I've been thinking about how mobilization affects the economy of a country. I've found some papers on how regular conscription hurts an economy. Countries that have mandatory military service tend to see about a 1/2% hit to GDP over countries that only have voluntary military service. But I haven't found anything that enumerates what happens to an economy with full wartime conscription.
Peacetime conscription of young people creates a net drag on the economy, but one that is manageable. Larger scale conscription in wartime is going to have a much greater effect on the economy. If a large percentage of those who are mobilized get seriously wounded or killed, the drag on the economy is going to last for a generation or more.
An extreme example of this is the Paraguayan War of 1864-1870. It's estimated Paraguay lost 90% of their men and 2/3 of their entire population during the war. The country still hasn't fully recovered. That is probably the most devastating loss for a nation in modern history and it's unlikely to be repeated.
Pundits like to talk about Russia's larger population and larger industrial base than Ukraine has. This is a bit misleading. The Russian population is 3X the size of Ukraine, but Ukraine has a number of leveling factors. Defending their homeland and Russia being the aggressor is the most obvious one.
A less obvious advantage is the war economies of the two countries. Ukraine is getting substantial help from outside the country. A lot of their industry was in parts of the country that took a lot of damage like Mariupol or Kharkhiv and are either in Russian hands now, or are running at minimal levels due to the war. But because of the outside help Ukraine only needs to keep its economy ticking over enough to keep the troops in the field and keep the domestic population alive.
There are rumors China is helping Russia and they probably are to some degree, but for the most part Russia is paying its own way in this war. It has gotten some ammunition from other countries, but mostly it's dependent on domestic production. They have drawn down their reserve pools to keep equipment in the field, but other than that, they need to make their own. Additionally Russia needs to try and keep their export economy going as much as possible to keep currency flowing in.
Russia needs a lot more civilian workers than Ukraine does. There is a much larger civilian population that needs to be kept alive, they need their defense industries running at peak output, and they have a much more complex transportation problem than Ukraine has. The factories making war goods in Russia are mostly in the central and eastern parts of the country and Russia needs to move all those supplies from the factories to the front on their own. The factories making war goods for Ukraine, or depots supplying material are mostly further away, but Ukraine's allies are footing the bill of getting the stuff to Ukraine's border and then Ukraine just needs to make a shorter haul than Russia to get it to the front.
Russia also doesn't show any signs of utilizing people not eligible for mobilization to fill jobs left vacant by conscription like the US and Commonwealth countries did in the world wars and which Ukraine is doing now. (This is mostly women.)
As Russia draws on their working age male population to serve as cannon fodder in Ukraine, the jobs those people were doing back home aren't getting done. That creates a bigger and bigger drag on the entire economy. If a significant number of those end up dead or maimed, that hit is going to continue to impact the Russian economy for years to come. Especially if this war ends in a way that leaves Russia a pariah state few want to do business with.
I strongly doubt Russia is going to lose anywhere near the losses Paraguay suffered, but Russia could be looking at economic damage that lasts a very long time and it may never fully recover.
If Russia draws too heavily on their working age male population, the wheels will fall off the economy and who knows what will happen to the country.
Ukraine can afford to draw on a much larger percentage of their working age population (and they are taking a fairly high number of women too) and survive because of the outside help.
Russia really doesn't have a population advantage over Ukraine. It's struggling tremendously to keep a poorly equipped army in the field right now. Intercepted phone calls talk about all things being in short supply: weapons, ammunition, food, warm weather clothing, etc. Additionally the training for mobiks is terrible. The troops they held back for training in the first round of mobilization got some training, but it was pretty poor by western standards.
If they were to try and grow their force in Ukraine, that would likely make their supply problems worse. But even if they are able to keep the same size force going, they will continue to have to tap the working age male population and that will deteriorate the home economy. The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is the dilemma they are faced with.
Russia has not tapped a significant portion of their working age population yet. According to World Bank data, about 2/3 of Russia's population is age 15-64.
Population ages 15-64 (% of total population) - Russian Federation | Data
That would be about 46 million men. However, in Russia a much higher number of those are on the older end and a bit over 20 million are under 40.
Russia: men and women by age 2022 | Statista
Between emigration and mobilization so far in this war, 1-2 million are now out of the Russian workforce. That could be as high as 10%. Among those who emigrated are a lot of well educated workers who were doing the more complex work of their society.
When I look at these impacts on Russia's economy that the Ukrainians aren't suffering as badly, it becomes a peer to peer manpower fight at best for Russia. As the aggressor Russia has no hope of winning a peer to peer fight. The only time an attacking country could hope to win a peer to peer fight is if there was a big technological advantage on the part of the attacking country (as was seen in many colonial battles during the Age of Exploration or the Russian expansion across Asia). Between adversaries that are close in technological capabilities, the aggressor has no hope of winning unless they can bring a lot more troops and material to the fight. Something Russia is incapable of doing.
If western aid dried up tomorrow, Ukraine would fight on with whatever they had. The war would be long, Russia might be able to gain some ground, but the Ukrainians would switch over to insurgency tactics and in modern history outside powers trying to put down an insurgency have almost always lost (I can only think of one win, the UK in Malay late 1940s). The US has lost three of them and it has vastly more military resources than Russia.
