Borisov compared the effectiveness of the defense budgets of Russia and the United States

On Saturday, January 11, at the Hero of Russia Siberian Federal University, General V.P. Dubynin, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Yuri Borisov gave a lecture for cadets of the military training center. In his speech, he raised questions regarding the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

In particular, he noted that Russia, having a defense budget of 12-14 times lower than that of the United States and NATO, and being in sixth place in the world in its absolute volume, has a high defense capability. This allows us to maintain parity, guaranteeing the country's security.

For comparison, the Deputy Prime Minister cited data on military budgets. For example, this year the United States plans to spend $ 750 billion on defense, and the entire North Atlantic Alliance - 1 trillion. Borisov notes that in Russia this figure is 12-14 times lower.

The Deputy Prime Minister also referred to the data of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on defense spending of various countries of the world for 2018. Last year, they amounted to 61,4 billion dollars for Russia, while the United States spent 649 billion on defense. In absolute terms, the military budgets of Russia and Saudi Arabia are comparable, which last year spent $ 67,6 billion for defense purposes.

Comments

[rocket757]

Obvious, I hope, incredible!
Russia can destroy any enemy, but this will not be an acceptable victory!
Do not aggravate the situation to the extreme line! If you have to step over, it will not be good for ANYONE!
THIS IS AN OBVIOUS FACT; you should not make it out of the probable real.

[Spartanez300]

And what about the USA, don’t invest such grandmas in the military budget, they print these bucks as I don’t want to spend candy wrappers.

[rocket757]

Stripes, skillfully, maneuver their military investments in real profit. This cannot be taken away from them.

[NEXUS]

Quote: rocket757

Stripes, skillfully, maneuver their military investments in real profit. This cannot be taken away from them.

Are you sure that even the wars that they unleashed in the BV brought them a profit commensurate with the cost of all this? The United States left World War II, becoming rich, but ... half the world fought there and all the most developed economies in the world. Now, in order for the United States to get rich again, and so to speak in plus, we need a global war, not local clashes. But the problem is that now we have a strategic nuclear forces, which are guaranteed to be able to destroy the profit of the mattresses and the USA, as a state as a whole.
US Army as a malignant tumor on the budget body. It is growing, it requires more costs, effort and time. A too bloated army, not at war, at all times was not profitable, because it eats a lot of state resources, money, etc. In ancient times, armies were assembled precisely when they fought, and in peace (relatively) time, not a single ruler maintained an army according to the Schaub-O principle.

[voyaka uh]

"The US Army as a malignant tumor on the budget body" ////
----
Right! But this is - any army is so.
Question: how much is the military budget
percent of GDP. The United States has 4%. This is a lot, but not very much. Tolerant.
Russia has as much. China has less, Israel has more.
In terms of the number of troops, the American army is small.
One million troops in all. For a country of 330 million - quite a bit.

[Liam]

Quote: voyaka uh

Russia has as much

Add these more
Russia: almost 17% of the budget for 2019 is classified


Where and what more than 3 trillion rubles will go to is unknown
MOSCOW - The draft federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2019 includes more than 3 trillion rubles for secret and top secret expenses.

This amounts to almost 17% of all expenditures foreseen for the next year, and equal to 2,9% of GDP.

[NEXUS]

Quote: voyaka uh

One million troops in all.

I’m sure to surprise you, but it doesn’t matter how many US troops there are, since there are always armies of the Anglo-Saxon Union, as well as armies that are at their full disposal. Such as the armies of Germany, France, Belgium and so on ... And if necessary, they will recruit Mexicans, Indians, Puerto Ricans for the promise to give a green car.

[voyaka uh]

"I will probably surprise you, but it does not matter how many US military personnel" ////
----
Usually, in the experience of two Iraqi wars, at least the Americans
3/4 load in combat.
Only the British are really actively fighting, although their ground forces are tiny.
And Canadians with Australians send small forces.
The Dutch fought well in Afghanistan. In the second Iraqi, the Poles distinguished themselves.
But anyway, America contributes 80 percent.

