Russia - General Discussion.

[Feanor]

Russia boosts army sign-up bonuses amid escalating frontline losses

After the unpleasant experience with forcibly calling up army reservists in the 2022 “partial mobilization” drive, the Kremlin has since gone into overdrive to convince people to sign-up as contract soldiers for the invasion of Ukraine. The recruitment of “volunteers” (those who sign-up...

en.thebell.io

Yes I was pointing out that in my opinion being paid a bonus to volunteer is not really volunteering. It seems more like an incentive. It wasn't my intent to confuse conscripts with contract or volunteer personal.

I mean... voluntary enlistments always come with a financial incentive, namely a paycheck. They also typically get benefits that are often worth financially far more than enlistment bonuses. And enlistment bonuses are a common practice for wartime recruiting. I think the distinction between conscription and voluntary service isn't the payment or lack thereof. It's the fact that they have a choice. Let's also not forget that Russia does in fact have conscripts and practices conscription. And those conscripts are not paid enlistment bonuses. And in at least two situation those conscripts ended up in combat during this war, the first during the initial invasion when ~600 conscripts ended up inside Ukraine as part of the logistics train and were ambushed. The second was during Ukraine's push into Kursk, where conscripts were used as part of border security forces. The first incident was misbehavior by Russian command, and several officers were reportedly put on trial for it. The second incident however was not. There are, to the best of my knowledge, still conscript military forces stationed along the Ukrainian border in areas away from the heavy fighting around Sumy and Kharkov. None of them received enlistment bonuses. None of them have any real choice in the matter. A Russian prisoner getting his sentence commuted to join Storm-Z, or a Russian young person from a poor region counting on the ~2mln RU bonus to buy a home, and signing a 6 month contract with a tank btln, are doing so voluntarily. They're deciding to jump into the grinder and roll the dice for patriotism, or a payoff, or because they're idiots and want adventure, or for any other number of reasons.

Given your position here, would it make service members in the USA that receive enlistment or re-enlistment bonuses also conscripts?

 

[Vanquish]

I mean... voluntary enlistments always come with a financial incentive, namely a paycheck. They also typically get benefits that are often worth financially far more than enlistment bonuses. And enlistment bonuses are a common practice for wartime recruiting. I think the distinction between conscription and voluntary service isn't the payment or lack thereof. It's the fact that they have a choice. Let's also not forget that Russia does in fact have conscripts and practices conscription. And those conscripts are not paid enlistment bonuses. And in at least two situation those conscripts ended up in combat during this war, the first during the initial invasion when ~600 conscripts ended up inside Ukraine as part of the logistics train and were ambushed. The second was during Ukraine's push into Kursk, where conscripts were used as part of border security forces. The first incident was misbehavior by Russian command, and several officers were reportedly put on trial for it. The second incident however was not. There are, to the best of my knowledge, still conscript military forces stationed along the Ukrainian border in areas away from the heavy fighting around Sumy and Kharkov. None of them received enlistment bonuses. None of them have any real choice in the matter. A Russian prisoner getting his sentence commuted to join Storm-Z, or a Russian young person from a poor region counting on the ~2mln RU bonus to buy a home, and signing a 6 month contract with a tank btln, are doing so voluntarily. They're deciding to jump into the grinder and roll the dice for patriotism, or a payoff, or because they're idiots and want adventure, or for any other number of reasons.

Given your position here, would it make service members in the USA that receive enlistment or re-enlistment bonuses also conscripts?

Financial desperation making people volunteer for war, I would think fixing the cause of their economic situation would be a better solution. That's a difficult situation to address in a lot of cases however. As to offering retention bonuses, in Canada I know there is severe shortage of MARTECs and pilots for example as well as medical personal. In the past I believe some retention bonuses were tried to get critical service people to re-enlist but to my knowledge that practice is no longer happening. Should Canada use re-enlistment bonuses to keep specific trades. I would say the better option would be to offer service members compensation commensurate with what they can make in the private sector.

