But the commentator on the BBC makes clear the inescapably dependent relationship that it locks Russia into.
Sadly, he says Russian problems are too severe for Russia to be left alone, so the unfortunate IMF has no option but to be engaged. Nevertheless the conditions are severe.
First of all there is no new money at all. The money will be kept in Washington, and merely used to repay the previous loan, to keep the debtor in chains.
Although it is admitted that the Russian economy has stabilised (bumping along the bottom - surely the condition for most capitalist economies most of the time) he alleges that the lack of structural reforms were the cause of the problem in the first place.
In particular capital flight is continuing: exporters are keeping their money outside Russia instead of being forced (?!) to keep it inside Russia.
So IMF loans are at present merely subsidising capital flight.
This hint of a command economy that exporters should be forced to keep their money in Russia, surely must be a presentational mistake.
He called for structural reforms in the tax system - presumably to make the bulk of taxes indirect and taxes on the population not on wealth, and presumably to make it much more attractive for capital exporters to keep their capital in Russia.
He said tax collection had slightly improved but was still at a very low level by comparison with a developed economy. This presumably is another indication that the government should not try to pursue an income tax that can only raise taxation from richer people through complex expensive proceedures.
The trouble with the renewed loan is that although it does not bring extra money it keeps the agenda focussed on neo-liberal economics. It apparently sets the terms of debate. The psychological indebtedness may be even more of a trap than the financial indebtedness.
Are there not any left-wing parties or bodies in Russia seriously arguing alternatives to endless compliance with the IMF agenda? The nettle that has to be grasped is that of repudiating the debt. Tactically it can be done diplomatically enough but strategically it is important that in some quarters this is discussed loudly.
Lenin of course had the authority to repudiate the old debt but at the same time to force industrial capital to trade with Russia, thereby splitting western finance capital and industrial capital. The same needs to be done now.
Russia needs to place the interests of living labour first over those of dead labour. Perhaps not necessarily through a currency board, but who is campaigning essentially for living labour?
Chris Burford
London