Russia ranks third in arms costs

71
Last year, Russian defense spending amounted to 71,9 billion dollars. In this regard, the Russian Federation came in third place in the ranking of countries with the largest military budget. These are the data provided by the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It is not yet clear what Russia's performance will be in the next ten years: on the one hand, it is planned to spend around 20 trillion rubles on the defense industry, on the other hand, experts doubt the growth potential for the Russian Federation on this indicator, reports Newsru.com.

Russia ranks third in arms costs


A report from the Stockholm Institute for Peace Studies, which is published on the Institute’s website, says that in 2011, Russia spent 3,9% of GDP on defense. The researchers emphasize that they do not have accurate data on military expenditures of the Russian Federation. However, in accordance with the available information, last year Russia showed the highest growth rates of the military budget - 9,3%.
This enabled our country to rise two points in one year. So, in 2010, Russia ranked fifth. In 2012, she managed to overtake France and the UK.

The leaders of this rating remain the United States of America (711 billion dollars) and China (143 billion dollars). Some of the countries that were in the top ten of the “military rating” last year reduced military spending. In the "plus", except for Russia, only Saudi Arabia and China. The global increase in military spending is 0,3%.

Over the past ten years, defense spending in our country has increased by 79%. Only China (170%) and Saudi Arabia (90%) have faster growth rates of the military budget. Meanwhile, US defense spending has increased “only” by 2002% since 59.

In 2011, Russia spent 71,9 billion dollars on defense, making it the third largest country in the ranking of countries with the largest military budget. This is evidenced by data from the Stockholm Institute for the Study of Peace

According to analysts SIPRI, in fact, last year there was no increase in global spending on weapons, a positive value of this indicator is a reflection of only rising prices for weapon. Thus, in the 2011 year, the thirteen-year period came to an end, which was characterized by a constant increase in the costs of armaments. If we talk about absolute terms, last year in the world military expenditures amounted to 1,738 trillion dollars.

The further growth of the defense budget of Russia is evidenced by the plan of the Russian leadership, which implies an increase in the financing of the defense industry, in particular, referring to areas related to the rearmament of the army in the amount of 20 trillion rubles. Recall that the management decision was the cause of the conflict between Dmitry Rogozin and Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin. This conflict led to the resignation of Kudrin.

According to this plan, by the year of 2014 the military budget of the Russian Federation should increase twice - by 53%. However, SIPRI experts have doubts that in reality we can expect a significant increase in defense spending: the Russian military-industrial complex, stagnating after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is unlikely to be able to absorb such funds.

SIPRI analysts also note that the tough austerity measures that have been undertaken in Europe since 2010 not only prevent the region from increasing military spending, but also force the authorities of many countries to reduce this cost item. Among the main “outsiders” are Greece (defense budget reduced by 26%), Spain (by 18%), Italy (by 16%), Belgium (by 12%) and Ireland (by 11%). Such countries as Great Britain, France and Germany - the “locomotives” of the European economy - were able to demonstrate the best performance: the reduction in the volume of defense expenditures in these countries was approximately 5%. France intends to keep expenses at the same level by 2015, Germany and the United Kingdom intend to further reduce military budgets - by 4% and 7,5%, respectively.

Over the past decade, Russia has increased defense spending by 79%. The military budget grew only faster in China (170%) and Saudi Arabia (90%). US defense spending, meanwhile, has increased "only" by 2002% since 59.

However, a number of countries in the European region, which, in absolute terms, spend a little on armaments, were characterized by a serious growth rate on this indicator last year. Headed the list of such countries Azerbaijan (growth 89%). In the "plus" were also such countries as Cyprus, Norway, Finland, Poland, Malta, Sweden, Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Armenia.

America last year for the first time since 1998 had to reduce the growth rate of the military budget, and if we talk about the near future, the United States expects a further decline in this indicator. According to SIPRI experts, this may be affected by plans related to the reduction of public debt. In addition, costs can be reduced if America partially withdraws troops from Afghanistan and does not get involved in any other war.

As for the Asia-Pacific region, last year it showed an increase in the volume of the total defense budget of countries at the level of the indicator in 2,3%. The main factor here is the state of affairs in China. Since 1995, China has increased defense spending by 500%, but relative to gross domestic product (GDP), arms spending is stable - about 2% GDP. The increase in the military budget of the PRC is a consequence of the general growth of the country's economic development, and not an indicator of militarization, as experts explain. Nonetheless, some neighbors clearly fear that China is building up its military power, fear not only for its own national security, but also for its economic interests in this region. In this regard, they strive to keep up with the main competitor: India’s defense expenditures have increased by 66% over ten years, Vietnam’s military expenditures - by 82%. However, last year, both countries were in the "minus" on this indicator.

In 2011, Latin America as a whole reduced defense spending by 3,3%, which is what Brazil owes, which cut the military budget by a quarter. Meanwhile, Mexico showed a serious growth: last year was 5,7% and in ten years 52%.

