NextFin News - Russia has raised its value-added tax to 22% from 20%, a move that will add roughly 1.3 trillion rubles ($15.5 billion) a year to state revenues and marks the second major tax increase in 12 months as the Kremlin scrambles to pay for a war in Ukraine that is consuming more than a third of all federal spending. The decision, proposed by the Finance Ministry in September 2025 and approved by parliament in November for effect in 2026, breaks a public promise by President Vladimir Putin that there would be no new taxes before 2030 - and signals that Moscow now sees the conflict as a multi-year fiscal commitment rather than a short campaign.
The question is no longer whether Russia can afford the war. It is who will pay for it, and for how long. The answer so far: Russian households, through a consumption tax, and Russian banks, through a squeeze on profits - while the state locks in seven straight years of budget deficits unseen since 1999.
The Tax Package: What Changed and Why
The Finance Ministry's proposal, delivered to the government on September 24, 2025, lifted the headline VAT rate by two percentage points to 22%, effective 2026. The ministry estimated the increase would raise about 1.3 trillion rubles annually, according to the business newspaper Kommersant, which published - and later deleted - a Finance Ministry forecast showing GDP growth slowing to 1% in 2025. A reduced 10% rate remains in place for essential goods including bread, dairy, meat, medicines and children's products, a carve-out the ministry said would keep the impact on prices "moderate and limited."
VAT is Russia's single largest source of tax revenue, expected to account for about 40% of all government revenue. Raising it is the fiscal equivalent of widening the base rather than chasing marginal gains: it taxes consumption across the whole economy, not just the energy sector that has borne the brunt of Western sanctions.
The VAT move was accompanied by a second, less visible measure: the threshold for small and medium-sized businesses on the simplified tax system was cut to 10 million rubles ($120,000) from 60 million rubles. Officials framed this as a crackdown on "fragmentation" - schemes in which firms split operations to stay under tax thresholds - but the practical effect is to pull a large number of small enterprises into the formal tax net. Together, the two measures represent the most significant shift in Russia's social contract since the war began: the cost is moving from oil rents and corporate windfalls onto ordinary consumption and small business.
This is the second major tax increase in a year. In 2025, the government introduced a progressive personal income tax and raised corporate contributions to the budget. Each step has been presented as temporary and targeted. The pattern suggests otherwise. President Putin had assured Russians there would be no further tax increases before 2030, and as recently as June 2025 Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said the government had no plans for revisions. By September, both assurances were gone.
The Deficit That Forced the Hand
The arithmetic is unforgiving. Russia's federal budget deficit reached 4.88 trillion rubles ($61.1 billion) in just the first seven months of 2025 - already exceeding the government's target for the full year. Weaker global oil prices, a stronger ruble (which reduces the ruble value of energy exports) and high interest rates had all sapped revenue growth. In May, the government tripled its full-year deficit estimate to 1.7% of GDP, and officials acknowledged it would likely be exceeded.
The draft three-year budget for 2026-2028, published in October 2025, admitted something the authorities had not conceded before: Russia faces seven consecutive years of high budget deficits, a stretch unseen since 1999. Vladimir Milov of the Free Russia Foundation called it a "full-blown budget crisis" - a phrase that now appears in mainstream analysis of Russian public finances rather than only in opposition commentary.
The 2025 budget alone had already been revised three times in less than 12 months, with the projected deficit rising from 0.5% to 2.6% of GDP - and that was not the final figure. Budgets at war are living documents; the war keeps editing them.
Where the money goes is the heart of the matter. Defense and national security together account for roughly 38% of all federal spending in 2026 - 16.8 trillion rubles ($209.5 billion), according to the State Duma's passage of the budget in November 2025. That is more than the combined spending on healthcare, education and social welfare, according to the budget breakdown. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in a March 2026 analysis, put total federal budget funding of the war and other military spending at about 16 trillion rubles in 2025, or 7.5% of GDP - before the 2026 increase.
There is, however, a large shadow. Classified spending - the "national defense" line items hidden from public view - surged 43% in the first quarter of 2026, to 4.9 trillion rubles from 3.4 trillion a year earlier, according to analyst Janis Kluge. Total military expenditure in Q1 2026 reached 5.9 trillion rubles, 30% higher than in Q1 2025. Because classified outlays made up 38.2% of all federal spending in the quarter, Kluge estimated that military spending could reach 9% to 10% of GDP in 2026 - well above the 6.3% in the official plan.
