Borrowing Under Control: Russia’s Public Debt Reaches 32.9 Trillion Rubles

Russia’s state debt increased by 2.8 percent between January and October 2025, reaching 32.9 trillion rubles, according to data released by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.

Photo: Desingned by Freepik by ededchechine, https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/pdm/

Russian ruble

While the absolute number appears substantial, the pace of growth remains moderate and notably lower than earlier preliminary estimates. An operational report from the Accounts Chamber had previously indicated a ten percent rise in public debt between January and September, bringing the total to 31.98 trillion rubles.

The discrepancy between the two estimates is largely explained by statistical adjustments and the clarification of debt parameters as of early November. Updated accounting methods and revised data on obligations resulted in a more restrained assessment of the annual increase.

Such revisions are common in public finance reporting and do not indicate sudden changes in borrowing policy or fiscal discipline.

Domestic Borrowing Dominates

The structure of Russia’s state debt continues to be overwhelmingly domestic. As of early November, internal borrowing accounted for 28.3 trillion rubles of the total. External obligations stood at approximately 4.6 trillion rubles, a fraction of the overall amount.

This composition reflects a deliberate strategy aimed at minimizing currency risks and reducing dependence on foreign capital markets. By prioritizing ruble-denominated instruments, the government limits its exposure to exchange rate volatility and geopolitical pressure.

Debt-to-GDP Ratio Remains Exceptionally Low

In early December, officials confirmed that Russia’s public debt remains one of the lowest in the world relative to the size of its economy. The debt-to-GDP ratio stands below 20 percent.

In international practice, this indicator is considered the key measure of debt sustainability, as it demonstrates whether an economy can service its obligations without placing excessive strain on public finances.

For comparison, many developed economies operate with debt levels exceeding 60 percent of GDP, while in some cases the ratio surpasses 100 percent.

Why Absolute Numbers Can Be Misleading

Viewed in isolation, 32.9 trillion rubles may appear alarming. However, without reference to economic scale, budget revenues, and servicing costs, such an assessment lacks context.

Russia’s nominal GDP significantly exceeds the volume of state debt, and interest payments remain manageable within the federal budget. This indicates that the current borrowing level does not require drastic fiscal tightening or emergency measures.

Debt Per Capita: Global Comparison

Additional insight comes from examining sovereign debt per capita. According to United Nations data, the highest levels of government debt per person were recorded in Singapore and the United States, where the figure exceeded 100,000 dollars.

Japan ranked among the top three, with debt per capita reaching 76,900 dollars. Russia placed 99th globally, with approximately 3,000 dollars of state debt per resident.

By contrast, the global average stood at 11,400 dollars per person.

Global Debt Trends Remain Concerning

The broader international context highlights a less favorable trend. By the end of 2024, sovereign debt per capita increased in 132 countries and declined in only 48.

This reflects persistent global challenges, including slowing economic growth, elevated borrowing costs, and expanding government expenditures. Against this backdrop, Russia’s debt indicators appear relatively stable and restrained.

An analysis of both absolute and relative indicators suggests that Russia’s state debt cannot be considered excessive. Despite moderate growth in 2025, it remains low by international standards, is largely domestic in nature, and falls within parameters widely regarded as safe for macroeconomic stability.

Provided current approaches to borrowing and public finance management are maintained, the existing debt burden does not pose a systemic threat to the budget or the broader economy.