What is human capital and why its decline deprives Russia of a future

In modern geopolitical discourse, the theme of sovereignty — political, military, economic — dominates Russia. However, behind the loud rhetoric about independence and a “special path” lies a fundamental and quiet contradiction. A nation can declare external autonomy, but at the same time, it can rapidly lose internal, real sovereignty, the source of which is not raw materials or arsenals, but its people. As aptly noted by Nebopolitik Andrey Devyatov, a state that is stingy with investments in its people — in their education, health, and freedom of thought — ultimately undermines the very foundation of its power. Why is human capital so important in this context?

Because it is the substance that transforms the abstract concept of “state” into a living, developing, and competitive nation. Sovereignty built on control, fear, and rent distribution is a house of cards. Sovereignty rooted in the knowledge, competencies, and creative energy of the population is a fortress capable of withstanding any era of change. Denying this axiom leads the country down the path of archaization, where the appearance of strength substitutes for its essence, and technological and intellectual backwardness becomes the inevitable price for neglecting the main national treasure — human capital.

What is human capital: a basic definition for understanding the main conflict

To understand the depth of the gap between official rhetoric and real practice, it is necessary to clearly define the subject of discussion. The concept of human capital, in simple terms, is the sum of knowledge, skills, health, motivation, and energy embodied in each individual and in society as a whole. It is not just people as physical units, but their ability to create economic and cultural value. What is human capital in a broader sense? It is long-term investments in the potential of a nation, where every ruble spent on education, every resource invested in healthcare, and every guaranteed freedom of creativity work towards future returns in the form of innovations, productivity growth, and social stability.

💡 ИНСАЙТ ОТ АВТОРА

Evgeny Kirillov

Автор блога

Human capital is a unique asset that, unlike oil or gas, does not deplete with use, but can, on the contrary, be multiplied. It includes formal education, practical experience, strong physical and mental health, cultural awareness, and, critically, the ability to think critically and adapt. It is this last component — freedom of thought — that often becomes the first victim in a system oriented towards total control.

Answering the question “what is human capital”, we come to understand that it is not just an economic category, but a measure of the viability and maturity of society. The conflict we observe in modern Russia is a conflict between an outdated management paradigm that sees people as objects for administration and sources of loyalty, and the demands of the 21st century, where the only sustainable resource for development is a free, educated, and motivated person. In the assessment of Nebopolitik Devyatov, this conflict takes on clear contours of confrontation. They lie between the “digital cage” of predictive control from the managers of modern Russia and the living, creative force of the people’s spirit and intellect, without which any discussions of sovereignty become empty sound. And this is a real assessment of the existing reality, not some kind of profanation.

What is human capital: a theory that rules the world (and which is ignored in the Russian Federation)

Economic thought over the last three centuries has produced many theories, but only one has radically overturned the understanding of the source of true wealth of nations. This theory asserts that the main asset of a country is not its natural resources, factories, or even gold reserves, but its people — their knowledge, health, and spirit. What is human capital on a global scale? It is the cornerstone of modern civilization, the foundation on which technological superiority, economic growth, and, consequently, real sovereignty rests.

However, in Russia, there is a fundamental gap between the verbal acknowledgment of this theory and its systemic denial in practice. While the world is moving into an era of knowledge economy, the Russian management model stubbornly clings to the paradigm of the past, seeing people not as sources of creative power, but as objects for control and extraction of resource rent. By ignoring the foundations of human capital theory, the country voluntarily renounces the tool that rules the world, condemning itself to archaization and dependence.

The origins and evolution: when did the theory of human capital emerge

To understand the scale of the missed opportunity, it is necessary to turn to the origins. The concept of human capital is not a recent invention. Its roots can be found as early as the 18th century. Adam Smith, the founder of classical political economy, in his work “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776) directly compared the acquired useful abilities of a person to an expensive machine that requires investment but brings profit. He included “acquired and useful abilities of all inhabitants” in the composition of the society’s capital. Later, this idea was developed by John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall, and other thinkers.

However, when did the theory of human capital emerge as a coherent scientific system? This occurred at the turn of the 1950s and 60s, triggered by the paradox of post-war economic growth. Economists faced the fact that traditional factors (labor, land, physical capital) could not explain the rapid growth of the economies of developed countries. The solution was proposed by representatives of the so-called Chicago School, primarily Theodore Schultz and Gary Becker.