[Amin_vivec]

I remember the year 2000 and M. Leontiev on the first channel said that the dollar will soon be kirdyk ... Soon it did not happen ...
And now, when the countries' ZRVs cease to be dollar-denominated, something begins to appear - and therefore let it be printed. An arms race is being planned, and at the same time, Russia is nominally in the lead in this race - is it not for that it is being conceived to provoke the Yankees to print more?

[bouncyhunter]

Vitya
A fly swatter for 20 rubles destroys 200 flies (in capable hands). The ultrasonic "fly exterminator" for 20000 rubles destroys 201 flies. Is the hint clear?

[rocket757]

hello Pasha
The paradox / joke is that they manage to suck in their allies with their super- super fly swatter! This is an obvious fact.
Not all of course, a significant part of the costs falls on their budget, public debt, but they successfully forgive their debts and do not worry much.
If they succeed, shift their debts onto especially .... suffering! In this they are molos! Although, this is a situation when there are those who want to buy their copper penny for their hard-earned gold !!! Power of "persuasion" or stupidity, go figure it out! Just contacting the fact.

[bouncyhunter]

Quote: rocket757

Power of "persuasion" or stupidity, go figure it out

And what to understand? Whose words are:
"A kind word with a colt in hand is more convincing than a kind word."

[rocket757]

Quote: bouncyhunter

"A kind word with a colt in hand is more convincing than a kind word."

Wow !!! Under Trump, this is like a motto in all their affairs / deeds. Do we not know this!

[bouncyhunter]

That's for sure .
I am Orthodox, but I adhere to this principle:
"They gave it to the right cheek - take off the gun from the wall and shoot him in the face!"

[rocket757]

I have nothing to do with religion, but faith is all different.
And the correct, reasonable principles, wherever they were written, proclaimed, can only help us! We take and use ... i.e. they didn’t teach us to turn the second cheek.

[Kuroneko]

Not allies, but slaves, this is the first, and the second - non and slaves think of themselves, so their sanctions, sanctions! And then they often got sick, buying not from the "shining city on the hill", but from some vile Russian and hefty aggressive Mordor.

[rocket757]

Quote: Kuroneko

Not to allies, but to slaves,

Well, you sozh about "haberdashery"! They are around the "cardinal" such cool "round dances" arrange. "Any expensive" to look at it!

[Nikolay Ivanov_5]

Quote: bouncyhunter

Vitya
A fly swatter for 20 rubles destroys 200 flies (in capable hands). The ultrasonic "fly exterminator" for 20000 rubles destroys 201 flies. Is the hint clear?

Skilful hands are needed for a fly swatter for 20 rubles, but nothing is needed for a fly fighter.

[bouncyhunter]

Quote: Nikolay Ivanov_5

nothing is needed for the fighter flies

Besides its price.

[Doctor]

And to whom are your lamentations addressed?

[WILL]

A somewhat strange article ... showed the size of MO pocket money, without analyzing their costs.
What is the conclusion?
Thanks to the USSR for the creation of the Nuclear Triad, the main guarantee of Our Security. Well, and a special thank you - for the advance guard that entered the combat duty, it’s somehow calmer with them ...

[bouncyhunter]

Quote: ANIMAL

somehow calmer with them ...

Calmer - yes. But one should not calm down. Calmness is the first step towards inevitability.

[Kuroneko]

Quote: ANIMAL

without analyzing their costs.

The analysis is as it is, in general, and everywhere. Money spent on Nonsense (excluding rearmament). Just by virtue of a more modest budget, just these 12-14 times we have less of them flowing away. Well, the military lobby in the Russian Federation is much weaker, and does not dictate its own policy in parliament.
The very ass is with the fleet. But it takes a long time to paint all this "beauty" there, and I don't want to.

[Altona]

Quote: ANIMAL

A somewhat strange article ... showed the size of MO pocket money, without analyzing their costs.

---------------------------------
Yes, they lit up the numbers without revealing them in any way. But Borisov is perhaps the only literate in this regard, he can show them from any angle - technical, material support and other indicators. About the US military budget, we only know that the lion's share of it is spent on providing servicemen and maintaining the fleet of equipment in good condition, and that, as it were, this is not enough, since the share of ships and equipment remains uncovered by funding. And the latest technology increases maintenance costs at times, so we see a constant return to old technology in the form of the F-15, F / A-18, the modernization of "Abrams". I am not sure that the situation with our budget is much better, because we see how they are trying to "master funding" in terms of "new weapons".