 

[Feanor]

Financial desperation making people volunteer for war, I would think fixing the cause of their economic situation would be a better solution. That's a difficult situation to address in a lot of cases however. As to offering retention bonuses, in Canada I know there is severe shortage of MARTECs and pilots for example as well as medical personal. In the past I believe some retention bonuses were tried to get critical service people to re-enlist but to my knowledge that practice is no longer happening. Should Canada use re-enlistment bonuses to keep specific trades. I would say the better option would be to offer service members compensation commensurate with what they can make in the private sector.

How would that be a solution? The problem enlistment bonuses are being used to solve is one of attracting people to serve in a brutal, bloody, and protracted war. If their economic situation was better they wouldn't enlist, creating a manpower shortage for Russia... Russia isn't using enlistment bonuses to solve social problems. They're using social problems to solve enlistment issues.

 

[Vanquish]

How would that be a solution? The problem enlistment bonuses are being used to solve is one of attracting people to serve in a brutal, bloody, and protracted war. If their economic situation was better they wouldn't enlist, creating a manpower shortage for Russia... Russia isn't using enlistment bonuses to solve social problems. They're using social problems to solve enlistment issues.

That was my point going back to the beginning about the bonuses being offered. People are not going to volunteer for war unless it's the only solution to their personal economic station. Again the point that I understood or maybe misunderstood being made was that Russia was having no problem getting people to voluntarily enlist. I disagreed with that point. We agree that Russians and others that are primarily volunteering are doing so largely based on the huge bonuses being offered.

 

[Feanor]

That was my point going back to the beginning about the bonuses being offered. People are not going to volunteer for war unless it's the only solution to their personal economic station.

That simply isn't true. People volunteer for a number of reasons. One of them is a financial incentive. Another is to get access to opportunities they otherwise wouldn't get. A third is patriotic or nationalistic sentiment (or other ideological motivation). Russia specifically is leaning heavily on the financial incentive, with some attempt to tie career and educational opportunities to service as well. This has to do with the weakness of Russia on the ideological front, but it doesn't meant it isn't a factor. And often it's a combination of factors, rather then just it being the only solution to their personal economic station.

Again the point that I understood or maybe misunderstood being made was that Russia was having no problem getting people to voluntarily enlist. I disagreed with that point. We agree that Russians and others that are primarily volunteering are doing so largely based on the huge bonuses being offered.

Russia has no problem getting people to volunteer. The reason Russia has no problem getting people to volunteer is because of generous financial incentives, primarily, with secondary factors playing a role too.

I'll quote you your original post that started this discussion;

I think that's kind of dubious when conscripts are given signing bonuses.

Conscripts are not being given signing bonuses. Conscripts are not the primary source or even a major source of manpower for this war, their involvement is very rare. People signing up to serve because of financial incentives are not conscripts.

 

[Vanquish]

I think we're somewhat going in circles here. I shouldn't have used the word conscripts when I meant "volunteers" to be clear.

Again as to volunteers, certainly some individuals may feel that going to war is best for them for whatever personal reason or gain. It would be interesting to know how many volunteer to go to war for an education in comparison to how many sign up to go to war for their bank account. I know we'll never know that answer.

However in my opinion Russia wouldn't have to offer ever increasing incentives for people to go to war if they were having no issue in recruiting "volunteers". I would imagine everyday Russians are learning more and more about the devastating casualties that both involved countries are suffering and while they are still "volunteering" it's taking greater incentives to attract them.

Others have spent many pages on here informing the difficulty Ukraine experiences in the regards to recruitment. I'm merely trying to point out that while Russia seemingly is able to fill it's ranks, it's not coming without great expenditure for the treasury. To me that implies that individuals are becoming less likely to want to volunteer for patriotism or other reasons and most likely only due to economic reasons.

 

[seaspear]

It does not appear that conscripts are voluntary and certainly they can be sent to regions in Russia requiring combat duties without compense

Russia's Forced Conscription in Occupied Ukraine

Alexey Strelnikov | Oleksandr Kunyzkyj04/19/2025 Forcibly conscripting soldiers to fight for an occupying power is a war crime. DW spoke with human rights activists and Ukrainians about how residents are being pressured into military service by their invaders.This spring marks the highest rate...

www.genocidewatch.com

Russia’s largest military call-up whips up fear among young men

With at least 100,000 soldiers killed in the war against Ukraine, Moscow is making life harder for draft dodgers.

www.aljazeera.com

.