• Theodore Schultz announced the birth of a new approach in 1960, and in 1963 published the first textbook. He convincingly proved that investments in education, healthcare, and science are not social expenses, but productive investments that yield enormous returns. According to his estimates, up to three-quarters of the total product in modern society is directed towards the accumulation of human capital.
• Gary Becker, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1992, transferred the theory to the micro level. In his fundamental work “Human Capital” (1964), he developed models that allowed calculating the return on investments in education and professional training. Becker showed that when making decisions about education, a person behaves like a rational investor: weighing future benefits (higher earnings) against current costs (tuition fees and foregone earnings). His calculations showed a stable annual return of 12-14%.

It was Becker who introduced the key distinction for modern business between general and specific (specialized) human capital. General capital (fundamental knowledge, soft skills) increases the value of a worker in any enterprise and is usually invested by the worker themselves. Specific capital (knowledge of unique processes of a particular company) is only valued within that company and is created through joint investments by the worker and the firm. This distinction laid the foundation for theories of management and competition, explaining why companies are interested in deep employee training and creating a strong corporate spirit.

What is human capital from the perspective of this revolutionary theory? It is the embodied stock of abilities, knowledge, skills, and motivations in a person, the formation of which requires diverting resources from current consumption to gain additional income in the future. Its accumulation has become a recognized driver of economic growth, more important than the accumulation of physical capital.

What is included in human capital: breaking it down

Human capital represents a combination of the following factors, which, interacting, form the productive potential of individuals and nations. It is a complex, multi-component asset. The components of human capital can be systematized, although there is no single universal list.

The key components of human capital include:

• Capital of education and knowledge: This is the core of the concept. It includes both formal education (school, university) and specialized knowledge, continuous learning, and professional training. It is not just diplomas, but real cognitive abilities, the ability to solve complex problems, critical thinking, and creativity. Research shows that it is the quality of education, not just its duration, that is the decisive factor. A healthy worker is more productive, misses work less, and has more energy for innovation. This is the “software” that makes the “hardware” of knowledge and health work at full capacity. It also includes such difficult-to-measure but critically important qualities as respect for stability and the law.
• In the global world, mobility is key to optimal talent distribution.
• What else is included in human capital? The modern interpretation expands the boundaries of the concept, also including social capital — networks of trust-based relationships that facilitate coordination and cooperation. Thus, human capital includes not only individual attributes but also the quality of the social environment in which the individual is immersed. Together, these elements create a synergistic effect, multiplying productive power many times over.

What is human capital in the system of modern economy

Human capital in the economy today is not a supplementary, but a system-forming element. The significance of human capital in production and economic growth is fundamental and multifaceted. Several key roles can be distinguished.

• First, it is the primary driver of innovation and technological progress. Endogenous growth theories (P. Romer, R. Lucas) directly link the generation of new ideas and technologies with the stock of highly qualified personnel. Countries and companies leading in AI, biotechnology, and green energy do so not through random discoveries, but through decades of targeted cultivation of scientific and engineering elites. What is human capital for an innovative economy? It is its raw material, machine, and end product at the same time.
• Second, it directly determines labor productivity. An educated and healthy worker does more, better, and at lower costs. Studies demonstrate a consistent positive correlation between education levels and personal income, as well as GDP per capita.
• Third, it ensures competitiveness and adaptability in the context of globalization. The economy of the 21st century is an economy of constant changes. A society with high human capital retrains faster, masters new professions, and creates added value, moving away from resource dependence.

The features of human capital fundamentally distinguish it from physical capital:

1. Indivisibility from the bearer. It cannot be sold or mortgaged; it is inalienable. By destroying the system today, the state inflicts damage for decades to come.
2. Requires freedom for realization. The most advanced “human asset” depreciates in a system where initiative, criticism, and independent thinking are suppressed. Its full yield is only possible under conditions of intellectual and entrepreneurial freedom.

It is here that the main contradiction with the Russian path arises. In Devyatov’s Nebopolitics, it is emphasized that the true power of the state is born from “the living, creative force of the people’s spirit and intellect.” However, the current Russian model, oriented towards control and rent distribution, is essentially hostile to the main features of human capital. The management system in the Russian Federation seeks to create a managed “unit,” not a free creator.