[orionvitt]

Quote: ANIMAL

Thanks to the USSR for the creation of the Nuclear Triad, the main guarantee of Our Security

USSR, soon as 30 years gone. The nuclear triad, in addition to its creation, must be constantly maintained, modernized and updated, otherwise it is worthless. It is only the "literate chubs" in Ukraine who are getting richer in their dumkoyu, saying that if they had not given up nuclear weapons, "if only now the Akhressor would be shown Kuzkin's mother." Nuclear weapons, by themselves, require enormous resources, both financial and intellectual. Not to mention the carriers. And by itself, a nuclear charge, without maintenance and without the presence of the necessary infrastructure, eventually turns into a "firing piece of iron". Even conventional ammunition, not so high-tech, has the ability to "rot".

[WILL]

Do you feel the difference between the concepts: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Triad?

[orionvitt]

I understand perfectly. "Nuclear weapons" is a spatial term, and the Nuclear Triad is a complex of weapons. Do you understand that nuclear weapons and all types of delivery vehicles are interconnected. Both technically, politically, and, what can I say, financially. One without the other cannot exist in principle.

[WILL]

Well ... and what Country (Triad) created it?

[orionvitt]

Quote: ANIMAL

Well ... and what Country (Triad) created it?

Well, well .... and which country (the Triad) has preserved it. To create, yes, it is magnificent, for which our fathers and grandfathers have great respect. But when ever created, you still need to be able to save and preferably multiply. (especially in our turbulent times).

[WILL]

Now back to my first comment!

Quote: ANIMAL

Thanks to the USSR for the creation of the Nuclear Triad, the main guarantee of Our Security.
Well, and a special thank you - for the advance guard that entered the combat duty, it’s somehow calmer with them ...

What exactly did not suit you in it, the creation of the Vanguard, this is not the modernization and maintenance of the Nuclear Triad created by the USSR? And why is your speech about

Quote: orionvitt

USSR, soon as 30 years gone. The nuclear triad, in addition to its creation, must be constantly maintained, modernized and updated, otherwise it is worthless. It is only the "literate chubs" in Ukraine who are getting richer in their dumkoyu, saying that if they had not given up nuclear weapons, "if only now the Akhressor would be shown Kuzkin's mother." Nuclear weapons, by themselves, require enormous resources, both financial and intellectual. Not to mention the carriers. And by itself, a nuclear charge, without maintenance and without the presence of the necessary infrastructure, eventually turns into a "firing piece of iron". Even conventional ammunition, not so high-tech, has the ability to "rot".

After which, in other words, you repeated mine?

Quote: orionvitt

Well, well .... and which country (the Triad) has preserved it. To create, yes, it is magnificent, for which our fathers and grandfathers have great respect. But when ever created, you still need to be able to save and preferably multiply. (especially in our turbulent times).

[Pereira]

Borisov notes that in Russia this figure is 12-14 times lower.

If we had the same printing press, businessmen would have mastered more.

[Terenin]

Borisov: This allows us to maintain parity, guaranteeing the country's security.

If our country still exists, then Deputy Prime Minister tells the truth

[Private-K]

It is a pity that there are no special publications detailing the reasons for the extreme inefficiency of NATO military budgets.
It remains only to guess where, what and how.

[Spartanez300]

On average, in recent years, the domestic Ministry of Defense spent about 60% of the budget on the purchase of military equipment (larger amounts during the state arms program and smaller in current years, until the launch of the new GPV from 2023 to 2033), but the Pentagon could allocate only 6− 7% under Obama, and about 13% now. All other US funds are spent on the maintenance of the incredibly inflated occupation infrastructure, compensation for the corruption component, the race with Russia and China and other “weights”. The Second World War ended 74 years ago, the Korean War 66 years, the Vietnamese 45 years, and the Cold War 28 years ago, but the United States still maintains about 800 military bases outside its territory. 172 of them are located in “liberated” Germany, 113 in “sovereign” Japan, 83 in “right” South Korea, and hundreds more garrisons are scattered across 80 countries from Australia to Colombia. As a result of a number of reasons, the American military-industrial complex, even consuming 36% of all world spending on armaments, remains ineffective in comparison with the Russian one, and the more Moscow becomes more active in the world arena, the more difficult is the most powerful propaganda machine on the plan to retouch this reality.