 

[Feanor]

It does not appear that conscripts are voluntary and certainly they can be sent to regions in Russia requiring combat duties without compense

Russia's Forced Conscription in Occupied Ukraine

Alexey Strelnikov | Oleksandr Kunyzkyj04/19/2025 Forcibly conscripting soldiers to fight for an occupying power is a war crime. DW spoke with human rights activists and Ukrainians about how residents are being pressured into military service by their invaders.This spring marks the highest rate...

www.genocidewatch.com

Russia’s largest military call-up whips up fear among young men

With at least 100,000 soldiers killed in the war against Ukraine, Moscow is making life harder for draft dodgers.

www.aljazeera.com

.

Conscription in Russia is absolutely not voluntary and never has been. In the 2010's it was easier to get alternative service, i.e. nonmilitary public service, but it's gotten harder during the past 5 years. I believe they were tightening it up even before the war, certainly more-so during it. And yes, while conscripts that end up in combat in Kursk or Belgorod regions do get combat veteran status and the associated benefits, they aren't going to be paid as contract soldiers. There is also a problem with command trying to pressure conscripts to sign contracts. The best chance for avoiding it is to reach out to your military prosecutor's office, or to have your family do so on your behalf. Russian military units aren't quite the closed off fiefdoms they used to be 20 years ago, but they are still far more isolated then living in normal society, and with the current war, draft dodging is definitely on the rise.

I think we're somewhat going in circles here. I shouldn't have used the word conscripts when I meant "volunteers" to be clear.

Again as to volunteers, certainly some individuals may feel that going to war is best for them for whatever personal reason or gain. It would be interesting to know how many volunteer to go to war for an education in comparison to how many sign up to go to war for their bank account. I know we'll never know that answer.

However in my opinion Russia wouldn't have to offer ever increasing incentives for people to go to war if they were having no issue in recruiting "volunteers". I would imagine everyday Russians are learning more and more about the devastating casualties that both involved countries are suffering and while they are still "volunteering" it's taking greater incentives to attract them.

Others have spent many pages on here informing the difficulty Ukraine experiences in the regards to recruitment. I'm merely trying to point out that while Russia seemingly is able to fill it's ranks, it's not coming without great expenditure for the treasury. To me that implies that individuals are becoming less likely to want to volunteer for patriotism or other reasons and most likely only due to economic reasons.

Agreed. In '22-'23 it was also common for people who wanted to fight to do so through volunteer formations or through the "orchestra" because conditions were better, and you were guaranteed a discharge, in volunteer units on desire, and in mercenary units upon completing your time. The MoD did a lot of strange things with contracts back then and it led to a major lack of trust in them. It's hard to tell what this looks like now, especially with volunteer units being less common and use of mercenaries scaled back. The fact that they do release people after the 6-month contracts also helped, as they came home flush with money, wearing medals, and telling war stories. Many went through the cash fast and hard, and were right back to signing the next contract in less than 3 months after getting out, and many others saw that as their opportunity to make money, but also earn some respect. In many economically more depressed parts of Russia a single 6-month contract is a life-changing amount of money. It can literally pay for an entire home, no mortgage.

 

[John Fedup]

Financial desperation making people volunteer for war, I would think fixing the cause of their economic situation would be a better solution. That's a difficult situation to address in a lot of cases however. As to offering retention bonuses, in Canada I know there is severe shortage of MARTECs and pilots for example as well as medical personal. In the past I believe some retention bonuses were tried to get critical service people to re-enlist but to my knowledge that practice is no longer happening. Should Canada use re-enlistment bonuses to keep specific trades. I would say the better option would be to offer service members compensation commensurate with what they can make in the private sector.

Decent accommodation and modern military kit would also help with Canada’s retention problem.