ℹ️ ИНТЕРЕСНЫЙ ФАКТ

Evgeny Kirillov

Автор блога

The RF firm invests in surveillance and propaganda (forms of “specific capital” loyalty), but chronically underinvests in general education, science, and healthcare — the foundations of the quality of human capital of the nation. By ignoring the axioms of economic science, this model condemns the country to move towards an archaic, resource-based model, while the world accelerates in the opposite direction — towards a knowledge-based society, where human capital is the main answer to the question of the future.

Diagnosis: The waning of human capital in the modern world on Russian soil

Having considered what human capital is as the theoretical foundation of modern development, we now apply this lens to Russian reality. The picture that emerges is one of systemic crisis and waning. Devyatov’s Nebopolitics points to the essence of the problem: a state that has chosen the path of resource rent and digital control cannot and does not want to make long-term, sovereignty-forming investments in people. The result is the degradation of the nation’s most valuable asset. This process was not instantaneous; it developed in stages, masquerading as temporary successes, until it reached a point where the development of human capital was replaced by its total profanation and disintegration.

The illusion of growth in the 2000s: how the development of human capital was consumed rather than multiplied

The 2000s in Russia are often referred to as a time of stabilization and growth. Indeed, against the backdrop of rising oil and gas prices, GDP grew, incomes increased, and budget funding for the social sphere expanded. The appearance of progress was created. However, when analyzed through the lens of human capital, this growth appears illusory, based on the consumption of Soviet legacy and temporary conjuncture, rather than the creation of new, sustainable value.

The total human capital of the country during that period did not grow qualitatively; it was merely monetized in favorable market conditions. The so-called RF state and society lived off a gigantic reserve of resilience created in the previous era: the infrastructure of universities and research institutes, universal literacy, engineering schools, and healthcare systems. Money from resource exports was not invested in a radical renewal of this system but merely patched holes and financed current consumption. Education and science existed on inertia, gradually losing touch with the global research agenda and technological progress.

Moreover, the growth mechanism itself worked like a pump, draining the best talents into the raw materials and financial sectors, draining the real production and scientific complex. Young talented physicists, mathematicians, and engineers went not into laboratories and design bureaus, but into banks and oil company offices, where their intellect was used to optimize financial flows rather than to create new technologies. Thus, the temporary economic growth was bought at the cost of structural deformation of the economy and freezing the process of qualitative reproduction of human capital. This was not an investment in the future, but a waste of the past. When oil prices stopped rising and the Soviet legacy was finally worn out, the illusion dissipated, exposing a deep crisis.

Systemic anti-investments: the quality of human capital under threat

Since the 2010s, the policy regarding human potential has shifted from passive consumption to active degradation. If previously the system simply underinvested, now it has begun to conduct systemic anti-investments — targeted actions and reforms that directly reduce the quality of human capital and block its natural development. These actions affect all key areas.

1. Education: from knowledge to control and unification. Reforms in this area have boiled down to total bureaucratization, the introduction of pseudo-effective but creativity-killing mechanisms like the Unified State Exam as the main and only criterion, optimization of the network of universities and schools leading to their closure, and ideological pressure. Teachers and professors are transformed not into bearers of knowledge and critical thinking, but into technical performers filling out reports and transmitting approved programs. There is a conscious simplification and archaization of the content of education, isolating it from the global context. Bright signs of human capital — such as curiosity, the ability to analyze independently, and creativity — are systematically suppressed, replaced by skills for reproducing ready-made templates and demonstrating loyalty.
2. Healthcare: from prevention to survival. The medical system, despite some infusions, has been switched to a mode of constant deficit and “optimization.” This has led to a catastrophic burden on doctors, the closure of medical posts and district hospitals, and an increase in the cost of genuinely quality services. The result is a decline in the availability and quality of medical care, especially in the regions, and an increase in mortality from preventable causes in working-age individuals. The health of the nation, a fundamental component of capital, is methodically eroding.
3. Intellectual emigration: from brain drain to the exodus of minds. The outflow of highly qualified specialists, scientists, IT specialists, doctors, and cultural figures has taken on the character of a mass and irreversible phenomenon. This is not just a “leak,” but a targeted flight of the most active, educated, and thinking part of the population from an environment that has become hostile to them. The RF is not just losing already formed expensive human capital; it is losing those who could reproduce and multiply it in the next generation. This strikes at the genetic code of national development.