If we talk about the Middle East, then the general trend of changes in the volume of defense spending is still difficult to understand, since there is no information from Qatar, Yemen, Iran, or the United Arab Emirates. In addition, it is not yet possible to assess the consequences of the “Arab spring” for those countries that it has directly touched. Only the following is known: Iraq (growth 55%), Israel (6,8%), Kuwait (9,8%), Bahrain (14%).

As for Africa, Algeria, which last year increased its military spending by 44%, sets the tone here. In general, the region is quite stable in this respect. Meanwhile, there is no relevant information about Libya, Sudan and Eritrea.
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vadimus
    +42
    April 18 2012 08: 19
    Seeing a huge number of vomit drooling around us, arming is simply to survive.
    1. +28
      April 18 2012 08: 38
      I agree! Jackal and paddlers must be destroyed! angry
      1. 755962
        +21
        April 18 2012 12: 07
        Still corruption would chop off a tail ...
        1. pepper
          +18
          April 18 2012 12: 13
          You can spend 3 times more, but how many of them REALLY reach the troops ... 50%? or less? lol But there will be a sharp rise in the real estate markets in the UK, France and the USA! Companies producing the most expensive cars will increase their sales at a record rate, and finally banks in the "enemy" countries of NATO will very cheerfully increase their deposit figures. The example of Yuri Mikhailovich Luzhkov is contagious ...
        2. +4
          April 18 2012 13: 21
          Better an egg, or a head. But a new head will grow back, but the testicles are unlikely ...
        3. chukapabra
          +8
          April 18 2012 14: 42
          Quote: 755962
          Still corruption would chop off a tail ...

          children of officials caught in corruption in the army for 3 years (mandatory or in the zone)
          1. 0
            April 18 2012 18: 00
            My dear, you probably wanted to assign a terrible cliche to yourself, but you didn’t get into it: not Chukapabra, but CHUPAKABRA called this terrible goat-sucking animal! Come to us in the Stavropol Territory - you will get acquainted!
      2. chukapabra
        -3
        April 18 2012 14: 41
        Quote: tronin.maxim
        I agree! Jackal and paddlers must be destroyed!

        a call for everyone. Increase the life of at least 2 years (what can a soldier be taught in a year). Children of officials drafted conscriptively into the army so that the whole country sees that the call is for everyone
        1. REPA1963
          +4
          April 18 2012 15: 02
          What a call only a contract! At the time of Suvorov and others, they served for 25 years, these were pros, they fought everyone and not by quantity. There is no other way.
          1. chukapabra
            -4
            April 18 2012 15: 12
            Quote: REPA1963
            What a call only a contract! At the time of Suvorov and others, they served for 25 years, these were pros, they fought everyone and not by quantity. There is no other way.

            There are Suvorovs in our army, but they are not given a move. Because a real officer will never take a bribe.
          2. chukapabra
            -3
            April 18 2012 15: 33
            Quote: REPA1963
            What a call only a contract!

            No contracts, we are not amers to fight for Coke. Only universal appeal and the people united by the same goal will triumph. We do not serve for loot, we have our own way. I bet you (-)
            1. Neighbor
              0
              April 18 2012 15: 52
              The main thing now is not to slow down, not to stop in any case halfway either now or in the future. The Russian army should be highly professional, equipped and armed with the latest technology and science. Then - and service will not be just a duty - but an Honorary and Prestigious profession! And they will respect us - ENEMIES! - they will be afraid.
              There is simply no other way - for Russia. Or so - or disappear.
              So this is a matter of survival of the state, country and nation.
              The most important and most important! am
              And about the fact that Ameriko.so.sy - more than $ is being spent - yes this is garbage. Russia — the USSR’s defense spending — has surpassed. It’s just that Amerians — the soldiers were used to fattening — it’s good to eat, dress, and relax. And all this is worth $ sickly — try it — feed such a mob of bandits and murderers — for every pilot — 200 grams of blueberries per day are supposed to be! Yes, and the rest of the menu - as in a restaurant ....... am
              + prices for equipment are sky-high, their maintenance, repairs, fuel, transport, all kinds of payments, salary to these "soldiers" - $ 5.000 - per snout per month - ho-ho no ho-ho? And if he died - then immediately $ 500.000.
              The real picture is rather like that - Russia - 1st place. China - 2 in view of the fact that too many mouths must be fed, India - by 3. Amer - somewhere in 4-5th place. If you really count - $ - spent specifically on the purchase and modernization of weapons. Not Coca-Cola and hamburgers with toilet paper. laughing
              1. chukapabra
                -1
                April 18 2012 15: 58
                Quote: Neighbor
                The real picture is rather like that - Russia - 1st place. China - 2 in view of the fact that too many mouths must be fed, India - by 3. Amer - somewhere in 4-5th place. If you really count - $ - spent specifically on the purchase and modernization of weapons. Not Coca-Cola and hamburgers with toilet paper.

