S&P says that Russia defaulted on its foreign debt. Normally a country's default is viewed as an economic disaster, because when a country can't pay a foreign lender, other foreign lenders won't be willing to lend to that country anymore. With no lenders willing to lend money, the country can't borrow, which means it loses access to the money governments need to keep running.
But Russia is already heavily sanctioned. A lot of foreign lenders were already effectively prevented from giving new loans to Russia, or had decided to stop lending to Russia because of the bad P.R. associated with that country since it invaded Ukraine. To the extent there are still entities which might lend money to Russia (maybe in China?), those lenders are likely to understand this current default is the product of the current sanction regime, not because Putin's Russia is a country that doesn't pay its debts in the normal course of things. If those lenders think the sanctions will be temporary (which is a big if), maybe they will continue to lend to Russia?
Anyway, what I am wondering is if Russia's default actually makes a difference. Russia was already having difficulty getting loans, and the few remaining lenders who are still willing to loan to Russia might not think that a default right now changes their risk calculus for the country.
