Military Review

Welcome to the arms race, gentlemen!

30
In recent days, after sharply aggravated relations between Russia and Western countries (US-European sanctions in connection with the case of Skripale poisoning and an unauthorized UN missile on Syria by armed forces of a number of countries headed by the USA), the front pages of the most influential newspapers in the world once again flashed almost forgotten phrase "arms race". Politicians and experts talk in chorus that a new round of such a race is inevitable, and it will cause great damage to the Russian economy. However, an impartial analysis of the current situation leads to completely different conclusions.




For example, on April 15, the head of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Vladimir Yermakov made a number of statements at the Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (SWAP). In particular, he doubted that international agreements related to arms control could be reached in the foreseeable future. As for the comprehensive test ban weaponsthen the agreement on this is unlikely to ever come into force. There is little chance of being extended by the treaty concerning offensive weapons (START-3), since, according to Vladimir Yermakov, “the Americans within the current treaty behave indecently.” “The arms race, of course, is not a bluff, but a very dangerous reality that has a significant disruptive effect on global stability and international security,” the diplomat said. According to him, the reason for what is happening is that Western countries do not want to abandon the monopolar system of the world order.

Earlier, US President Trump wrote in his infamous Tweet addressing Russia: “Maybe we’ll stop the arms race?” After which the American generals gave the order to press the Start button with their rocket engineers who famously bombed a number of objects in Syria.

Earlier, in March 1, 2018, in his message to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin presented to the whole world new highly efficient types of Russian weapons capable of overcoming any means of anti-missile defense. After that, many began talking about the impending aggravation of the arms race, into which Russia could be drawn.

So what happens? Are we really getting into a new arms race?

There are three areas whose condition may indicate the presence of an arms race: the supply of arms, the military industry and military spending. Not so long ago, the Institute for the Study of the Problems of the Protection of the World (SIPRI, Stockholm) published data that indicate an upward trajectory in all three of these areas. In particular, in 2012-2016, the maximum value (compared to any five-year period after the end of the cold war) reached the volume of trade in conventional weapons. Since 2010, the one hundred largest defense industry enterprises have shown steady growth in arms sales. Compared with the previous five-year period, the volume of international trade in main types of conventional weapons increased by 10% (in 2013 – 2017). And in the same five years, the United States of America increased its arms exports by 25%! And this is despite the fact that the share of the United States in all international arms transfers is more than 1 / 3 (34%). By the way, Russia ranks second after the United States in the world in international arms transfers. Moreover, we are not so far behind the leader: Russian shipments are about 2 / 3 of US manufacturers. True, in recent years, sales of our manufacturers have not increased. Nevertheless, the supply of our arms manufacturers exceeds 3-4 times the deliveries following Russia in this ranking to France, Germany, China, and the United Kingdom.

The total sales of weapons and military services by the world's largest arms manufacturing and military services companies (top-100 SIPRI) reached 374,8 billion dollars. Sales of general arms to Russian companies from the top 100 SIPRI grew by 3,8%, making $ 2016 billion in 26,6. They accounted for 7,1% of the total. 10 Russian companies from the top 100 SIPRI demonstrate ambiguous trends in arms sales: five companies recorded sales growth, while five others showed a decrease. The best results for 2016 year were from United Aircraft Building Corporation, which took the place No. XXUMX in the rating. In 13, its sales increased by 2016% compared with the previous year (due to the growth in supplies to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the increase in export volumes).

Welcome to the arms race, gentlemen!

On the chart: international sales of conventional weapons in 1978 — 2017 years. Source: SIPRI

Thus, the dynamics of the volume of production and international arms sales (see chart) shows that the arms race started around the year from about the 2005 and is gradually accelerating. And Russia in this race is not the last (see the graph below; the source is the same).