                It’s a pity that we have few such neighbors (+)
              2. 0
                April 19 2012 07: 11
                It's not just about who to spend on "hardware" and how much should serve. The question should be raised how much funds are allocated to master this technique by 100%.
                20 years ago, when ours exhibited at the international air show - the Germans gave high marks to our planes, they also said that without your pilots they are not much different from others.
                But it should be borne in mind that 20 years ago military training in the units received more attention.
                Therefore, I believe that when developing equipment, the terms for retraining of specialists and the means for retraining should be taken into account, and the shot from the gun should be a shot, and not just open-close the lock - the shot is fired.
                After all, a woman is undressed not to say - conditionally executed and put on ..... putting a checkmark in a notebook - Funny? ... Here I am about that!
  2. bad
    bad
    +22
    April 18 2012 08: 42
    Spent 10 times less than the United States! And how much more of this amount is real for the purpose, and not for the crooks and thieves - it’s a big question
    1. +7
      April 18 2012 09: 24
      It seems that the statistics were created as follows.
      The United States took into account.
      1) Not units Techniques and the total cost (for comparison, Russian weapons are 2 times cheaper)
      2) The United States took into account both equipment for the needs of the country and equipment for export.
      3) The cost of warfare around the world + supply of NATO allies.
      4) Aboriginal bribes for non-aggression on Amer soldiers.

      From this I can only conclude that China is more likely in the first place because it supplies weapons only for the needs of its country and at the same time does not conduct combat operations anywhere.
      Therefore, Russia is in 2nd place.
      And if we put all the bribe takers at stake, then we can compete with China. wink
      1. Misha
        +5
        April 18 2012 10: 27
        Quote: Manager
        The United States took into account ...

        And the United States took into account:
        1_ huge salaries to the military
        2_payment of cash benefits to widows and orphans
        3_payment of training for their soldiers in civilian universities
        4_ ... 5 _... etc.
        ... and then the United States on the military budget will take somewhere 25 - 125 place.

        Well, Russia, if we cut out all its corruption, will take place somewhere between 50 - 150 in defense spending.
        In general, IMHO, in which I have no doubt, the DPRK takes the first place in the world in defense spending!
        1. with
          -2
          April 18 2012 10: 59
          Quote: Misha
          Well, Russia, if we cut out all its corruption, will take place somewhere between 50 - 150 in defense spending.


          You want to say that bribes are laid in the budget ????
          Well, who will allow this to slander ?!)) bully
          1. REPA1963
            +2
            April 18 2012 15: 03
            Fu, how rude bribes. It should be more tender, kickbacks, for example.
        2. -2
          April 18 2012 12: 34
          Zdavaya quite a thought .... albeit with sarcasm ....... plus
          ... I don’t know how much they pay the family for the deceased when they are executed in the armed forces, and the police pay the family about 600 thousand dollars + benefits .........
        3. chukapabra
          0
          April 18 2012 14: 53
          Quote: Misha
          In general, IMHO, in which I have no doubt, the DPRK takes the first place in the world in defense spending!

          What is the first place, right if you count, we are in the first place.
          They couldn’t launch a lousy rocket, but we can also have a strong space. All with the past Cosmonautics Day!
        4. Jaguar
          0
          April 19 2012 10: 15
          Of course, in other countries there is no corruption and nothing is given to soldiers. What kind of miracle is this country?
          Quote: Misha
          DPRK takes first place in the world in defense spending
          And for some reason, they have junk in service, while in Russia, the USA and other countries they manufacture and develop the latest technology
      2. chukapabra
        -2
        April 18 2012 14: 50
        Quote: Manager
        And if we put all the bribe takers at stake, then we can compete with China.

        Stop selling equipment to China (they copy and sell for us at a cheap price) .Tax all Chinese Gaster with army tax, it’s not a shit to raise your GDP. Or let them work on our terms or fuck the beach. In North Korea they will be shown there how to love their homeland
      3. Jaguar
        -1
        April 19 2012 10: 18
        Quote: Manager
        for it supplies weapons only for the needs of its country
        and Pakistan, Iran?
    2. tverskoi77
      -2
      April 18 2012 10: 03
      Are you talking about China or India, or maybe the USA and Russia? You what! we are all saints and do not take bribes bully
    3. chukapabra
      -6
      April 18 2012 14: 45
      Quote: plohoi
      Spent 10 times less than the United States! And how much more of this amount is real for the purpose, and not for the crooks and thieves - it’s a big question

