Nikita Kulachenkov from the ACF (Anti-Corruption Foundation) wrote the best analysis of the government's Anti-Crisis Plan that I've read. Thorough, but easy to follow. Give it a read if you want to understand what exactly they have planned.
Here is his text:
Yesterday, the government ceremoniously published its Anti-Crisis Plan. Twitter has already had plenty of jokes about the document (1, 2, 3), but we will try to take a more serious look at it.
At first glance, this is a fairly reasonable document for a country whose economy is dominated by the state sector. It lays out the main areas of action for the government and the relevant state authorities. The plan also includes a list of specific measures to be carried out over the next few months.
After studying the document, several important points stand out and deserve attention.
The government has officially acknowledged that there is a crisis. In its view, it is expressed in the following ways:
The government writes that the crisis is caused by the “strong influence of unfavorable external economic and foreign policy conditions,” and indirectly suggests that these conditions will remain in place at least through the end of 2017. If our state's foreign policy continues on its current course, it is hard to disagree with that assessment. Moreover, today's foreign policy—above all on the issue of Ukraine—will most likely lead to even greater sanctions and economic pressure than at present, which in turn will further destabilize the economy.
The government lists its areas of activity, including support for import substitution, assistance for the development of small and medium-sized businesses, optimization of budget spending, attracting foreign investment (that is, investment from those officially treated as hostile), and other necessary and useful measures. All of this can be accomplished only if there is an effective system of public administration and if citizens and investors trust it.
The current system of public administration, and the principles by which it operates, will instead hinder the achievement of these goals.
The plan is accompanied by a long list of specific actions, with deadlines, responsible agencies, and—most importantly—the amounts of state funding involved, totaling about 2.3 trillion rubles. This figure could be called a “starting” amount, since funding levels for some measures have not yet been determined. For example, the list includes the following major cash injections and other measures:
Most of the allocated funds will go toward supporting the operations of banks and companies, including private ones. Such support could be effective if decisions on allocating funds, restructuring debts, or granting payment deferrals to specific legal entities were free of corruption. But Russia ranks 136th out of 174 in terms of corruption, behind Mozambique and Nicaragua.
Moreover, one immediately thinks of the banks owned by Putin's friends, which after the sanctions were imposed became even more profitable than they had been before. One may assume that, as compensation for the sanctions, even more budget funds and state corporation money began flowing through these banks, which led to the increase in profits.
The government's Anti-Crisis Plan specifically emphasizes that no cuts are planned in spending on the military sector or agriculture. It brings to mind North Korea, where major expenditures and activities amount to repainting old Soviet weapons and growing rice so the population does not starve.
The government provides for cuts in the operating costs of state authorities, including by reducing spending on premium-comfort services. We very much hope that from today onward we will never again see state agencies purchasing (or leasing) premium-class cars or beds made of cherry wood and coated at the headboard and footboard with a thin layer of gold.
The government could hardly avoid including in this document a clause on implementing the “National Technology Initiative” on the basis of Skolkovo and other science cities. Looking at the signature on the document, it becomes clear why.
And finally: where do you think the item “radically improving the quality of the public administration system and the efficiency of large state-controlled companies” appears? Last.
Thus, given the current state of public administration and corruption, there is a high probability that this plan will not help the country emerge from the crisis, but will merely become yet another pretext for wasting public funds.
All of these measures will be effective only if there are substantial changes in both domestic and foreign policy, such as:
The demand for these changes is included in the agenda of the “Anti-Crisis March.”
Some experts believe that combining anti-crisis and political demands is a bad idea. But the crisis is the natural result of the domestic and foreign policies of recent years, and the opposition has said so repeatedly.
P.S. For the sake of objectivity, here is a link to the state media report on the approval of the anti-crisis plan. Though to be honest, from the headline it's not entirely clear who struck whom there..