Putin - Guns and Butter
A fundamental contradiction at the heart of Putin's war strategy that reveals important truths about the nature of this conflict and the constraints he faces. Fighting war sacrifices blood and treasure, financing war requires balancing guns and butter.
The phrase "Sacrifice blood and treasure" refers to the human lives (blood) and monetary costs (treasure) of war. Its roots can be traced to the 17th century. Some of the earliest known appearances of the phrase date to the 1640s, appearing in proceedings of the British House of Lords. British politicians and writers, including Jonathan Swift and Daniel Defoe, used the phrase frequently in the early 1700s.
John Adams famously used the expression on July 3, 1776, writing, "I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration..." Abraham Lincoln echoed the sentiment in 1862 during the Civil War. The phrase saw a resurgence in the modern era during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The expression "Balancing guns and butter" describes the economic trade-off a government faces between investing in defense (guns) and spending on domestic needs (butter). The concept originated in American political discussions leading up to World War I. At the time, the debate centered on whether nitrates should be used to make gunpowder for the war effort ("guns") or fertilizer for agriculture ("butter"). The National Defense Act of 1916 specifically addressed this dual-use problem. The most notorious use of the phrase came in the 1930s. Nazi officials, including Hermann Göring, explicitly chose "guns over butter" to prioritize rearmament. In a 1936 speech, Hermann Göring [aka "Fat Herman"], Reichsminister of Aviation and Reich Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan, declared, "Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat".
Since Paul Samuelson included the phrase in his 1948 economics textbook, the "guns and butter" model has become a staple of introductory economics courses to illustrate the concept of opportunity cost and production possibility frontiers. The phrase was notably used during the Lyndon B. Johnson presidency to describe the government's attempt to fund both the Vietnam War ("guns") and his "Great Society" domestic programs ("butter").
The contrast with America's WWII mobilization is both stark and illuminating. When the United States entered World War II, civilian automobile production didn't just decline—it stopped almost entirely. There was no question of maintaining consumer prosperity or worrying about car sales figures. The entire industrial capacity of the nation was redirected toward winning the war, and the American public accepted significant sacrifices as necessary for what was genuinely understood as an existential struggle. Rationing affected everything from gasoline to sugar to rubber, and citizens bought war bonds while accepting that their material comfort would have to wait until victory was achieved.
Putin's Russia presents an entirely different picture. Despite rhetoric framing the Ukraine conflict as an existential battle against NATO expansion, Nazism, and Western civilizational threat, the Russian economy continues to produce civilian automobiles, and there are genuine concerns about declining sales figures affecting consumer sentiment. This reveals that Putin is attempting something historically quite difficult: waging a major conventional war while maintaining the appearance of normalcy and prosperity for the Russian population, particularly in Moscow and other major cities where political support matters most.
This "guns and butter" approach reflects Putin's political vulnerabilities rather than his strengths. Unlike the Soviet leadership during WWII or American leadership in the same period, Putin cannot call for total mobilization and wholesale sacrifice without risking the political compact that sustains his regime. His rule has been built substantially on delivering rising living standards and consumer prosperity to Russia's urban middle class in exchange for political acquiescence. A full wartime mobilization requiring genuine sacrifice from this constituency would threaten that compact.
The contradiction becomes even more glaring when examining the reported situation at the front. Multiple sources indicate that Russian armored assaults have indeed been constrained by vehicle shortages, forcing greater reliance on infantry assaults that produce horrific casualty rates. Tank production has increased but apparently not enough to offset losses, while armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are in particularly short supply. The Russian military has been observed using everything from golf carts to civilian trucks modified with armor plating, and older Soviet-era vehicles pulled from storage.
If this is truly the existential war that Kremlin propaganda claims, the logical response would be what America did in 1942: halt civilian vehicle production entirely and redirect every factory toward producing military vehicles. Yet Russian automobile plants continue manufacturing Ladas, and there are concerns about the health of the consumer market. This suggests that maintaining civilian consumption is considered politically essential, even at the cost of military effectiveness.
This contradiction manifests in other ways as well. Russian shopping malls remain full of consumer goods, restaurants and cafes operate normally in major cities, and luxury car dealerships still exist despite sanctions. The children of Russia's elite largely avoid military service, studying abroad or finding comfortable positions far from the front. Meanwhile, mobilization has drawn disproportionately from ethnic minorities, rural populations, and economically disadvantaged regions — those with the least political power and visibility.
The economic data reinforces this picture. Russia has increased defense spending substantially, but not to anything approaching the total mobilization levels of genuine existential wars. Defense spending has risen to perhaps fifteen to twenty percent of GDP depending on how it's measured, compared to the forty to fifty percent levels that characterized major combatants in World War II. This is significant but falls far short of total war economics.
Putin's approach reflected a calculated political judgment that his regime cannot survive the kind of total mobilization that existential rhetoric would logically demand. The urban middle class that forms his base of passive support would not accept the dramatic decline in living standards that genuine war mobilization would require. The social contract Putin offers is essentially: stay out of politics, and you can live comfortably and prosperously. Breaking that contract by imposing major sacrifices risks political instability that could threaten the regime itself.
This creates a strategic dilemma with no easy resolution. The half-mobilization approach means Russia can sustain the war longer than if it had burned through resources quickly, but it also limits military effectiveness. Ukrainian forces, despite being smaller and initially less well-equipped, have received increasingly sophisticated Western weapons and have fought with the desperation of people genuinely facing an existential threat. Russia, meanwhile, sends men into battle without adequate armored vehicles because maintaining automobile production for civilians is politically necessary.
The human cost of this political calculation was staggering. Reports suggest Russian casualties may exceed three hundred thousand killed and wounded, with some estimates running much higher. Many of these casualties result directly from the tactical constraints imposed by equipment shortages—infantry assaults across open ground because there aren't enough armored vehicles, attacks without adequate artillery or air support because production priorities favor maintaining civilian consumption.
There's also a deeper economic reality at play. Russia's economy, while large, is only about the size of Italy's or Canada's in GDP terms—roughly one-tenth the size of America's economy. It lacks the industrial depth and technological sophistication that allowed the United States to simultaneously feed its allies, equip millions of soldiers, and maintain reasonable civilian living standards during WWII. Russia's attempt to maintain both guns and butter reflects not just political choice but economic limitation—it may not have the capacity to do both well, forcing these kinds of compromises.
The automobile production issue thus becomes a symptom of a larger strategic contradiction. Putin has framed this as civilizational conflict and existential struggle, but he governs as though it's a limited war that shouldn't seriously inconvenience the Russian public. He cannot admit that the war is optional or limited because that would undermine the justification for massive casualties and international isolation. Yet he cannot treat it as truly existential because that would require sacrifices his political base won't accept.
This stands in stark contrast not just to America's WWII mobilization but to Russia's own historical experience. During the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union accepted almost unimaginable sacrifices. Entire cities starved, civilian production essentially ceased, and every resource was directed toward defeating the invasion. Twenty-seven million Soviet citizens died, but the threat was genuine and the mobilization was total. Putin invokes that historical memory constantly, but his actual policies reveal that neither he nor the Russian population treats the current situation as remotely comparable.
The practical result is a war of grinding attrition that Russia is winning territorially through sheer weight of numbers and willingness to accept casualties, but at enormous cost and without the decisive victory that would justify the losses. Meanwhile, complaints about automobile sales coexist with reports of massive battlefield casualties, perfectly encapsulating the contradictions of Putin's approach—attempting to wage major war without the total mobilization that war's supposed existential nature would logically demand.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