At this point there is no feasible scenario where Russia could win this war. There are scenarios where Ukraine is left pretty much destroyed and on its back, but Russia still wouldn't win.
Peacetime conscription of young people creates a net drag on the economy, but one that is manageable. Larger scale conscription in wartime is going to have a much greater effect on the economy. If a large percentage of those who are mobilized get seriously wounded or killed, the drag on the economy is going to last for a generation or more.
An extreme example of this is the Paraguayan War of 1864-1870. It's estimated Paraguay lost 90% of their men and 2/3 of their entire population during the war. The country still hasn't fully recovered. That is probably the most devastating loss for a nation in modern history and it's unlikely to be repeated.
Pundits like to talk about Russia's larger population and larger industrial base than Ukraine has. This is a bit misleading. The Russian population is 3X the size of Ukraine, but Ukraine has a number of leveling factors. Defending their homeland and Russia being the aggressor is the most obvious one.
A less obvious advantage is the war economies of the two countries. Ukraine is getting substantial help from outside the country. A lot of their industry was in parts of the country that took a lot of damage like Mariupol or Kharkhiv and are either in Russian hands now, or are running at minimal levels due to the war. But because of the outside help Ukraine only needs to keep its economy ticking over enough to keep the troops in the field and keep the domestic population alive.
There are rumors China is helping Russia and they probably are to some degree, but for the most part Russia is paying its own way in this war. It has gotten some ammunition from other countries, but mostly it's dependent on domestic production. They have drawn down their reserve pools to keep equipment in the field, but other than that, they need to make their own. Additionally Russia needs to try and keep their export economy going as much as possible to keep currency flowing in.
Russia needs a lot more civilian workers than Ukraine does. There is a much larger civilian population that needs to be kept alive, they need their defense industries running at peak output, and they have a much more complex transportation problem than Ukraine has. The factories making war goods in Russia are mostly in the central and eastern parts of the country and Russia needs to move all those supplies from the factories to the front on their own. The factories making war goods for Ukraine, or depots supplying material are mostly further away, but Ukraine's allies are footing the bill of getting the stuff to Ukraine's border and then Ukraine just needs to make a shorter haul than Russia to get it to the front.
Russia also doesn't show any signs of utilizing people not eligible for mobilization to fill jobs left vacant by conscription like the US and Commonwealth countries did in the world wars and which Ukraine is doing now. (This is mostly women.)
As Russia draws on their working age male population to serve as cannon fodder in Ukraine, the jobs those people were doing back home aren't getting done. That creates a bigger and bigger drag on the entire economy. If a significant number of those end up dead or maimed, that hit is going to continue to impact the Russian economy for years to come. Especially if this war ends in a way that leaves Russia a pariah state few want to do business with.
I strongly doubt Russia is going to lose anywhere near the losses Paraguay suffered, but Russia could be looking at economic damage that lasts a very long time and it may never fully recover.
If Russia draws too heavily on their working age male population, the wheels will fall off the economy and who knows what will happen to the country.
Ukraine can afford to draw on a much larger percentage of their working age population (and they are taking a fairly high number of women too) and survive because of the outside help.
Russia really doesn't have a population advantage over Ukraine. It's struggling tremendously to keep a poorly equipped army in the field right now. Intercepted phone calls talk about all things being in short supply: weapons, ammunition, food, warm weather clothing, etc. Additionally the training for mobiks is terrible. The troops they held back for training in the first round of mobilization got some training, but it was pretty poor by western standards.
If they were to try and grow their force in Ukraine, that would likely make their supply problems worse. But even if they are able to keep the same size force going, they will continue to have to tap the working age male population and that will deteriorate the home economy. The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is the dilemma they are faced with.
Russia has not tapped a significant portion of their working age population yet. According to World Bank data, about 2/3 of Russia's population is age 15-64.
Population ages 15-64 (% of total population) - Russian Federation | Data
That would be about 46 million men. However, in Russia a much higher number of those are on the older end and a bit over 20 million are under 40.
Russia: men and women by age 2022 | Statista
Between emigration and mobilization so far in this war, 1-2 million are now out of the Russian workforce. That could be as high as 10%. Among those who emigrated are a lot of well educated workers who were doing the more complex work of their society.
When I look at these impacts on Russia's economy that the Ukrainians aren't suffering as badly, it becomes a peer to peer manpower fight at best for Russia. As the aggressor Russia has no hope of winning a peer to peer fight. The only time an attacking country could hope to win a peer to peer fight is if there was a big technological advantage on the part of the attacking country (as was seen in many colonial battles during the Age of Exploration or the Russian expansion across Asia). Between adversaries that are close in technological capabilities, the aggressor has no hope of winning unless they can bring a lot more troops and material to the fight. Something Russia is incapable of doing.
If western aid dried up tomorrow, Ukraine would fight on with whatever they had. The war would be long, Russia might be able to gain some ground, but the Ukrainians would switch over to insurgency tactics and in modern history outside powers trying to put down an insurgency have almost always lost (I can only think of one win, the UK in Malay late 1940s). The US has lost three of them and it has vastly more military resources than Russia.
At this point there is no feasible scenario where Russia could win this war. There are scenarios where Ukraine is left pretty much destroyed and on its back, but Russia still wouldn't win.