Objectively observable arms race (still local) is fueled by regional conflicts and hotbeds. For example, arms imports to the Middle East have doubled over the past 10 years. Most countries in the Middle East have been involved in armed conflicts in the past five years. Therefore, it is logical that the purchases of weapons by these states increased by 103% (!) Compared to 2008-2012 over the years. Their volume is 32% of the total world volume of arms imports. The main arms shipments to this part of the planet are made by the USA and European countries. In particular, Saudi Arabia buys 98% of its weapons from these countries.

Continuing regional tensions in South Asia lead to a steady increase in arms imports to India. Today, this country is the largest importer on the market for the main types of conventional weapons. India accounts for 12% of the total global supply of weapons. In the 2013-2017 years, India increased its imports by 24% compared to the 2008-2012 years. Russia also participates in the division of the Indian "military cake": 62% of India’s imported weapons in 2013-2017 were of Russian origin. At the same time, over the past five years, India’s imports of weapons from the USA increased by 557% (!), And now the United States is second only to our country in terms of the volume of arms supplies to India.

The growth in arms purchases, which India cannot make on its own, is stimulated by its protracted conflict with Pakistan and the growing tensions with China.

China is increasingly able to create and produce their own weapons of acceptable quality. This allows Beijing to strengthen relations with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar through the supply of arms of own production to these countries. By the way, thanks to the development of its own defense industry in the past five years, China has reduced the import of weapons by 19%. Nevertheless, China is in fifth place in the world in terms of arms imports.


Source: SIPRI

The following facts are also curious. In 2013-2017 arms imports by African countries fell by 22% compared with the previous five years. Imports of weapons to Nigeria (where the armed conflict has flared up for more than a year) increased by 42% over the same time.

From about 1998 in the world, there has been a general steady increase in military spending:



Military spending is growing rapidly during large-scale armed conflicts. These are wars such as the Korean and Vietnamese armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan:



The greatest burden of global military spending is borne by the United States. They are followed by China and Russia. After them go Saudi Arabia, India. Close the seven countries with the largest military budgets, France and the United Kingdom:



In short, when we say that we are being dragged into an arms race, we need to understand that, firstly, Russia has long been drawn into this race as the largest arms exporter. And so the strengthening of such a race can be considered (although it is cynical) in terms of benefits for our defense industry. Therefore, something new is not likely to be brought into the current increase in tensions with Western countries in connection with the production of armaments, which will lead to a catastrophe. And secondly, the arms race, which has been intensifying for years, is fueled by numerous conflicts in the world and regional tensions.
Author:
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech April 17 2018 06: 03
    +9
    Politicians and experts spoke in unison that a new round of such a race is inevitable, and it will cause enormous damage to the Russian economy.


    I also used to believe that the arms race was ruining the country ... then, with a little brain, I saw that not everything was so bad.
    The production of the latest weapons can be a boon to our industry because it pushes science, new inventions, new technologies forward ... new jobs ... in general, if you can deal with this business wisely and our economy can help ... the main thing is not to do the stupid things that were admitted during the times of the USSR.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather April 17 2018 06: 26
      +11
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      I also believed before

      I also believed ... that the government was about to start working, that the people would breathe easier, that the civilian sector of the economy would rise, and the "second Afghan" would not be threatened ... but it didn’t turn out that way, we were on the verge of a global kneading this is HPP, I understand ... Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan are in an incomprehensible state at their side, a guarantee that we will not be bored, we can forget about a good life.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech April 17 2018 06: 30
        +2
        You can forget about a good life.


        You are right on the actions of our government often depends on our well-being.
        For example, our government has forgiven many countries for the debts of Russia ... is this good? I think not ... because with this money a lot of useful things could be done for our sick children ... feeble old people ... but as you can see, everything is much worse and in many similar positions I have big complaints about the leadership of our country ... interests ordinary citizens in their last place.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I April 17 2018 07: 25
          +5
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          For example, our government has forgiven many countries for the debts of Russia ... is this good? I think not ...