⚠️ ПРЕДОСТЕРЕЖЕНИЕ

Evgeny Kirillov

Автор блога

These three directions create a vicious circle of degradation: poor education produces less healthy and less motivated people; poor healthcare undermines the foundation for acquiring knowledge; the exodus of the best minds deprives the country of teachers, doctors, and innovators. What is human capital under such conditions? It ceases to be capital and becomes a liability, a burden for a system that sees people merely as objects of management.

What is human capital in numbers and indices: lagging as a national threat

Numbers and international rankings impartially record the results of this policy. Russia’s lag in the field of human development has ceased to be a subject of expert discussions and has turned into a statement of fact, comparable to a national threat.

Human capital is called a key asset that is evaluated in global indices. In the authoritative World Bank Human Capital Index, which measures how much productive potential a child born today will be able to realize, Russia occupies modest positions, significantly lagging not only behind developed countries but also many neighbors. This index takes into account survival, quantity and quality of education, and health. The systemic crisis in education and healthcare is directly reflected here.

In the global UN Human Development Index, which combines indicators of longevity, education, and income, Russia, although it is in the group of countries with very high HDI, consistently occupies a place in the second half of this list, behind all European countries and many former Soviet republics. 56th place. This means that even with formally high indicators, the quality of this life and development remains low.

Particularly indicative are the rankings in the field of education. In the international PISA study of education quality, which assesses the functional literacy of schoolchildren, Russia demonstrates stagnation or slow decline, being in the middle of the table, significantly lagging behind leaders in Asia and Europe. This is direct evidence of the decline in the quality of human capital at the stage of its formation.

These figures are not dry statistics. They are a diagnosis. They show what human capital means for modern Russia — it is not a growing but a depleting resource. The country is losing positions in the most important, fundamental race — the race for the mind, knowledge, and health of a person. In a world where technological and intellectual superiority has become the main battlefield for sovereignty, such lagging is equivalent to a strategic defeat that cannot be compensated for by pipelines or military parades. As Nebopolitik Devyatov warns, sovereignty without a free, competent, and healthy society is merely a facade behind which lies emptiness. The current trajectory leads precisely to such emptiness.

Counterexamples: Chinese strategy vs Russian management of decline

In assessing the depth of the crisis of human capital in Russia, one cannot avoid a contrasting comparison. The true catastrophe becomes evident only against the backdrop of an alternative that demonstrates a different, possible path. Such a mirror, reflecting the Russian trajectory of decline, is China’s strategy. Two major powers, often mentioned in the same context of sovereign development, are implementing diametrically opposed approaches to the key resource of the 21st century.

If China shows how an authoritarian system can be mobilized for the total enhancement of the nation’s intellectual power, then Russia demonstrates how a different authoritarian logic leads to the systemic degradation of the same resource. Understanding this contrast allows for an accurate answer to the question of what human capital means in the context of national survival: it is the front line in the war for the future, where China is conducting a strategic offensive, and Russia is retreating, giving up position after position.

What is human capital in Chinese terms: how authoritarianism bets on knowledge and technology

The Chinese strategy is a large-scale project to subordinate the intellectual power of the nation to the tasks of state elevation. For the leadership of the PRC, human capital is not an abstraction, but a concrete, manageable asset, a direct source of technological sovereignty. The state acts as the main architect and investor in the process of its accumulation. This approach can be called “developmental authoritarianism.”

The essence of the model is targeted and total mobilization for breakthroughs in key areas. It is about creating a holistic conveyor belt, where school, university, research institute, and production are synchronized. The focus is on areas that redefine power in the 21st century:

• Artificial intelligence and machine learning
• Quantum computing and communications
• Biotechnology and genetic engineering
• Advanced robotics and new materials
• Green energy and space technologies

The best minds are directed into these areas, special technological zones are created, and colossal resources are allocated. At the same time, China conducts a policy of strengthening the social base: poverty eradication, creation of a healthcare insurance system, investment in infrastructure. This is not charity, but calculation: a healthy and socially stable population has a higher cognitive potential and productivity.

Thus, what is human capital for Beijing? It is a comprehensive national strategic reserve. The bet is made that ultimately it will not be raw material flows that win, but patent portfolios, algorithms, and the quality of the nation’s thinking.

