For more than two decades, oil and gas have been the backbone of the Russian economy. Hydrocarbon exports account for around half of federal budget revenues and provide the hard currency that sustains everything from pensions to military spending. This dependence has served the Kremlin in the short term, but it has left Russia dangerously exposed in the long term. By failing to use its oil wealth to diversify the economy, Russia risks a future of stagnation, decline, and generational hardship once the flow of petrodollars slows.
The logic of diversification is straightforward. Oil rents—the profit margin generated from selling crude well above the cost of extraction—are a windfall. Countries such as Norway channelled that windfall into sovereign wealth funds, investing globally so that future generations could benefit long after the oil ran out. Others, like the United Arab Emirates, used hydrocarbon income to develop finance, tourism, and high-tech industries. Russia, by contrast, has largely spent its oil rents on consumption, subsidies, and foreign adventures.
The early 2000s presented a unique opportunity. Oil prices soared, providing Moscow with unprecedented revenues. Rather than directing those earnings into modernising industry, fostering entrepreneurship, or building a knowledge economy, the Kremlin prioritised regime security. Some funds were salted away in reserves to stabilise the ruble, but vast sums were absorbed by patronage networks, capital flight, and military build-up. The result was short-term political stability at the cost of long-term resilience.
The consequences are now visible. Russia remains overwhelmingly reliant on commodities. Manufacturing lags far behind that of other major economies, and high-tech sectors are weak, especially since Western sanctions cut off access to advanced components and investment. The country imports much of its machinery and technology from abroad, increasingly from China, deepening dependence rather than reducing it. Demographic decline adds another layer of fragility: the working-age population is shrinking, while skilled professionals continue to emigrate.
Most troubling is the timeline. Conservative estimates suggest Russia’s profitable proven oil reserves may last only another 25 to 30 years at current production rates. Optimistic scenarios stretch to 60 years or more, but the global energy transition is likely to shorten that horizon. As electric vehicles spread and renewable energy expands, demand for oil will erode, leaving much of Russia’s hydrocarbons stranded underground. When that happens, the revenue base sustaining the Kremlin will shrink dramatically.
The political implications are stark. A state accustomed to buying stability with subsidies and pensions may find itself unable to meet basic obligations. Without diversified industries to generate tax revenue and exports, Russia could face falling living standards, social unrest, or harsher authoritarian control. The children and grandchildren of today’s Russians would bear the costs of decisions made in the 2000s and 2010s, when oil rents were squandered.
Russia still has time to change course, but the window is closing. Every year that oil money is spent on short-term regime preservation rather than long-term development deepens the eventual reckoning. History may record that Russia’s greatest strategic blunder was not the wars it fought with oil money, but its failure to prepare for the day when that money runs dry.
More: Putin