          Of course not ... The actions of the ruling regime of Russia to "forgive" debts are an example of political and economic state debility! Well, let these countries now cannot "pay off" in the near future .... But why not count on it that the "moment of reckoning" will finally come? Let the "we" not get the debt .... maybe the children will not get it .... but the grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be able to rejoice! You look, and they will put a fence in a more beautiful way to their ancestors ... fellow What do we need? We will rejoice in advance in our thoughts that this happy time will come for our grandchildren or great-grandchildren ... wink
          Here we often hear: the state takes care of the people .... the state must take care of the people ... the state takes good care of the people .. Is it the state of the "breadwinner" of the people? Who feeds whom? State-people, or nation-state? The state, for some reason, believes that it ... and the country belongs to it, and the economy, and the money earned by the country ... by the people! And therefore only the state alone decides: to give, not to give, to whom to "forgive "... This is how it can turn out: the people earn money, and the state can make profits!
        2. meandr51
          meandr51 April 17 2018 15: 38
          0
          Well, it wouldn’t forgive ... Do you think you would pay? The United States and other lender states periodically do the same. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/226619 If this is not done, then the debtor countries stop cooperation and look for new lenders, promising them loyalty. They have nothing to lose. This is an international bankruptcy procedure. Another thing is that it is necessary for new loans for these countries to pay off in all respects.
        3. Nyrobsky
          Nyrobsky April 17 2018 23: 24
          +2
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          For example, our government has forgiven many countries for the debts of Russia ... is this good? I think not ... because with this money a lot of useful things could be done for our sick children ... feeble old people ... but as you can see, everything is much worse and in many similar positions I have big complaints about the leadership of our country ... interests ordinary citizens in their last place.

          Alexei, it’s kind of like marshal's epaulettes, but you talk like an Urkain warrant officer. All forgiven debts were made during Soviet times and there are no Russian babos in them, taken from children and the elderly. Russia has relations with them only because of the legal successor for the obligations of the USSR. These “lucky” countries have no way of paying them off, and the existing USSR debts would have been written off in any case under such a term as “bad debts”. Russia, writing off these debts of the USSR, part of them transferred to the category of investments from Russia i.e. without investing a single ruble by turning a debt into an economic project. In world practice, there is no way to protect debt by military means, but there is the practice of protecting economic interests using force, which can automatically justify the presence of the Russian armed forces in these countries or the use of military force against other countries whose actions jeopardize Russia's economic projects. For example, S. Korea owed 10 billion to the USSR. 9 billion were written off and was issued as Russian investment in the energy sector. Where and how Un will extract this billion is not our problem, but we have their energy for the indicated amount. And what is duty? Well, a debt and a debt that no one will repay either under Eun or after his removal, and especially after the unification of the two Koreas.
      2. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 April 17 2018 09: 46
        +2
        ... we will not be bored, we can forget about a good life.
        Well, what Dedkastary begin to crawl into the cemetery. What else remains for you judging by the comments and not only on this thread. But to me, who is still probably older than you do not want it. If you are so worried about KhPP (Putin’s cunning plan), then I hope to see you soon.
    2. Ber
      Ber April 17 2018 06: 27
      +1
      the main thing is not to do the stupid things that were allowed during the USSR.


      good I would add to carry out (conditionally) activities that will lead to education
      The United States of America, so that the United States, conditionally began to be read in circulation, and shook the same measure as the USSR.
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather April 17 2018 06: 43
        +5
        Quote: Ber
        I would add to carry out (conditionally) activities that will lead to education
        The United States of America, so that the United States, conditionally began to be read in circulation, and shook the same measure as the USSR.

        Yes, what America ... we neighbors almost all lost, with their "wise" policies ...
        1. Mestny
          Mestny April 17 2018 10: 31
          0
          Well, there are some options that will comfort you - immediately overthrow the regime, kneel down, and ask the United States for forgiveness.
          Then, maybe someone is lucky, maybe even you personally. Under the new administration, you will drive a new car with an iPhone in your hand.
          "Whoever works for great Germany will eat white whiskey."
      2. meandr51
        meandr51 April 17 2018 15: 41
        0
        There was only one stupidity: the abolition of the leading role of the CPSU. They left in China - the result exceeded expectations! True, there the CCP does not give instructions to collective farms, but simply manages personnel.
    3. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 18 2018 12: 47
      0
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      I also used to believe that the arms race was ruining the country ... then, with a little brain, I saw that not everything was so bad.