The official plan, in fact, assumed military spending would fall. SIPRI noted that the 2026 budget reduced planned military expenditure to 14.9 trillion rubles, or 6.3% of GDP, down from 7.5% in 2025 - the first cut after years of increases. The real numbers are already proving that assumption optimistic.
Growth Is Cooling Just as the Bill Comes Due
The timing could hardly be worse. Russia is raising taxes into a slowing economy. The government sharply revised down its macroeconomic forecasts: GDP growth for 2025 is now expected at around 1%, down from roughly 4% in 2023-2024 and from the previous official forecast of 2.5% to 2.6%. The Central Bank, at its October 2025 meeting, put the 2025 range at 0.5% to 1.0%. For 2026, the draft budget projected growth of 1.3%, while leaked ministry figures suggested a figure as low as 0.5%.
Investment tells the same story in sharper relief. The draft budget revised the 2026 fixed-investment forecast to a contraction of 0.5%, down from a projected increase of 3.0%. Seasonally adjusted GDP growth was reported at 0.0% for August 2025. An economy that is not growing cannot generate the tax revenue a war budget assumes.
This exposes the structural weakness at the core of Russia's fiscal position. Contrary to the widespread perception that Russia's budget runs on oil, more than 75% of federal revenue is non-oil and non-gas; energy exports make up less than a quarter. The war was never going to be paid for by energy alone - which is why the Kremlin is now taxing domestic consumption and small business. When growth slows, the domestic tax base shrinks with it, and the deficit gap widens even if spending is held flat.
Inflation compounds the trap. Annual inflation stood at 8.2% in early September 2025, more than double the Central Bank's 4% target, with policymakers expecting it to ease only to 6% to 7% by year-end and back to target the following year. A consumption tax is inherently inflationary at the point of implementation: businesses pass the higher rate through to prices, and households pay more for the same basket of goods.
The Central Bank said it believed the VAT increase would be "neutral for the dynamics of underlying inflation." History suggests otherwise: the last two-percentage-point VAT hike, in 2019, added 0.6 percentage points to that year's inflation. Sofia Donets, chief economist at T-Investments, offered a more granular forecast: the VAT rise could add around 1.5% to inflation in the first months of 2026 as companies adjust prices to protect margins, then turn disinflationary from the second quarter as purchasing power falls.
"By our standards, we're used to higher numbers, so 1.5% doesn't seem dramatic, especially considering that the VAT effect is initially passed through into prices," Donets said. "Then, because it reduces consumers' purchasing power, we expect that from the second quarter onward it will have a disinflationary, dampening effect."
That second-order effect is the hidden logic of the tax: a VAT hike fights inflation by making people poorer. It is a demand-destroying measure dressed as a revenue measure - which is precisely why the central bank could call it "neutral" for underlying inflation even as households feel it in every purchase.
The Banks Take a Hit
The fiscal squeeze is landing on the financial sector too. German Gref, chief executive of Sberbank, Russia's largest lender, said the government's tax proposals would cut banking sector profits by up to 9% in 2026 - about 277 billion rubles ($3.4 billion) - as the VAT increase and the elimination of certain tax breaks on banking services take effect. The Central Bank projects sector-wide profits of 3.2 trillion to 3.8 trillion rubles next year.
"Next year these fiscal innovations will result in minus 277 billion roubles ($3.40 billion)," Gref said at a financial conference in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.
Russian banks have posted record profits in recent years, fueled by an overheating war economy and a key policy rate that the Central Bank raised to 21% a year ago to cool demand and fight inflation. Those record profits drew public criticism for profiteering during wartime, and the state - which owns a controlling stake in Sberbank and receives half its profits as dividends - has a direct interest in capturing more of the surplus. Sberbank's planned dividend payout for 2026 amounts to roughly 1% of the state budget's revenues, a transfer from the financial system to the war chest.
Cyclical or Structural: The Real Question
Is Russia's fiscal strain a cyclical dip that will reverse when oil prices recover, or a structural regime shift? The evidence points firmly to structural - and that distinction determines everything about what comes next.