What is human capital in Russian terms: from resource rent to digital control

The Russian path represents a mirror opposite to the Chinese one. Here, there is a sequential distortion of the concept of human capital. While China sees in a person a source of sovereignty for nurturing, the Russian system tends to see in a person a resource for extracting rent or an object of control. This evolution has gone through stages:

1. First stage: the “passive rent” model (2000s — mid-2010s)
   Income from hydrocarbon exports created an illusion of stability. The state delegated the care for development to the market. Education, science, and healthcare were funded on a residual basis, existing on Soviet groundwork. The concept of human capital was peripheral: it was believed that market demand would self-regulate “personnel,” while the main wealth remained in the subsoil.
2. Second stage: the “managed stagnation” model (late 2010s — 2021)
   When the resource model failed, and the gap with technological leaders became evident, the response was not a paradigm shift but an increase in control. The so-called “optimizations” began — a reduction in real funding for education and healthcare while bureaucratic reporting increased. Universities and schools turned into institutions not so much for transferring knowledge as for reproducing loyalty. Investments in knowledge were replaced by investments in simulacra: gigantic forums, showy competitions, rhetoric about “reviving science” while fundamental research was actually being curtailed.
3. Third stage: the “digital cage” model (2022 — present)
   The mass exodus of qualified specialists and the deepening crisis of competencies have led the system to attempt to solve this not by returning to investments in people, but by doubling down on digital control. In the logic of bureaucracy, if it is impossible to grow a creator and innovator, the goal is to maximize the management of what remains. A person is ultimately reduced to a “data unit.” Their value is determined not by competencies but by their digital footprint and algorithmically calculated reliability.

💡 ИНСАЙТ ОТ АВТОРА

Evgeny Kirillov

Автор блога

What is human capital in this final Russian interpretation? It is something that must be accounted for, controlled, and, if possible, minimized as a source of uncertainty. While China materializes the future by investing in minds, Russia tries to replace that future with its digital simulation, condemning itself to archaization in a world ruled by knowledge. As Nebopolitik Devyatov notes, a country that does not see in a person a source of sovereignty is left with an empty facade.

The digital trap: how human capital in the economy is replaced by a “data unit”

The development of digital technologies has become a decisive test for any national model. This test reveals the deep goal-setting of the system: does it use technological progress to unlock human potential or to suppress it completely? China, as we have seen, answers this question by creating a symbiosis of authoritarian control and total investments in knowledge. Russia, on the other hand, demonstrates a different, alarming path, where digitalization becomes not a driver of development but a tool for conserving decline.

Here, digital platforms and services, masquerading as benevolent “innovations,” form a perfect trap. They allow the system to finally abandon the complex and costly task of nurturing human capital in the economy, replacing a living, thinking person with a managed “data unit.” This is not a mistake of implementation but a logical outcome of a system where a person is valued not for their creative and productive potential, but only for their predictability and loyalty.

Control tools (Max, State Services) vs development tools

To understand this transformation, it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between digital development tools and digital control tools. Their essence, briefly speaking, is defined not by the technology itself but by the purpose for which it is implemented and who owns the data it generates.

Development tools are platforms that expand human capabilities, reduce transaction costs, and transfer control over data and processes into the hands of the user. Their goal is to enhance efficiency, creativity, and autonomy. Classic examples include:

• open educational online courses, which provide access to the knowledge of the world’s best universities to anyone with internet access;
• crowdfunding platforms, allowing communities to finance projects;
• professional networks, helping to establish horizontal connections and find jobs;
• cloud services for collaborative project work.

These tools work towards decentralization, increasing the quality of human capital through access to information and networks.

Control tools, on the contrary, serve to centralize management, total accounting, and predictive analysis of behavior. Their goal is not to expand freedom but to minimize risks for the system, predict and, if possible, prevent undesirable actions. In the Russian context, this model has become dominant. Platforms like “State Services,” “Max,” or unified digital profiles are positioned as convenient services, but their architecture reveals a different function. They create a comprehensive digital shadow of each person, aggregating data about their health, finances, movements, social connections, consumer habits, and even political preferences. Convenience here is a byproduct; the main product is the ability for the RF corporation and those close to it to build detailed behavioral models.

The key difference lies in the right to interpret data and make decisions. In the development system, the algorithm offers options, but the final choice remains with the person. In the control system, the algorithm, based on the collected data, assigns the physical person (citizen) managed by a person — a certain “digital rating” or risk category. This algorithm automatically determines the level of their access to services, loans, career opportunities, or even influences the degree of administrative attention.