 

[personaldesas]

World economy is stagnate and fragile in Q1 this year. Almost everyone is tend to be down from Q4 24. Calling one quarter down is not recession. Western economist and Banks already call Russian economy facing strained since 22.

I'm not saying everything is good in Russia, and nothing to be concern. However the whole world economy right now is not in good term, the whole world economy facing adjustment. Big part of this due to Geopolitics of Trump, but significant part also because not all economics wheels already return to pre covid condition yet.

Russia is not in War Economy yet, unlike Ukraine. So they are not in war footing as in WW2 as example yet. Sanctions means they (Russia) are switching market. However global stagnation is not helping anyone now.

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD

When IMF put 2.8% of global growth, it is shown fragility of World economies.

It feels like my point is being somewhat strawmaned here.

I’m not claiming that a single quarter of negative growth equals a recession, or that Russia is uniquely suffering while everyone else is doing fine. My point was that if Russia’s GDP is now falling, it’s significant *because* much of its post-invasion growth was driven by war-related sectors - sectors that don't improve longterm welfare and whose output is often literally destroyed. That kind of growth is inherently fragile.

Public war spending may have propped up the economy for a while, but if that engine is now sputtering - whatever the reasons - that’s worth paying attention to.

 

[Ananda]

My point was that if Russia’s GDP is now falling, it’s significant *because* much of its post-invasion growth was driven by war-related sectors - sectors that don't improve longterm welfare and whose output is often literally destroyed. That kind of growth is inherently fragile.

The growth of Russia is not just from war related sector. That's what missleading and mostly taking cues only from some Western sources. The Russian growth coming from:

1. Russian commodities exports, especially from rebound economies in global south after Covid,
2. Increase their domestic Import Substitution to cater still growing public consumption,
3. War related industries growth.

This is what my points from all along. Western media only taking cues from some think tanks that saying Russian growth mostly only come from one sector, Russian War time industries. However market data shown at least three sector that somewhat equally provide the growth.

Global economies slow down matter to #1 and effecting #2. Thus saying only #3 that fuel growth is not giving full picture of Russian economies. Yes rellying only to #3 will not going to provide sustainable growth. Then again slown down from #1 seems so far matter more.

Russian commodities market is slown down this Q1. Global growth rebound after Covid especially in Global South is slowing down. It is matter as it is still #1 engine growth for Russia.

As for #3, I have mention before in this thread, the rebound growth of Russia MIC due to war, can give soft landing or more sustainable if they can find exports market. Significant Investment on their MIC and related sector need to have external channel if the War slowing down later on. This is why Rosoboronexport recently increase their effort to regain back their market export, especially in Russia traditional Global South market.

 

[personaldesas]

The growth of Russia is not just from war related sector. That's what missleading and mostly taking cues only from some Western sources. The Russian growth coming from:

1. Russian commodities exports, especially from rebound economies in global south after Covid,
2. Increase their domestic Import Substitution to cater still growing public consumption,
3. War related industries growth.

Can you the sources for that breakdown? You've made it clear many times you view Western sources as inherently unreliable, but that doesn’t mean you’re exempt from providing any sources at all, western or otherwise. Without them, it's hard to assess the veracity of your claims.

 

[Ananda]

I'm in financial market, so my sources are the transaction in market. That's not open sources. However my collegues in East Asian desks (this means Greater China), shown that there are three main activities in Russian economy that matter to their growth.

As Western sources, On matter of Russia, I used to see them reliable as long as it is base pure on market sources. However as western market not dealing with Russian one anymore, Western market info also not first hand information anymore.

Thus information on Russian trade are coming mostly through market that still dealing with Russia. That's mostly Greater China and some from India and Gulf. That's why on matter of Russia trade, western sources is increasingly unreliable and politically bias.

Without them, it's hard to assess the veracity of your claims.

But you take the claim from mostly Western sources that say Russia growth are from their war related production. You take claim from those who doesn't have access to Russia and believe it is solid claim ? How it has solid veracity ?

Again for me, I take my info on Russian economy through those who still deal with Russia. They have better reliability info then any Western sources that not deal with Russia anymore.

