>> but the ruble dropped and then bounced back.

You are correct.

Understandably, the Russian authorities blamed the West for the drop in the ruble exchange rate, and depreciation for inflation. At the same time, they reacted by enforcing capital controls, restricting convertibility, offering more rubles to support bank liquidity and raising interest rates on ruble deposits.

Shortly afterward, they also announced that in the future Moscow would honor its euro- and dollar- denominated debts, but would ask “hostile countries” to pay for their energy imports in rubles. Some dubbed this policy the “ruble clause.”

The authorities can now boast that the ruble has stabilized. By the beginning of April, one euro bought 85 rubles, marking a slightly stronger exchange rate than before the war began. Western operators are perhaps not overly interested in Russian monetary policy. But what about the ruble clause? Is it little more than a flash in the pan with little practical relevance, or should we take it more seriously?

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/ruble-clause/

Ruble "bounced back", because it's no longer exchangeable, its exchange rate is fictional now. Russians can't withdraw more than $10k per year, and 80% of any USD income must be deposited within a week or so.

> but the ruble dropped and then bounced back.

It doesn't mean much. If I remember it right, back in USSR time, the ruble rate was about 1.6 for a dollar. Yet people couldn't buy toilet paper whenever they needed it. There was a severe deficit of pretty much everything. It's not going to be like in the 90s - the economy is very different, but sugar shortages just three-four weeks into the war is not a good sign. It will get tough for Russians, which is not beneficial to anyone - not for them, nor for Europeans, Americans, or Chinese.

Sugar isn't a good indicator of much. Russia basically got their sugar from the country they just invaded. And Ukraine is just in a shitty strategic location. No one really cared about them until it became blindingly obvious they have a strategic location important to Russia. The sugar problem will resolve itself in a few months. The oil-based energy problem (where Russia holds the advantage) is going to take years to untangle.

I agree, sugar perhaps is not a good indicator. There wasn't an actual shortage of sugar, it was a short-lived market panic. But, still, many other sectors of the Russian economy are already suffering - automakers, air travel & cargo are good examples. Some big tech companies like Cisco have entirely left the market, which is neither good for Russians nor Cisco. They already come $200M short in their quarterly. The layoffs didn't follow only because Cisco already slashed thousands of jobs last year due to the pandemic.

Yes, there will be a lot of money in hard currency from oil and gas, but without access to high-tech & parts (which not many countries would sell to Russia), it's gonna pull the entire country into stagnation.

whoosh!

It was actually 1.6 dollars for 1 soviet ruble. But it was impossible to freely buy dollars at that rate.

Aye, I got it backwards. My bad.

Update... no wait, dollar was about 60 kopeeks, so for 1 dollar you'd get 1.6 soviet roubles, I was right, no?

From what I understand, and this definitely isn't propaganda the reality is that people are much happier to have 'hard' currency than rubles and a lot of hard currency is coming into Russia in physical form via for instance Turkey but also other countries.