A person is transformed from a decision-making subject into an object whose behavior needs to be predicted and corrected. What is human capital in such an ecosystem? It is raw material for algorithms, a set of behavioral patterns that need to be digitized, analyzed, and brought under control. Its value is measured not in breakthrough ideas or high productivity, but in “digital discipline” and the absence of deviations from the prescribed norm.

What is human capital in the network: why predictive management kills creativity

The most destructive consequence of this model is its systemic impact on the very core of human potential: the ability for creative, nonlinear, critical thinking. Human capital includes not only formal knowledge and skills but also fundamental freedom of thought, the ability to doubt, to generate non-obvious ideas, to think differently, without which true innovations are impossible. It is this component that the digital control system deliberately extracts, replacing it with an emphasis on conformity and predictability.

The mechanism of this suppression operates at several levels.

• First, there is the “refrigerator effect.” The awareness of constant, invisible digital surveillance, where any request, any statement online, any purchase or trip is recorded and can be used to build a “profile,” creates a state of chronic internal censorship in a person. They begin to pre-adjust their behavior and even thoughts to the expected algorithmic norm, avoiding any “dangerous” intellectual trajectories. The space for intellectual risk, for trials and errors — the very space where breakthrough discoveries are born — disappears.
• Second, predictive management, seeking to minimize uncertainty, algorithmically encourages averaging. A system designed to identify and neutralize deviations is inherently hostile to exceptionality, genius, eccentricity — everything that does not fit into a statistical model. A creative person is, by definition, an “anomaly,” a “glitch” in the eyes of such a system. Their behavioral pattern is unpredictable, and therefore potentially dangerous. In an economy governed by such algorithms, it will be the diligent, disciplined, and fully transparent executor who is encouraged, not the talented rebellious innovator.
• Third, a digital environment set up for control kills the very possibility of spontaneous, informal networks of trust and idea exchange — the foundation of social capital. When any communication is potentially monitored and evaluated, trust between people disappears. The soil for the birth of intellectual communities, scientific schools, and startup ecosystems, which have always emerged in conditions of certain freedom and autonomy from the state, is destroyed.

ℹ️ ИНТЕРЕСНЫЙ ФАКТ

Evgeny Kirillov

Автор блога

And so, what is human capital in the conditions of a “digital cage”? It is a resource that is systematically devalued. A system that has bet on predictive control is not interested in a creative, free-thinking person. The RF system is interested in manageable, predictable units whose behavior can be modeled and productivity optimized within narrow, top-down frameworks.

As a result, the country receives not a breakthrough into the “knowledge economy,” but its high-tech simulation: outwardly digital, but essentially archaic and anti-innovative. As Nebopolitik Devyatov warns, this is a path where “the return of sovereignty” remains an empty echo. True sovereignty in the digital age is born not from all-seeing cameras and neural networks analyzing loyalty, but from free minds capable of creating these neural networks and setting them new, unpredictable goals.

The deadlock of the model: why without a paradigm shift the collapse of the system is inevitable

The previous sections have laid out the mechanisms of the crisis: from theoretical foundations to digital control tools. Now it is time to connect these parts into a single picture of inevitable systemic breakage. The current Russian model is not just a collection of mistakes or temporary difficulties; it is a holistic, self-reproducing mechanism of decline that systematically undermines its own foundation for existence in the modern world.

Its stability is an illusion based on an exhaustible resource of loyalty and a finite reserve of resilience. Without a fundamental paradigm shift that would return the person to the center of state building, the system is doomed. And this conclusion, as the analysis of Nebopolitik Andrey Devyatov shows, is recognized even at the level of deep political intuitions that generate the “ghost of February.”

What is human capital as the foundation of sovereignty: a conclusion that is not wanted to be acknowledged

To understand the depth of the deadlock, it is necessary to take one last and most important theoretical step. What is human capital in the context of national survival in the 21st century? It is not just a factor of production or a social expense item. It is the very substance of modern sovereignty, its material and intellectual flesh. If classical sovereignty of the New Age relied on control over territory, and industrial sovereignty relied on resources and production chains, then sovereignty in the era of the knowledge economy is based on control over the generation of ideas, technologies, and meanings. And this control is impossible without high-quality human capital.