A cyclical problem mean-reverts: oil prices rise, revenues recover, the deficit closes. A structural problem does not self-correct, because the driver is permanent. Three pieces of evidence argue for structural.
First, the spending side is politically locked. Defense and security at 38% of federal outlays is not a surge that can be trimmed when the cycle turns; it is the new baseline of a war economy. The budget itself concedes seven consecutive deficit years. No government publishes a seven-year deficit plan unless it believes the pressure is durable.
Second, the revenue side is structurally impaired. More than 75% of federal revenue comes from domestic, non-energy sources - and that domestic economy is being hollowed out by the war: labor shortages from mobilization and emigration, capital flight, sanctions on technology imports, and investment contraction. The 2019 VAT hike happened in a growing economy; this one lands as investment turns negative.
Third, the oil cushion is thinner than advertised. Russian crude trades under a Western price cap, and the ruble's strength in 2025 - the currency appreciated from about 114 to the dollar at the start of the year to about 81 in early September - actually reduced the ruble value of energy exports, worsening the revenue shortfall. Sanctions enforcement, not the oil price alone, sets the ceiling on energy income.
The counter-thesis is not trivial. Russia has surprised skeptics before: it redirected energy exports to Asia, ran a conservative fiscal policy for years, accumulated reserves in the National Wealth Fund, and kept external debt low. The Central Bank, under Elvira Nabiullina, has shown it can manage demand aggressively - the 21% policy rate is proof. SIPRI's Julian Cooper noted that real-terms growth in military spending already moderated from 38% in 2024 to 6.1% in 2025, suggesting the Kremlin can and does restrain outlays when necessary. If oil holds above $60 to $70 a barrel and the war settles into a frozen, lower-intensity conflict, the budget could stabilize without further tax shocks.
That argument is plausible but rests on two assumptions the data is already undermining: that military spending will stay near the official plan, and that growth will be enough to grow the tax base. Classified spending is running 43% ahead of a year earlier. Investment is contracting. The deficit is running ahead of target. The resilience thesis requires the war to cost less, not more - and every observable signal points the other way.
Here is the falsifying test: if Russia's 2026 federal deficit comes in below 2% of GDP while military spending stays within the planned 14.9 trillion rubles and no additional tax measures are announced before 2027, the structural-crisis framing is overstated and the cyclical-resilience view wins. If the deficit exceeds 3% of GDP or another tax increase is announced, the structural read is confirmed.
What Comes Next
Short term (2026): The VAT effect is front-loaded. Expect a headline-inflation bump of roughly 1.5 percentage points in the first half of the year, a squeeze on real wages, and weaker retail consumption. Banks absorb a 9% profit hit. The central bank faces a bind: higher VAT pushes headline inflation up even as demand cools, complicating its path back to the 4% target.
Medium term (2026-2028): The three-year budget framework assumes continued deficits. If growth stays near 1% and military spending runs above plan - as Q1 2026 suggests it will - the government will face a choice between deeper tax tightening, spending cuts outside defense (politically difficult), or drawing down reserves. Further tax measures before 2027 are a live possibility, despite earlier assurances.
Long term: This is the structural verdict. Russia has shifted from a resource-rent state that funded a war from surplus to a tax state that funds a war from its citizens. That transition is hard to reverse: once a consumption tax is raised and small business is pulled into the net, the fiscal architecture of the war economy is locked in. The question for investors and policymakers watching Russia is not whether the budget balances - it will not, by design - but how much of the burden migrates from balance sheets to households before growth stalls outright.
Base case: VAT enacted, deficit in the 2% to 3% of GDP range, growth near 1%, inflation gradually easing toward target by 2027. Upside case: oil prices firm, sanctions enforcement weakens, military spending stabilizes within plan, and the deficit narrows without new taxes. Downside case: oil falls below $60 a barrel, classified military spending accelerates, the deficit widens beyond 4% of GDP, and Moscow is forced to choose between monetizing the deficit or a sharper consumption squeeze.
The 22% VAT rate is not just a tax on consumption. It is the price Moscow has put on a war it once claimed would be short - and the receipt is being handed to Russian households, one purchase at a time.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