      make a budget that would make everyone feel bad from just one digit. Close half of the unnecessary universities, students (unnecessary) into the army. Money to the military budget.
  3. +5
    April 18 2012 08: 52
    "However, SIPRI experts have doubts that in reality we can expect a significant increase in defense spending: the Russian military-industrial complex, stagnating after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is unlikely to be able to absorb such funds. "- to eat something he will eat, the whole question is what he would eat for the benefit of the state laughing Serving the second place in the world in the supply of arms is not dog-shit, it’s not so stagnating in the military-industrial complex, but 20 trillion rubles for such a long period is not such a lot of money. But still there are questions that Rogozin has already faced and even a little wilted. Rogozin, tail pipe and straight shoulders - not yet an evening !!! You will succeed!
    You just need to sit down with scientists, carefully analyze the current state of affairs in the defense industry, identify the sick and just bottlenecks, develop a reorganization plan, develop a strategic plan for the implementation of the situation, get the Kremlin’s carte blanche and implement it decisively. Otherwise, the doubts of these experts will become true. sad
  4. 0
    April 18 2012 09: 05
    GOZ is a separate article and not on the budget of the IO EMNIP
    1. +1
      April 18 2012 09: 54
      Quote: leon-iv
      GOZ is a separate article and not on the budget of the IO EMNIP
      - This is clear. When I talked about the reorganization, I didn’t speak about the reorganization of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - Serdyukov (successfully or not - another question) deals with this. We need a reorganization of the military-industrial complex itself and a reorganization of the complex of its relations with the customer of military products, that is, the structure of the defense order. I will indicate the most important thing - for defense enterprises, profit should be only in third place. The first priority is Russia's defense capability, everything should be subordinated to this, for this it is necessary to increase capacity, increase productivity, and improve product quality. On the second - the effectiveness and innovativeness of weapons, courage and audacity of design ideas, and only in third place - profit. I don’t know how to make such a priority scale in the military-industrial complex. In terms of motivation, the concept of profit is the strongest, the human nature is not perfect, but in the defense industry the concept of profit in the first place is the most harmful thing. In general, here you need to come up with something.

      According to the state defense order, in the very structure of placing orders, this entire complex should have as few opportunities as possible for corruption, the concepts, rights and obligations of the parties should be clearly described so that there are no misunderstandings, all moments of interaction between the parties for the successful implementation of the task should be clearly indicated.
      1. +1
        April 18 2012 10: 07
        The military-industrial complex needs normal market relations with state regulation and normal competition.
        And let KB do their
        Pilot production by
        Serial factories
    2. Tiomka
      -3
      April 18 2012 11: 08
      essno in a separate article, tk. this is non-existent money, it was "allocated" from future budget receipts, with high world oil prices.

      - why the government before the election did not explain to the electorate - and where will they get these 20 trillion, i.e. from what other expense item? The economy of the Russian Federation does not grow at such a pace (to put it mildly), oil prices are averaged over the second half of the 00s ... frankly pre-election is designed for militarized people who are not particularly deprived of a pragmatic view of things. They said / showed before the election (like the GOZ 2008-2011, before the 2008 election) which we will be, oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

      - this state defense order, like all the previous successfully filled up, clean props. And signed contracts. a) under the state defense order 2008-2011, a lot of contracts were also signed - we know the total in 2011 very well. b) how it is possible to sign a contract based on non-existent money, from the money that someday may go to the budget, if world prices for hydrocarbons do not change ... the next pre-election props with the main cardboard speaker, the promising Rogozin, was successful - the elections were passed. And most importantly, how competently the end of the state defense order was postponed for the next presidential elections, in order to legally exploit this trend during the next "re-election" of the beloved GDP.

      however, who needs my breakdowns, stubborn cheers-patriotic schoolchildren are impenetrable, for age and maximalism, and more mature and so everything is visible. although, I noticed here the over-aged rainbow admirers of the current leadership, and it’s very difficult to not consider their optimism as outright stupid :)
      1. REPA1963
        -1
        April 18 2012 15: 05
        I completely agree with you, but you don't see fermented patriots.
      2. +1
        April 18 2012 15: 11
        And what do you think will be the price of oil if any of the aircraft carriers drown in a friend ...
        1. Tiomka
          -2
          April 18 2012 18: 31
          There is a direct correlation between US Strategic Reserves and world oil prices. And in your example, some incoherent nonsense.
      3. Imperialist
        0
        April 18 2012 17: 09
        Tiomka

        Yes, you really do in Ukria.

        And in Russia, from year to year, the supply of military equipment for the Russian army is growing and this is the most important thing.

        I know that it is not customary for you to plan for longer than six months in Ukria, but this does not mean that others should take an example from you.

        When plans are made and goals are outlined, this does not mean that the fulfillment of these plans only for example means 90% failure.

        I understand that ukrov is wildly annoying that at the head of Russia there are people like Putin or Rogozin, you can only dream of such people in Ukria.

        Therefore, ukry and the Russians are calling for a vote are not clear for whom if only the so hated Putin disappeared and Russia slipped to the level of Ukria.