The significance of human capital in production has long ceased to be a subject of academic discussions; it has become an axiom of global competition. It is human capital that is the key driver that determines the fundamental differences between rich and poor countries, defining their ability to create complex goods, master technologies, and increase the overall productivity of the economy. This means that true economic power and, consequently, the potential for independent policy are created not by machines or wells (although they are important), but by the competencies, health, and creativity of the population.

But its role goes far beyond the economy, directly shaping national security. In the modern world, security is ensured not only by tanks and missiles but also by cyber immunity, the ability to achieve technological sovereignty, the resilience of the social fabric, and finally, the quality of strategic thinking among elites. All of this is derived from human capital:

• Cybersecurity and information confrontation require an army of top-notch mathematicians, programmers, and analysts that cannot be created in a year by decree.
• Technological sovereignty in microelectronics, pharmacology, or artificial intelligence is the result of years of investment in scientific schools, universities, and the creation of an environment that retains talent.
• Social stability directly depends on health, education, and citizens’ sense of fair life prospects — all of which form loyalty not from fear but from conscious solidarity.

What is human capital in a strategic dimension? It is the foundation of foundations. Any discussions of sovereignty that do not rely on this axiom are empty rhetoric, a facade behind which an increasing emptiness hides. The leadership of the RF stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this conclusion, continuing to lead the country down a path where sovereignty is understood as a synonym for isolation and control, rather than as a result of internal development and the creative power of the people.

The triad of collapse: rent, control, neglect. Devyatov’s assessment

The Russian model, leading to a dead end, rests on three interconnected pillars that form a vicious circle. This triad — resource rent, total control, and demographic neglect — is a complete antithesis to the demands that human capital imposes on nations in the modern world.

1. Resource rent as an alternative to development. A system that receives easy income from raw material exports loses incentives for complex, long-term, and risky investments in human potential. Why grow engineers for high-tech exports when you can sell oil and gas? Rent generates a distribution economy rather than a creation economy, preserving an archaic structure and killing any incentives for innovation. It finances stagnation, passing it off as stability.
2. Total control as a substitute for trust. Understanding the fragility of its legitimacy and the unproductiveness of its economic model, the system responds to challenges not with reforms but with increased oversight. Digitalization becomes a tool of predictive management rather than a tool for development. However, control, as history shows, is a dead-end path to increasing productivity. It kills initiative, creativity, and responsibility — key features of human capital. A society governed through fear and algorithmic ratings is incapable of generating breakthrough ideas.
3. Demographic neglect as a systemic choice. Chronic underfunding of healthcare, education, family support, and life infrastructure is not a coincidence but a consequence of the first two points. If a person is viewed not as a source of added value but as an object of management or a source of problems, then investments in their health, education, and well-being seem to the bureaucracy as unjustified expenses. This leads to the physical and intellectual degradation of the population, closing the last opportunities for maneuver.

📌 СОВЕТ ИЗ ПРАКТИКИ

Evgeny Kirillov

Автор блога

Human capital in the modern world requires exactly the opposite: investments in development, a high level of trust in society, and prioritizing human potential over any other resources. The Russian model is fundamentally incompatible with this world. It is this incompatibility that Nebopolitik Devyatov records, speaking of the inevitability of the “materialization of the ghost of February.” It does not point to a literal repetition of 1917 but to the inevitability of a deep systemic crisis when the contradiction between the archaic, unviable management model and the needs of society reaches a breaking point.

The “February” of 2026 in his interpretation is a metaphor for the collapse of the legitimacy of bureaucratic state capitalism, which, having suppressed all living sources of development within the country, finds itself defenseless in the face of internal emptiness and external challenges. When sovereignty is stripped of its only solid foundation — a free, competent, and motivated person — it collapses like a house of cards. And then the “return of sovereignty,” which has been so much talked about, indeed remains just an empty echo in the empty space of historical failure.

What is human capital — the last question for national choice

A long path of analysis has been traversed — from pure theoretical postulates to the grim realities of the digital cage and the triad of collapse. This path has not been abstract. It has led to one central question that today, amid all the rhetoric and noise, stands before Russia as a question of survival. What is human capital in the ultimate, existential sense? It is not an economic term. It is the last question for national choice.