[Private-K]

Quote: Spartanez300

The Pentagon could allocate for this only 6-7% under Obama, and about 13% now. All other US funds are spent on maintaining the incredibly inflated occupation infrastructure, compensation for the corruption component, the race with Russia and China, and other “weights”.

Still, as it seems to me, the main items of "ineffective expense" are:
a) the corruption component (in R&D, in the procurement of arms and military equipment, in the logistics department, in the maintenance of bases and other objects)
b) spending on non-military programs (this is more typical for Europeans).
Bases and other objects ... I think you can really file there. For example, the Americans formally abandoned (they do not use it all the time, but they keep it, as it were, in reserve) many bases and facilities in the Pacific Ocean and in other regions. But within the framework of budget financing, interested influential persons can “spend” quite a lot of money on their “maintenance”.
And in Europe, many military-budgetary programs do not apply to the Armed Forces in any way. Well, for example, "a humanitarian program for the development and inculcation of tolerance among the military." It is carried out on the basis of outsourcing. Lecturers from a specialized organization conduct many lectures, and each lecture is very heavily paid - for example, in the amount of the monthly salary of the battery captain-commander. Not well, but what? Pays - the military budget. And such and similar programs - overdohua.

[voyaka uh]

"All the rest of the US funds are spent on the maintenance incredibly
bloated occupation infrastructure "////
---
No. On the salaries of soldiers and officers and pensions to them.
A small percentage of the military budget is spent on all kinds of military bases and other things.
Their army is all contracted. They pay a lot, pensions are also substantial.
This is where the breakthrough of money is spent.

[Adam Khomich]

The freshest example. The United States has pushed Abramsa to the Young Europeans, but there is no infrastructure for them. Narrow paths - under a passenger car, this colossus cannot squeeze through bridges or under bridges. So what? They began to expand, deepen, strengthen. And this is at a cost how to rebuild!

[Ros 56]

Spit on the effectiveness of striped, the more spenders the better. We need to increase the efficiency of using our funds, and not hide in our pockets.

[Ravil_Asnafovich]

All this is good, but how much was stolen specifically, and the half-received military equipment, etc.? Probably only for a spaceport for another twenty years will the investigation go?

[Adimius38]

Well, if you compare the territory of Saudi Arabia and Russia, it turns out that in absolute terms, the military budget of Russia is like a glass of sunflower seeds for the army. With a budget at the Russian level, Saudi Arabia has a territory 8 times less than the territory of the Russian Federation ON a head above the Russian Federation in terms of saturating its army with modern military developments. With this budget, we have all the deliveries by piece. Although we have good technology and Soviet groundwork. It's just silly to compare in quantitative terms, because we can't even master a dozen new tanks for our army. Of course, we have thousands of tanks, but they are Soviet))) Many amateurs like to compare the number of tanks, guns, etc., but only few take into account the fact that this is a Soviet-made technique and in the bulk is outdated and at least needs for maintaining the pants at least in modernization, but we do not have the money for this either to carry out a full modernization, for example, the same T-72 tank. Therefore, with such a budget, we will not surpass even the Saudis. What can we say about the United States, where $ 750 billion for the army is a leap forward in terms of not only the production of iron (modern aircraft) ships), etc., but also in terms of scientific and technological progress, unique new technologies. Of course, everything depends on the economy, so it is difficult to blame the amount of our military budget here, given our economic "development" or not development with those people who are now engaged in this, given the level of corruption and failed economic reforms.

[knn54]

An unimportant fact is modernization, the development of new weapons systems, research, etc. - everything is state-owned and therefore much cheaper. This applies to China.

[iouris]

And compared in volume? But about 10% of the military budget is R&D. The Pentagon spends more on research and development than the official military budget of the Russian Federation. And where is science more advanced?