 

[personaldesas]

I'm in financial market, so my sources are the transaction in market. That's not open sources. However my collegues in East Asian desks (this means Greater China), shown that there are three main activities in Russian economy that matter to their growth.

As Western sources, On matter of Russia, I used to see them reliable as long as it is base pure on market sources. However as western market not dealing with Russian one anymore, Western market info also not first hand information anymore.

Thus information on Russian trade are coming mostly through market that still dealing with Russia. That's mostly Greater China and some from India and Gulf. That's why on matter of Russia trade, western sources is increasingly unreliable and politically bias.



But you take the claim from mostly Western sources that say Russia growth are from their war related production. You take claim from those who doesn't have access to Russia and believe it is solid claim ? How it has solid veracity ?

Again for me, I take my info on Russian economy through those who still deal with Russia. They have better reliability info then any Western sources that not deal with Russia anymore.

I get that you’re relying on secret info and colleagues, but if that data isn’t accessible or verifiable, it limits how much weight others can reasonably assign to your claims. You’re asking us to take your word - or that of unnamed contacts - over published sources, which isn’t how serious discussion works.

As for Western sources: skepticism is healthy, but dismissing them wholesale just because they’re Western is reductive. Every source needs scrutiny, not blanket rejection. If you have better data, show it. If it’s private and can’t be shared, fine - but then don’t expect it to carry much weight in a public conversation.

 

[Ananda]

Do you have data that supports your claim that most Russian growth coming from war production?

Is your public data support that ? Because I already see that claim from Western think tank and basically only relied on their assessment and guess.

So do you have solid data that supports your claim ? Cause you also don't have much weight in public conversation.

You want to believe that claim is up to you, but I see that claim, and it is practically not base on real data. They can not shown how many percentage of Russian economies that related to war effort and back to their 'educated' guess.

The info that I got base on amounts of what being trade between China and other market with Russia. From China Russia procure capital goods for public consumption (as machineries etc), that not related to their MIC production. That export import data some of them available to open sources. However there're also data that not open to public sources. All in all those data shown public consumption production as import Substitution also big factor.

You claim that Russia growth is coming mostly from War Production. That's where I say it is missleading. The economics data can shown Russia GDP is not mostly related to War Production.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) data shows that Russia's GDP is primarily driven by the service sector, followed by industry and then agriculture. The service sector contributes about 67.8% of Russia's GDP, while industry makes up 26.6% and agriculture accounts for 5.6%. The IMF projects a 1.5% real GDP growth for Russia in 2025.

Simple Googling can shown IMF data (which IMF taken from all Russian trade) indicating they are growing not from War Production as some in Western claim.

Again can you shown data to support your claim ? Can your source have data to shown that ? Or now you are the one that can not support solid open sources data to support your claim.

My point was that if Russia’s GDP is now falling, it’s significant *because* much of its post-invasion growth was driven by war-related sectors - sectors that don't improve longterm welfare and whose output is often literally destroyed. That kind of growth is inherently fragile.

Can you support data on this ? Or are you only believe assessment that supports your believe. Is your source have data shown how war production support most of their growth, or only their educated guess. Cause thats what I see most of those claim base, Guessing.

 

[personaldesas]

Do you have data that supports your claim that most Russian growth coming from war production?

Is your public data support that ? Because I already see that claim from Western think tank and basically only relied on their assessment and guess.

So do you have solid data that supports your claim ? Cause you also don't have much weight in public conversation.

You want to believe that claim is up to you, but I see that claim, and it is practically not base on real data. They can not shown how many percentage of Russian economies that related to war effort and back to their 'educated' guess.

The info that I got base on amounts of what being trade between China and other market with Russia. From China Russia procure capital goods for public consumption (as machineries etc), that not related to their MIC production. That export import data some of them available to open sources. However there're also data that not open to public sources. All in all those data shown public consumption production as import Substitution also big factor.

You claim that Russia growth is coming mostly from War Production. That's where I say it is missleading. The economics data can shown Russia GDP is not mostly related to War Production.