The country stands at a crossroads: should it continue down the beaten path where a person is expendable to the system, or find the courage for a radical turn where a person becomes its goal and meaning? The answer to this question determines not just “development” or “modernization,” but the very existence of Russia as a subject of history, not as an object of someone else’s technological and political superiority. Ignoring this choice is no longer possible; the time for illusions has ended.

An alternative to decline (a brief summary of the theory)

As a conclusion and compass in this choice, it is necessary to return to the origins and rephrase the essence. What is human capital as a theoretical and practical alternative to decline?

It is a paradigm that asserts that true wealth of nations lies not in the bowels of the earth, but in the minds, health, and spirit of people. It is a strategy that sees investments in education, healthcare, science, and freedom of thought not as a social burden, but as the most profitable and strategically important investments in national security and sovereignty, which include:

• Recognition of quality over quantity. It is not about having more people sitting at desks or receiving diplomas, but about ensuring that each year of education provides a real increase in the ability to think critically, solve complex problems, and create new things.
• Understanding health as fundamental infrastructure. A healthy nation is not only humane but also economically viable. A productive economy is impossible in a country with a dying and chronically ill population.
• Acceptance of freedom as a productive force. Creativity, innovation, entrepreneurial energy — all of this flourishes only in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom and protection of rights. Suppressing dissent is not strengthening stability but destroying the future of the country, burning its intellectual fuel.
• Orientation towards a long-term horizon. Nurturing human capital is a matter of generations. It requires abandoning short-term political gains and populism in favor of strategies whose fruits will be reaped by successors.

Human capital is a coherent theory that has long proven its effectiveness in practice in dozens of countries. It is the only known alternative to decline in a world where value is created by knowledge. It is a choice in favor of life and complexity against death and archaization.

What is human capital in Russia: is a turn towards the person possible?

Now the most difficult question: is such a turn possible in Russia? Can a system built for decades on opposing principles — rent, control, neglect — make a decisive turn towards the person? The answer lies not in the realm of economic calculations but in the area of political will and the nature of the system itself. To date, all objective evidence points in the opposite direction. The Russian model, as the analysis has shown, not only does not invest in human capital — it is waging a total war of annihilation against it, seeing in a free, educated, and healthy person the main threat to its existence.

• Institutional inertia. The state machine, built for extracting and distributing rent, bureaucratic control, and forceful suppression, is architecturally incapable of becoming an instrument for the delicate and subtle nurturing of human potential. Its “optimizations” kill schools and hospitals, its “digitalization” builds data prisons, and its “patriotic education” replaces critical thinking with dogmas.
• Ideological deadlock. The official ideology, which has bet on a conservative-archaic turn, interpreting sovereignty as isolation and searching for external enemies, is fundamentally antagonistic to the value of open knowledge, international scientific cooperation, and freedom of intellectual inquiry, without which human capital withers.
• Absence of a subject of change. Civil society, professional communities, independent universities — the very forces that in other countries have been the engines of reforms — are systematically weakened, marginalized, or placed under strict control in Russia. There is no social subject capable of imposing this agenda on the system.

Therefore, the answer to the question “is a turn possible?” today must be pessimistic: within the logic of the current system — no. The system will continue to protect its nature to the end, preferring slow degradation while maintaining control over a impoverished population — to the risks of transformation that would require loosening the reins and trusting the creative power of the people. As Nebopolitik Devyatov warned, this logic leads to “an empty echo in an empty apartment” — to a sovereignty-simulacrum devoid of living content.

The answer to the question “what is human capital” determines everything. To recognize it as the foundation of sovereignty means to begin the difficult but only possible path to revival. To continue to ignore and distort it means to guarantee a sentence for the country, condemning it to the fate of a historical anachronism, whose “greatness” will be measured only by the size of its territory and the remnants of its nuclear arsenal, behind which no longer stands either the creative power or the vital force of the people.

The finale has not yet been written. But the author of the script for this finale is one — the national choice. And the time for this choice is rapidly running out.

Man Evgeny – blog author

I lived and studied abroad in New Zealand, taking English language courses. I lived and worked in South Korea in the fields and at sea. In total, I’ve visited four different countries, different from those where Russian is spoken. I’ve interacted with people from at least 20 different cultures, religions, and faiths. I share my experiences on my blog. I try not to judge or make any judgments, but I do draw conclusions.

Author page

Questions and answers on the topic