        And dream on Ukria further about low oil prices dream dream it is not harmful.
        1. Tiomka
          -3
          April 18 2012 18: 28
          What is "Ukriya"?
          If you know how to keep your verbal cheer onanism, be kind, do not write me anything, I am not interested in the opinion of a stupid, most likely minor, idiot.
      4. -2
        April 19 2012 08: 54
        ..... All excellent, your suggestions?
        That is the meaning of everything that you wrote? Show that it's all the same "Everything's gone, boss, it's all gone"?
        We perfectly understand and know the current state of affairs .... where does kvass patriotism come about?
        In your understanding, should a real patriot mud Russia over? Or how?
        Explain to the poor patriots .....
  5. +7
    April 18 2012 09: 08
    Whoever drowns us with a sword, he must receive it in tinsel !!!
  6. танк
    0
    April 18 2012 09: 22
    Hmm ... if there wasn’t war, we would all be millionaires smile It would interfere)))

    I can hardly imagine, or rather I can’t at all, what can 72 billion dollars be spent on ???
    1. 0
      April 18 2012 09: 35
      The price of Apple’s largest IT company in the world in 2012 is $ 600,45 billion,

      Do you still think that 72 billion is enough to supply the army?
      1. chukapabra
        0
        April 18 2012 15: 15
        Quote: Manager
        The price of Apple’s largest IT company in the world in 2012 is $ 600,45 billion,

        Do you still think that 72 billion is enough to supply the army?

        Ipidami cannot win a war, money is not the most important thing, the main thing is spirit, and only sex is at war with aypedas. Minorities
        1. 0
          April 18 2012 16: 35
          You about the amount of money and you about iPads .......
          1. chukapabra
            -2
            April 18 2012 18: 19
            Quote: Manager
            You about the amount of money and you about iPads ..

            I say that 600 billion and 72 billion of them are different things, our 72 - more.
    2. -2
      April 18 2012 19: 12

      I can hardly imagine, or rather I can’t at all, what can 72 billion dollars be spent on ???


      Buy each Edinoros villa in the Canaries and on a yacht
      and they feel good! and you won’t have a headache - where to spend
      1. 0
        April 19 2012 03: 33
        TANK - brother!
        Ha ha ha
        Look at how many greedy on the site, as soon as you raised a question about the dough, and I supported, so they immediately minus both
        Probably someone wanted to share!
    3. 0
      April 19 2012 11: 14
      Buy yourself a Chelsea and the question will stop worrying you right away .. :)
  7. 0
    April 18 2012 09: 25
    It seems that the statistics were created as follows.
    The United States took into account.
    1) Not units Techniques and the total cost (for comparison, Russian weapons are 2 times cheaper)
    2) The United States took into account both equipment for the needs of the country and equipment for export.
    3) The cost of warfare around the world + supply of NATO allies.
    4) Aboriginal bribes for non-aggression on Amer soldiers.

    From this I can only conclude that China is more likely in the first place because it supplies weapons only for the needs of its country and at the same time does not conduct combat operations anywhere.
    Therefore, Russia is in 2nd place.
    And if we put all the bribe takers at stake, then we can compete with China.
    1. танк
      +1
      April 18 2012 10: 43
      It seems that the statistics were created as follows.
      The United States took into account.
      1) Not units Techniques and the total cost (for comparison, Russian weapons are 2 times cheaper)


      what's the difference how much the equipment costs for itself? Do not forget that they have a higher income tax in proportion to the price. Moreover, our cheaper, only due to meager salaries and lower quality electronics

      1. 0
        April 18 2012 11: 01
        You all said the same thing as I did. Ponder your words.
        1. танк
          -1
          April 18 2012 12: 52
          I did not see your comment, in any case, the emphasis was placed on my first proposal
    2. Tiomka
      -1
      April 18 2012 18: 42
      For those who like to count seeds in watermelons, I recommend that you wash yourself with cold water, grow to a fertile age and, at a minimum, consider the following criteria:
      - the number of aircraft
      - the level of social and material support of military personnel
      - level of corruption
      -% of new equipment in the troops
      and many, many more factors. however, the matter is still useless and unbearable.

      and you wrote rash nonsense, which mixed export and payment by dip. channels, sobsno like you have a very confusing idea of ​​pricing in the military-industrial complex.
  8. Goga
    +5
    April 18 2012 09: 29
    The longer it is possible to avoid direct military conflicts, the more time to compensate for the failure in defense that has arisen over 20 years since 1991. Only powerful, modern aircraft can discourage some of our excessively belligerent neighbors - to arrange another slaughter. In order for the country to live in the world, any expenses are justified.
    1. chukapabra
      -2
      April 18 2012 15: 19
      Quote: Gogh
      The longer direct military conflicts can be avoided, the more time it takes to compensate for the failure in defense that arose over 20 years

      Only constant military operations support the army in good shape, constant exercises and presence in hot spots. A contingent in Syria, a squadron in Iran, so that no one even has thoughts to jerk at our friends
  9. Tsar Ivan the First
    +4
    April 18 2012 09: 35
    we have only two friends: the ARMY and the Navy, the rest of the Allies, and then, if something happens, we’ll rush about. And it’s our duty to arm the Army and Navy, especially with modern weapons angry
    1. chukapabra
      0
      April 18 2012 15: 19
      Quote: Tsar Ivan the First
      we have only two friends: the ARMY and the Navy, the rest of the Allies, and then, if something happens, we’ll rush about. And it’s our duty to arm the Army and Navy, especially with modern weapons

      100000 (+)
  10. Dmitry.V
    +2
    April 18 2012 09: 36
    We don’t need someone else’s, but we won’t give up our lands either.
    1. +3
      April 18 2012 10: 02
      In the Khabarovsk Territory, the Chinese are 10 ki times more than the Russians. We won’t give it back, they themselves will be cunningly settled.
      1. with
        -1
        April 18 2012 11: 01
        Quote: Manager
        In the Khabarovsk Territory, the Chinese are 10 ki times more than the Russians.