Simple Googling can shown IMF data (which IMF taken from all Russian trade) indicating they are growing not from War Production as some in Western claim.

Again can you shown data to support your claim ? Can your source have data to shown that ? Or now you are the one that can not support solid open sources data to support your claim.



Can you support data on this ? Or are you only believe assessment that supports your believe. Is your source have data shown how war production support most of their growth, or only their educated guess. Cause thats what I see most of those claim base, Guessing.

Just to clarify: I didn’t say Russia’s growth is “mostly” from war production as a personal claim - I cited the Bank of Finland, which explicitly says that growth is largely confined to war-related sectors. That’s not a guess, it’s a public, data-based assessment from a central bank.

You’re free to disagree, but let’s not pretend I’m just tossing around opinions while you’re offering facts. If your position rests on unnamed colleagues and inaccessible data, it doesn’t carry more weight - it carries less. If you have a solid, public source that contradicts the Bank of Finland’s breakdown, by all means share it. Otherwise, we’re just circling around unverifiable hearsay.

 

[personaldesas]

I think we’ve both made our positions clear. Rather than dragging this further, let’s let others return to the actual discussion. Going forward, we can just safely skip over each other’s assertions and avoid going in circles.

 

[Ananda]

cited the Bank of Finland, which explicitly says that growth is largely confined to war-related sectors. That’s not a guess, it’s a public, data-based assessment from a central bank.

It is a guess or more precise leading assessment. Bank of Finland don't have real trade data on Russia as they don't trade with Russia anymore.

Like I said I'm happy not to repply on your post. However this is public forum, and I can not just silence on missleading claim base on Bank of Finland claim, as they are not tally with trade data from those who do real trade with Russia. That trade data some of them is open to public if you care to find. Simple Googling can shown that.

China-Russia bilateral trade poised for steady growth

China-Russia trade is expected to maintain growth momentum in the coming years, as both countries are actively strengthening business ties.

www.chinadailyasia.com

Like I said simple Googling can shown what's Russia trade. Data from China as their largest trading partner shown that Russia are building their domestic consumption industries. Not something that tally with Finland claim, and on matter of Russia economics data, I believe China data then Finland one.

 

[personaldesas]

It is a guess or more precise leading assessment. Bank of Finland don't have real trade data on Russia as they don't trade with Russia anymore.

Like I said I'm happy not to repply on your post. However this is public forum, and I can not just silence on missleading claim base on Bank of Finland claim, as they are not tally with trade data from those who do real trade with Russia. That trade data some of them is open to public if you care to find. Simple Googling can shown that.

China-Russia bilateral trade poised for steady growth

China-Russia trade is expected to maintain growth momentum in the coming years, as both countries are actively strengthening business ties.

www.chinadailyasia.com

Like I said simple Googling can shown what's Russia trade. Data from China as their largest trading partner shown that Russia are building their domestic consumption industries. Not something that tally with Finland claim, and on matter of Russia economics data, I believe China data then Finland one.

I’m not sure how much insight there is in an article from an outlet of the Central Propaganda Department of the CCP about exporting air fryers to Russia - but I imagine that’s similar to how you feel about anything published by anyone in ”the West”.

 

[Ananda]

but I imagine that’s similar to how you feel about anything published by anyone in ”the West”.

Then Finland assessment is not propaganda? That's rich. At least Chinese article shown what they are trading. Seems it is doesn't meet western 'assesment' that all China trade to Russia is to support War Production in the end.

Like I said before, The trade data shown Russian GDP growth come from Commodities Trade, Domestic Consumption and War Industry. However not surprisingly you like to focus on the last ones as Russian economics growth engine. Admitting to the other two factor is God forbid, as not in line with western (especially EU) believe. Eventough the data from Russia trading partner shown that.

But the data not coming from West, it is mostly coming from China. Thus it is must be propaganda. Finland data is coming from mostly leading/implied assessment or 'educated' guessing, but seems for some it is better then trade data from China.

Well you are not the first time that saying anyone critical to Western data and believe is anti west bias.