      During the USSR, he worked at one of the defense enterprises of the Dnipropetrovsk region. so he worked in the laboratory of experimental work, and created the first in the union CNC Turning and Milling Machine, this is for those who say that Russia has nothing from the equipment, and we can’t do anything, well, besides orders from the military industrial complex, consumer goods were also produced, so don’t have to scare the hedgehog with a naked booty, it has become a trend, the arms race, the armament of the army, and the oil needle, especially touches the needle that everyone wants to sit on, and we are blamed for it.)))))))))) )))
  2. wandlitz
    wandlitz April 17 2018 06: 31
    +2
    And therefore, the strengthening of such a race (arms race) can be considered (though cynical) from the point of view of benefit for our defense industry.
    IMHO. Moreover, apart from the oil industry and the defense industry, no other industry brings such revenue to the treasury ...
  3. Altona
    Altona April 17 2018 08: 03
    0
    Quote: Dead Day
    Yes, what America ... we neighbors almost all lost, with their "wise" policies ...

    ----------------------------
    Kazakhstan is a competitor to us in the sale of minerals and hydrocarbons. Ukraine and Belarus are highly dependent on our supply of hydrocarbons. We now actually have Gazprom-Rosneft diplomacy in everything, plus the war of Gazprom. Nothing personal is just a business, and therefore the relationship is appropriate. A separation of Gazprom is only good.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather April 17 2018 08: 24
      0
      Quote: Altona
      separation of Gazprom is only good

      Who would doubt that...
  4. BAI
    BAI April 17 2018 09: 10
    +2
    Weapons - an export product that develops its own high technology and political influence on customers. It’s better to sell weapons for 100 million than 100 million for gas, and to have constant hemorrhoids with the EU and Ukraine.
    1. cosmogonist
      cosmogonist April 23 2018 15: 06
      0
      Quote: BAI
      100 million to sell weapons,
      And get it?
  5. vlad007
    vlad007 April 17 2018 09: 48
    0
    Yes, that's right, Russia is getting involved in an arms race. But! We have weapons produced by state-owned enterprises and, consequently, an increase in the production of weapons leads to an increase in the public sector in the economy.
  6. Imobile
    Imobile April 17 2018 10: 15
    0
    Selling weapons is profitable! Speaking of Americans, they trade with rich countries, and we with the poor. In addition, we usually dump, and most often we simply deliver our own loans for the account, then write them off. I do not agree with the settlement, it’s better than nothing. It would be better if we occupied 5% than to sell at our own expense. And so I agree that it is necessary to develop this area, increase efficiency, and attract high-tech companies (Yandex, for example) Although, with the introduction of sanctions against the defense industry, this will not be easy. But we must understand that there are 2 players, NATO and we, we have great chances despite the sanctions
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 April 17 2018 15: 43
      0
      The United States generally delivers weapons for free to Eastern Europe, for example. During the war and in the USSR, most of it was delivered for free. Fools, probably ...
      1. Awaz
        Awaz April 17 2018 16: 50
        0
        latest systems? Of course not . They stupidly recycle junk. For all the Balts, this looks like a “big brother” concern, but for the USA, it’s easier to donate junk than to process it.
    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 18 2018 12: 52
      0
      Quote: Imobile
      In addition, we usually dump, and most often we just deliver our own loans for the account, then write them off