        Over time, their eyes become wider !!))) laughing
        1. -1
          April 18 2012 19: 19
          The most important thing is that we don’t have to!

          I explain
          1. The Chinese have wider eyes - He sees profit - he is surprised
          2. We already have eyes - We are trying to see a salary - we are not surprised
  11. +1
    April 18 2012 09: 45
    By the way, I think it’s great that the Omerikanchegov have such a budget and they saw it on poopuyuschee weapons))))
    Flag in hand sticks in w ......
  12. Alef
    +4
    April 18 2012 10: 03
    Russia needs to increase not only arms costs, but also catch those who steal from the military budget by the hand!
  13. Zlu
    Zlu
    0
    April 18 2012 10: 47
    Quote: Alef
    Russia needs to increase not only arms costs, but also catch those who steal from the military budget by the hand!

    And like in China on the spot to chop them off right away. there will be a precedent
  14. rinzhak
    -1
    April 18 2012 10: 49
    judging by the schedule not on the third, but on the fourth ...
    1. 0
      April 18 2012 11: 02
      All the rest, this is not the name of the country, but simply ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES NOT LISTED IN THE LIST TOGETHER Taken
      Or did you take OTHERS for example OZERSBADZHAN?)))))
      1. rinzhak
        0
        April 18 2012 11: 10
        nevertheless, they are consolidated, and their potential "military bloc" is quite impressive ...
        1. -1
          April 18 2012 11: 18
          Which block? Especially what kind of military? This is more Potential.

          Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia ?????
  15. bad
    bad
    0
    April 18 2012 10: 54
    Let’s not eat then, all salaries will be deducted to the military budget! We will arm and rejoice. Only, firstly, one x ... less than the amers will have, and secondly, the country will die out with this approach
    1. 0
      April 18 2012 11: 05
      Be more simple. To the Army, one hell does not reach almost anything) NO KAZNAKRAD! NO KAZNAKRAD !! )))
  16. rinzhak
    0
    April 18 2012 11: 11
    judging by the numbers, there are sufficient conditions for starting a world war ...
    1. 0
      April 18 2012 11: 30
      Absurd stupidity! Local wars, the fin crisis, and there is a 3rd world war!
      1. bad
        bad
        -1
        April 18 2012 11: 39
        why are you so? Yes, imagine a man)
  17. rinzhak
    0
    April 18 2012 11: 42
    Quote: Manager
    Absurd stupidity! Local wars, the fin crisis, and there is a 3rd world war!

    no stupidity, but quite a logical sequence:
    end of war - New world order - the climax of development for that civilization -
    the beginning of sunset - crisis - collapse - local war (as a clash of interests of a multipolar world) and, as a result, a new world

    Quote: Manager
    Which block? Especially what kind of military? This is more Potential.

    Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia ?????

    by the way in these countries, which in relation to the volume of financing of the defense industry do not have a third place on the chartwell know how to hold weapons in their hands
  18. -1
    April 18 2012 11: 44
    rinzhak
    It is very interesting from which game did you draw such knowledge? For nothing similar has happened in History so far. At least I don’t remember that until the 2nd World War anyone had nuclear weapons and military blocs. The financial crisis and democracy.
  19. rinzhak
    0
    April 18 2012 11: 48
    Quote: Manager
    It is very interesting from which game did you draw such knowledge? For nothing similar has happened in History so far. At least I don’t remember that until the 2nd World War anyone had nuclear weapons and military units. Financial crisis and democracy.

    well let's go in order:
    if you think that there cannot be a third world only because there is a deterrent in the form of WMD (in particular nuclear), then its use is not something out of the ordinary ...
    In the second world, it was applied, and already twice ...
    as for the military blocs, there were coalitions and blocs in the three hundred year confrontation between the British and Russian empires.
    1. 0
      April 18 2012 12: 09
      Firstly, I already said that the 3rd world is already underway. This is a war of information, financial and + Local wars for money laundering and for the sake of oil.
      Further, nuclear weapons were used not in World War II, but weeks after its end. The USA is the only state that used atomic weapons in the course of real hostilities, dropping in 2 two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
      At the same time, note Japan did not possess nuclear weapons. For the use of nuclear weapons against a country with nuclear weapons is at least not thought out. As regards the military blocs of the Middle Ages, I ask you not to confuse temporary alliances with the existing military blocs.
  20. rinzhak
    0
    April 18 2012 12: 17
    Quote: Manager
    Further, nuclear weapons were used not in World War II, but weeks after its completion.

    write the end date of World War II more specifically ...
    Firstly, I already said that the 3rd world is already underway. This is a war of information, financial and + Local wars for money laundering and for the sake of oil.

    this is all the doctrine of limited Cold War wars. The third world has not yet arrived, it is only getting ready.
    At the same time, note Japan did not possess nuclear weapons. For to use nuclear weapons against a country with nuclear weapons at least not thought out
    - why not thought out? what
    As regards the military blocs of the Middle Ages, I ask you not to confuse temporary alliances with the existing military blocs.

    but what exactly is the difference?
  21. 0
    April 18 2012 12: 28
    Quote: rinzhak
    write the end date of World War II more specifically ...