[Adam Khomich]

What is science like? Are you talking about English scientists? The United States stole or bought everyone and everything. Now it’s impossible to steal, and only their iPhones are riveted, films are shot, and heifers are squeezed. They have no R&D, then a dead end. Eight out of 10 aircraft carriers at the docks are under repair. There is a lot of old junk, so Trump is trying to get all the grunts from his budgets to give him 4% of GDP for poverty.

[A hundred]

All need to change the General Staff, the Government and vertically ..! Chatterboxes alone settled in the top ..
Medals and orders and most importantly the Stars of Heroes, as after the Second World War in the 45th ..
Someone plows for their homeland, Fatherland, but these are accountable and receive awards .. Oh mother Russia!

[bouncyhunter]

"Every day the country is at war
To whom - hell, to whom - orders "
(c) "Lube"

[A hundred]

Quote: bouncyhunter

"Every day the country is at war
To whom - hell, to whom - orders "
(c) "Lube"

That's right, Pasha .. !!!! Evil is not enough, but what to do?
Still need to protect the homeland And damn us not a brother ..

[bouncyhunter]

Quote: Hundred

Evil is not enough, but what to do?

Like what ? Preserve evil in banks; open as necessary.

[A hundred]

Quote: bouncyhunter

Quote: Hundred

Evil is not enough, but what to do?

Like what ? Preserve evil in banks; open as necessary.

This is exactly what I do Pasha, when I’m already unbearable .. The brains are washed well here .. And when they’re completely taken out, I open the "can of canned meat in memory" ..
Helps wake up and perk up !!! (I figuratively) ..
But the young people here are easily amenable to propaganda and brainwashing ..
I’m living for the sake of it. I swallow pills hehe

[midshipman]

I have been working in this field since 1963. There was Ch. the designer of many ATS. Serially ensured their production. But everything is in the past. At the present time, we need to outline a perspective that will allow us to be the first in the strike ATS. Think of 1972, Egypt. We were so ahead of everyone else that only a special case forced our country to leave that region. Read my article in "VO" "Creative business trip"

[bobba94]

We talked with a friend on this subject and he, an ironic man, advised me to find on the Internet information about the salary of the local warrant officer (we have an ensign), about the salary of our colonel and compare. My friend also advised me to find information about the cost of the M10 nut somewhere in Dallas and the cost of the same nut in Lipetsk and also compare. A friend laughs and says - you’ll compare, then you will understand why they have military spending 10 times more than ours.

[Adimius38]

Well, with nuts it’s clear)) but to think if they make nuts at a price like ours, then the costs will be the same, it’s fundamentally wrong too))) The fact is that they are capable of mass production of military equipment and any other weapons and they produce in bulk, which we can’t do, and even with our cheap M10 nut, we don’t have money. I will say more, make them the price of the M10 nut as ours and they will throw the whole world with their tanks, airplanes and ships.

[75 Sergey]

It is necessary to find pluses in the minuses!
Our motto is ssy, all God's dew!
Two negatives make an affirmative!
He knows!
Do not believe your eyes, but believe his conscience!
Taburetkin’s case continues!

[Adam Khomich]

If the United States takes away their propaganda machine (newspapers, radio, TV, Hollywood), then they will stretch out a year of strength! The hegemon is blown away. The Persians bombed the other day. And last year, Eun sent to a known address. Pichalka.

[Altona]

Quote: adam khomich

The hegemon is blown away. The Persians bombed the other day. And last year, Eun sent to a known address.

--------------------------------------------
Well, we only did not buy tomatoes for six months. Pichalka. Although the murder of the pilot and ambassador could well be answered, and not to the hegemon, but only to Turkey.

[Adam Khomich]

If we take into account the internal situation in Ankara on the eve of this tragedy (an attempt to overthrow Erdogan and participate in our salvation of ours), a provocation is quite visible! The victim is not in vain! Do you propose starting a war with Turkey?

