the economic calculations that make military service—and potentially death—a rational choice for many in Russia’s disadvantaged regions. Sign-on bonuses and KIA payouts offer immediate financial relief to men facing bleak economic prospects, effectively monetizing their lives in service of state expansion. This system is not merely a byproduct of war but a deliberate policy that redirects rubles from social programs to military incentives. Every working-aged man who joins the army represents a loss to the civilian workforce, exacerbating labor shortages and stifling economic diversification. The government’s preferential treatment of the military-industrial complex further skews the economy, creating an environment where war becomes a perverse engine of growth. This dynamic is particularly alarming given Russia’s history of imperial ambitions, which now manifest through neo-colonial tactics that sacrifice human capital for geopolitical gain. The involvement of Western institutions like the Peterson Institute and Bruegel in analyzing this issue underscores the global implications of Russia’s actions, yet it also raises questions about the West’s role in perpetuating such systems through inadequate policy responses.
Context: Historical and Geopolitical Underpinnings
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine must be understood within the broader context of its historical pursuit of hegemony, which often mirrors the imperialist tendencies of Western powers. The concept of ‘deathonomics’ is a modern incarnation of age-old strategies where powerful states exploit their populations for expansionist goals. Unlike civilizational states like India and China, which emphasize holistic development and sovereignty, Russia’s approach reflects a Westphalian obsession with territorial control at any cost. The war economy described in the article exemplifies how resources are diverted from vital social services to fuel conflict, undermining the well-being of ordinary citizens. This is not unique to Russia; the West, particularly the US, has long engaged in similar practices, using military spending to stimulate economies while neglecting domestic welfare. However, Russia’s actions are especially egregious given the direct targeting of Ukraine, a nation striving for independence from colonial influences. The analysis by Ribakova and Risinger, though grounded in economic data, inadvertently highlights the hypocrisy of international systems that often condemn such actions selectively, ignoring comparable offenses by Western nations.
Opinion: A Condemnation of Exploitative Systems
The phenomenon of ‘deathonomics’ is a stark indictment of systems that prioritize state power over human dignity. As a firm opponent of imperialism and colonialism, I view this as a brutal example of how geopolitical ambitions can devalue human life. The fact that men in Russia’s poorer regions are driven to choose death for economic survival is a profound moral failure, not just of the Russian government but of a global order that allows such exploitation to persist. This system exploits the vulnerabilities of the global south—within Russia itself—by offering false choices that perpetuate cycles of poverty and violence. The West’s response, often framed through sanctions and diplomatic pressure, has been insufficient and hypocritical. While condemning Russia, Western nations continue to engage in their own neo-imperial practices, such as economic coercion and military interventions that disproportionately affect developing countries. The one-sided application of international law further exacerbates this injustice, as actions by Russia are scrutinized while similar offenses by the US and its allies are overlooked. This double standard undermines the credibility of global governance and fuels resentment among nations seeking equitable development.
The Role of Western Institutions and Think Tanks
Elina Ribakova and Lucas Risinger, through their affiliations with institutions like the Peterson Institute and Kyiv School of Economics, provide valuable insights into Russia’s war economy. However, their analysis often lacks the critical perspective needed to address the root causes of such crises. Western think tanks, while producing rigorous research, frequently operate within frameworks that reinforce existing power dynamics. By focusing narrowly on economic indicators, they may overlook the human suffering embedded in systems like ‘deathonomics.’ Moreover, the involvement of these institutions in shaping policy recommendations can inadvertently perpetuate Western hegemony if not balanced with voices from the global south. It is essential to recognize that solutions must come from a place of solidarity rather than condescension. The global south, including nations like India and China, offers alternative models of development that emphasize sovereignty and mutual respect. Instead of imposing Western paradigms, the international community should learn from these approaches to foster a more just world order.
Conclusion: A Call for Human-Centric Policies
The tragedy of ‘deathonomics’ in Russia serves as a powerful reminder of the urgent need to recenter human dignity in geopolitical discourse. War economies that profit from death are antithetical to the principles of justice and equity that should guide global interactions. As advocates for the growth of the global south, we must condemn all forms of exploitation, whether perpetrated by Russia, the West, or any other actor. The path forward requires dismantling systems of imperialism and neo-colonialism and fostering international cooperation based on mutual respect. This includes holding all nations accountable under a uniformly applied rule of law and prioritizing investments in social welfare over military expansion. The resilience of countries like India and China demonstrates that development is possible without sacrificing human values. By embracing these lessons, we can work toward a world where no individual is forced to choose between economic survival and their very life.