    Each country has its own date. By the standards of the USSR, the war was over.
    Quote: rinzhak
    this is all the doctrine of limited Cold War wars. The third world has not yet arrived, it is only getting ready.

    Nothing to back up information. Little of! There are no arguments at all.
    Quote: rinzhak
    - why not thought out?

    I agree! In general, all the countries I know dream of getting a nuclear strike on the territory of their country!
    Quote: rinzhak
    but what exactly is the difference?

    Alliance - a union, association (for example, states, organizations) based on formal or informal contractual obligations
    Military-political bloc - an alliance or agreement of states with the aim of joint action to solve common political, economic and military tasks.

    Something like this! wink
  22. rinzhak
    0
    April 18 2012 12: 43
    Quote: Manager
    Each country has its own date. By the standards of the USSR, the war was over.

    - understandably;
    Nothing to back up information. Little of! There are no arguments at all.

    - I don’t even know what reasons to back up the information that there was not yet a third world war what I look out the window - birds fly, people want cars to drive, the sun is shining. If you hear the smell of burning from the streets, then these are bonfires of peaceful subbotniks ... Honestly - I do not know what to say in response
    I agree! In general, all the countries I know dream of getting a nuclear strike on the territory of their country!
    - let's do it one more time -
    For the use of nuclear weapons against a country with nuclear weapons is at least not thought out
    my clarifying question is
    - why not thought out?
    that is, you believe that the use of nuclear weapons in protective measures to preempt or to retaliate if available not considered? weird what so I ask you - "why not thought out?"
    Alliance - a union, association (for example, states, organizations) based on formal or informal contractual obligations
    Military-political bloc - an alliance or agreement of states with the aim of joint actions to solve common political, economic and military problems.

    yeah, but "joint actions to address common political, well, etc." they cannot be based on contractual obligations ?! or is it on a personal initiative laughing

    somehow it doesn't work out that way No.
    1. 0
      April 18 2012 12: 53
      Quote: rinzhak
      yeah, but "joint actions to address common political, well, etc." they cannot be based on contractual obligations ?! or is it on a personal initiative


      I’ll explain it even easier.

      Alliance - This is an easy lift.
      Military-political bloc - This is hard sex at all .... for many years!
  23. -1
    April 18 2012 12: 49
    Well, just like in a bathhouse ... either remove the cross or put on your underpants ... if the hammer driving the Phantom kit costs 1500 $ ... then the Americans are definitely not in the first place ...
  24. dred
    -1
    April 18 2012 12: 49
    For the first time I was so happy for our country. There are simply no words. 3rd place is cool.
  25. rinzhak
    +1
    April 18 2012 13: 01
    Quote: Manager
    I’ll explain it even easier.

    Alliance - This is an easy lift.
    Military Political Bloc - It's hard sex in everything.... for many years!
    - a..a..a, here you are ?! lol Well, I have no more questions ...
    1. -1
      April 18 2012 13: 03
      Excuse me, what is this? Said A say B
      1. rinzhak
        +1
        April 18 2012 13: 04
        colloquial ...
        1. 0
          April 18 2012 13: 08
          Well, but he conveyed what he wanted to the addressee.
  26. Mr. Truth
    +1
    April 18 2012 13: 19
    I am touched by naive simpletons who believe that in any other country in the world (if only not in "Wed .. rashka rolling in the mean .. shit" ©) there are no bribe-takers or corrupt officials in uniform. Of course, in the US, already in the 60s, they moved away from corruption in favor of ultra lobbyism. Of the examples, almost all the equipment that is in service with the United States.
    More money, more corruption.
  27. snek
    +1
    April 18 2012 13: 34
    The third place in terms of expenditures on weapons with the sixth place in terms of GDP. Of course, as long as oil and gas prices are high, you can afford it, only now they belong to the category of "exhaustible resources" and I think that it is still worth investing more in science and industry.
  28. chukapabra
    0
    April 18 2012 14: 37
    the field is not plowed, it is necessary to at least surpass China on the defense budget. Who does not feed his army, feeds someone else's
    1. REPA1963
      0
      April 18 2012 15: 06
      We are not feeding the army, but the officials in it.
    2. snek
      +1
      April 18 2012 15: 20
      Quote: chukapabra
      at least overtake China by defense budget

