Democratizing War

Russians have apparently decided that it's not safe to keep accounts on deposit in the wake of the Kremlin's financial woes. (WPost paywall; archive version here.)

Total withdrawals this year could nearly double the amount taken out in the first year of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, according to Taras Skvortsov, a senior executive at Sberbank, Russia’s biggest retail financial institution.

The withdrawals are causing liquidity problems, according to Skvortsov and a former senior Russian finance official, overstretching a financial sector already strained by increasing levels of bad debts following a government-directed lending boom to ramp up military output.... Alexandra Prokopenko, a former adviser to the Russian Central Bank, said the withdrawals reflected deepening fear among the Russian public.

“It means people have no trust in the Russian banking system or in the Russian financial system,” Prokopenko said. “This is all a consequence of the fear that the government will do something with the banking system, that it could nationalize deposits.”

It's not just ordinary Russians, either.

Now, big businesses are also seeking to move money out of the reach of Russian regulators as anxiety grows over potential asset seizures. That is further exacerbating the problems, the former official said. 

In all, more than $9.4 billion was transferred out of Russia in the second quarter of 2026, according to Central Bank data.

Emphasis added. Ordinary people who pull their money can put it in the mattress or bury it, but big businesses can remove it from the country's financial system altogether.

Russia looks likely to be the first domino to fall in the new era of war made possible by drones. Wretchard argues that the effect of democratizing precision weapons could, ironically, be to limit state power in a way that benefits us all. The nation state cheerily sacrifices its citizens for its goals, but now starting a war like this can imperil the nation's survival even if another opposing army can't arise to conquer it.

Ironically the proliferation of precision weapon is a fact that can be used for peace. China for example, cannot assume that it can take Taiwan without putting the Communist Party of China at risk. The lesson of Ukraine is don't invade Taiwan.

The US has attempted to limit its engagement in the Gulf because it, at some level, understands this.

The natural order of the world in an era  of mutual vulnerability should be one of trade and grudging peace. The fact that it is not, I think (and I may be wrong) is due to the legacy habits of the 20th century when "special military operations" were in fact possible and also to the fanatical irrationality of apocalyptic cults.

Here, knowingly or not, he is echoing anarchist Edward Abbey's endorsement of the civilian ownership of rifles and firearms in general. 

It's a tool of equality, in other words. Edward Abbey said that was common to rifles:

The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an "equalizer." Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed — but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.

Emphasis added. 

It'll be a good day when nation states fear to start wars because they know that the most likely effect is neither victory nor defeat, but the death of the leaders themselves -- as Iran's mullah's have learned, though their replacements still fight on. After that war finally grinds to its end, however, what political leadership will be eager to start another? They'll be the first ones to die, as likely as not. Defanging the nation state could be the start of a better world, just as an armed citizenry here at home has led to an era of unprecedented peace and safety (see next post).