      Who told you that for free? No, this is not so, so we buy it when, loyalty, when friendship, and much more))))))) Everything is just like in ordinary life, like in business, there are unforeseen expenses for "lovers"))))) If do not contain it, but it’s beautiful, desired, then a competitor will outbid it, and she will hand you over to him with giblets, even something about which she foolishly blabbed))))))
  7. S_Baykala
    S_Baykala April 17 2018 12: 26
    +2
    In the USSR, the arms race played a role in the collapse, I do not argue. But why? My opinion: a huge number of weapons delivered to some countries absolutely is free Plus their service, repair. Now I do not think that this will happen. I ask you to clarify with Syria, well, if it’s free, then at the expense of future orders, development, gender. minerals, construction contracts, etc. But this is an isolated case, not as before. Now our armaments want to earn. Given the almost unlimited (largest in the world) reserve of natural resources, well-developed scientific potential, vast experience in the creation and development of weapons - and why not? This also includes the development of its industry, science, and infrastructure. The only thing is desirable state. top-level control so that weapons are not in the hands of outright bandits. A hit on prestige can be very serious.
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 April 17 2018 15: 49
      0
      Yeah. It was necessary to take with the Vietnamese dollars. While fool-Americans, all the countries of Southeast Asia armed for free. How stupid is shopkeeping thinking in some ...
      You can not refuse free and preferential supplies. But at the same time, one must be able to look at tens and hundreds of years ahead. Know who to give and to whom to sell.
      For example, Syria can now be delivered free of charge to the S-300 and T-90 with possible partial repayment subsequently. Anyone against? Is it better to throw ours there? Or just wait until the barmalei in Dagestan come?
      1. Standard
        Standard April 17 2018 21: 56
        +1
        Quote: meandr51
        Syria can now be delivered free of charge to the S-300 and T-90 with possible partial repayment subsequently. Anyone against?

        I'm against. wink
        Bashar al-Assad refused to pay the debt of his dad Hafiz al-Assad (something 10 billion dollars.) With the reason that the debt was to the USSR, and the Russian Federation is another state. (It was 4 years before the war in Syria).
        So I would like to clarify this issue first.
      2. S_Baykala
        S_Baykala April 18 2018 10: 59
        0
        Meandr51
        Yeah, only the speech in the comments about the role in the collapse of the USSR was, I recommend 1 to read the proposal. And everything was attached to this. You see, even with my shop thinking, I understand perfectly well that these weapons were delivered to different countries for free, not for beautiful negroes, for example, eyes repeat such idiots to give absolutely without purpose weapons, I can’t even imagine. The USSR simply handed out a lot of it, in the hope of future returns, and this played a role.
    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 18 2018 13: 05
      +1
      Quote: S_Baykala
      In the USSR, the arms race played a role in the collapse, I do not argue. But why?

      Here I do not agree with you, with the supply of equipment to the socialist countries, we loaded our capacities, there was no downtime and an oversupply of goods, there was no unemployment, well, they bought loyalty and friendship between countries, I judge by how events occurred at our military-industrial complex, when Gorbi came, and in the late 80s and early 90s the shops began to stop, just because Gorbi said that peace, friendship, chewing gum, you don’t need your own from consumer goods, they trampled down overseas, they began to raise their industries, ruin their people ran from the shops. So not the race played a negative role, but the stupid leadership of the Union combined with betrayal.
  8. Grandfather Barsik
    Grandfather Barsik April 17 2018 19: 40
    +1
    not bring to good
  9. Sailor
    Sailor April 17 2018 21: 33
    +1
    I have always been of the opinion that if we don’t know how to make a / m and other civilian products, but tanks and air defense planes and the like turn out well, this should be done, and buyers will always be there, just for free, as it was in USSR. And with this money and buy normal cars.
  10. Standard
    Standard April 17 2018 21: 51
    0
    On the arms race, the President in his speech to the Federal Assembly declared the most important: we have already won the arms race. And therefore, we will not participate in the arms race.

    It’s possible that for someone Putin uses the old-Soviet concept (an arms race is an idea to push the enemy’s calculated ideas to divert his resources), but the President can and should use this approach.