      Yeah, overtake on an military spending economy that is more than 4 times larger than ours and is developing rapidly. Modest such requests.
      1. -2
        April 18 2012 19: 22
        In vain are you upset
        Raise energy prices, cost of raw materials through processing and transportation to raise
        So they came to the first place without evading the order - that is, labor costs
        1. snek
          +1
          April 18 2012 19: 57
          Quote: Ruswolf
          Raise energy prices, raise the cost of raw materials due to processing and transportation. Here we go to the first place without evading the order - that is, labor costs

          Urgent, urgent go to the government - there a lot of people are thinking about how to develop our economy, and you already have such a win-win plan.
  29. 0
    April 18 2012 15: 45
    It would be nice not only to buy weapons, but also to train soldiers to use these weapons, otherwise it will be like in the old Soviet joke "it is better to have a hundred tanks in safe custody than one excellent military and political student under subordination."
  30. AAA88
    +1
    April 18 2012 18: 51
    Yes, it’s very sad that everything happens like that! The United States has always been against us, it only knows that it is digging deeper. It surrounds us a little, arming itself a little, introducing itself, everywhere there is Americanism, in Russia we don’t even have normal stores with Russian signs, we can only see that we are mowing under the USA, and it sniffs quietly and waits, waits, waits ...
    1. Tiomka
      -1
      April 18 2012 19: 01
      Well, have you already given up everything American, cinema, music, English, the Internet in the end?
  31. MinNatSec
    +1
    April 18 2012 20: 05
    Another novelty. I wrote more than once that the contract there is not for 1.6 billion but for 1.9. Much more is a secret. We will soon find out the whole list.

  32. +1
    April 18 2012 21: 49
    That's how it passed by, that perhaps the army has such a budget over the past 20 years.
    When Russia had a total budget of 90 billion in the 20s, the army was starving. Logical rearmament is now beginning, and our partners are used to seeing Russia weak and accommodating. And the West does not need a strong Russia !!! For this, everyone, even a small country’s military success sphere, is perceived as aggression by Russia and infringement of the role of Western values.
    Why does not the Pentagon budget provoke such panic rhetoric ??? the largest budget in the world !!!
  33. -1
    April 18 2012 21: 49
    The calculations are not correct. Differences in equipment prices, maintenance costs for military personnel, military operations outside the United States, military assistance and other expenses were made without taking into account. So, the military budgets of the USA and Russia are approximately in the ratio of 1 to 0,75-0,9
  34. 16
    16
    -1
    April 18 2012 22: 57
    and why not on the first? to all enemies to envy?
  35. 0
    April 18 2012 23: 29
    snek
    The third place in terms of expenditures on weapons with the sixth place in terms of GDP. Of course, as long as oil and gas prices are high, you can afford it, only now they belong to the category of "exhaustible resources" and I think that it is still worth investing more in science and industry.

    I apologize of course, but is the military-industrial complex not an industry? And is there any suspicion that this is the most high-tech industry? I have.
  36. +1
    April 19 2012 07: 30
    I read all the comments and it’s very strange that we all talk (including myself) about money, about quantity, about volumes.
    But for some reason no one has ever asked
    AND WHAT MEANS ARE ALLOCATED FOR RE-TRAINING IN ORDER TO DEVELOP ALL THESE INNOVATIONS AND HOW MUCH DOES IT TAKE TIME ?!
    It already happened - in the PPSh warehouses, in the hangars there were new planes, Т34, heavy KV tanks (do not forget that the Germans had light tanks designed for marching throws (Gudarian’s tactics) the tanks didn’t get diesel like ours. And we just they didn’t know how to use these weapons! And to use not in the sense of where to press - but in the sense of using the advantage of our weapons, the technical results are superior in power, quality, and quantity — and we attack the tank units with the MOUNT ATTACK AT THE forehead!
    And now there will be no money for training, they will not be trained - all these billionth investments and equipment are worthless
    Though minus though not, but this one is.

    - "Why do you need a book if you don't know how to read ?! ........"
    - Yes, this is a guide on throwing grenades.
    - So what?
    - Yes, in which case I'll throw it at the enemy! ...... "
    1. 0
      April 19 2012 11: 33
      ......... well, that's it, that's right ... but it wasn't that simple at the beginning of the war ...... and Guderian from Zhukov adopted the principle of creating tank corps and throws ...... .after Halkin-Gol was .... another thing is that, for a number of well-known reasons, our army was not prepared for such a start of the war ..... and millions of rifles, hundreds and thousands of artillery pieces, etc. were in the hands of the Germans
  37. scientist cat
    0
    20 June 2012 00: 27
    The main thing is not how much is spent, but how and what exactly.
    The arms race should not be drawn into again, because the country's budget is on the balance sheet only at high oil prices.
    Who is the alleged adversary - NATO, China, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Chechnya, Afghanistan?
    Local conflicts or total war, seizure of territory or exclusively defense?
    What will the funds be spent on - the purchase of armored vehicles, aviation, air defense systems, the navy, and officers' salaries?
    What are the priorities ???
  38. 0
    28 February 2015 12: 49
    These are the stable 21st century, everyone who can arm themselves, moreover, at a frantic pace. Probably for the sake of world peace.