[Altona]

Quote: adam khomich

If we take into account the internal situation in Ankara on the eve of this tragedy (an attempt to overthrow Erdogan and participate in our salvation of ours)

--------------------------------
It was General Suleimani and his special forces who participated in the rescue of our people, and not Erdogan, whom you remember. And Turkey would have held out against us for a long time when its vaunted Leopards-2-4 burned out like matches. A large-scale war would not have happened anyway, so your purely propaganda mantra does not work. You propose to kill our servicemen and authorized persons with impunity and consider such sacrifices to be fully justified. "If only there was no war," and let them do whatever they want, they will even slip into their pockets. And "the sacrifice is not in vain", of course, the valve of the Turkish Stream was turned. You can put at least someone on the altar for the gas.
PS They were afraid of the notorious 5 paragraph of the NATO Charter, but it has not been working for a long time. Nobody wants to subscribe to World War III in a hot version. The assassination of General Suleimani first showed how the US allies reacted. With deaf discontent.

[Adam Khomich]

While Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu tears his hair in opposition to the aggressive plans of the United States and NATO, trying to give a decent answer to the Americans for their wayward behavior, we will look at the beautiful half of his ministry.
"Generals", "Marshals" and all for a feast for the eyes, just envy. A whole harem of beautiful women with high ranks, hung with state awards, like a tree with garlands. Where did they come from, how did they deserve such an honor, and how much do they cost the MO budget?

[Horon]

The difference in budgets can also be big, because someone has an offensive development strategy, and someone has a defensive one. The Americans are building their strategy to expand their influence, Russia is still on the defensive.

[Adimius38]

nonsense is everything, defensive offensive dust in the eyes. The army either exists or does not exist. Either there is something to fight or nothing. In this case, the United States has the most powerful army in the world, of course we will not compare nuclear weapons here. But what other country can boast of such an attack surface fleet with the exact number of strike ships of frigates, destroyers, cruisers, I am silent about aircraft carriers, auxiliary fleet, landing ships ... no. The same China, although it is trying to catch up with the United States in ships, but they do not care as much as cancer to Paris before the technologies that the states have accumulated over many decades in the field of shipbuilding. If we even talk about a defensive strategy, we don’t even have enough money for it, for example, we cannot build a powerful defense in the Chinese direction.

[Altona]

Quote: Adimius38

In this case, the United States has the most powerful army in the world.

-----------------------------
Even the United States can’t put up a powerful ground group against Iran, although it nominally has 3 million bayonets. It’s just that the logistics training will be so expensive and even in open areas that Iran will calmly destroy it before the X hour, while it is deploying.

[Adimius38]

Well, why is the US all the more land war)) or you think fools are in the US) and as for Iran, they will triumph over it without even stepping on their land, having complete superiority in technology and weapons

[Altona]

Quote: Adimius38

Well, why the United States this war is all the more land)) or you think fools are sitting in the United States)

-------------------------
I already wrote about this. Look at my comments, it says "there is enough media pressure".

[voyaka uh]

"although nominally has 3 million bayonets" ///
---
The entire US army - all-all-all - one million people.

[Horon]

Contradict yourself:

nonsense is everything, defensive offensive dust in the eyes

then:

what other country can boast such an attack surface fleet with the exact number of strike ships of frigates, destroyers, cruisers, I am silent about aircraft carriers, auxiliary fleet, landing ships

This is the offensive development strategy of the army, here we must also add the presence of military bases around the world. All this costs money, and not small.
A defensive strategy is the development of the army without claiming to expand the zone of influence. Spending in this case is much lower, the efficiency of spending is higher.

[gig090]

In particular, he noted that Russia, having a defense budget of 12-14 times lower than that of the United States and NATO, and being in sixth place in the world in its absolute volume, has a high defense capability. This allows us to maintain parity, guaranteeing the country's security.

Let's look objectively, the parity with us now is not from the fact that we have geniuses in leadership. And from the fact that most of the weapons, and this is 60-70 percent, consists of weapons that were built in Soviet Russia (strategic nuclear forces, fleet, aviation, tanks, etc.). Take it away and all our weapons in the army will be reduced by 70%. So thanks to the USSR, their weapons still protect our peace and quiet. And if weapons were being built in the USSR at the same pace as now, we would have been destroyed long ago.

[Adimius38]

everything is true, I wrote about the same thing and they like to make comparisons in the number of tanks and cannons, but it’s only silent that these tanks and cannons were made in the bulk of the USSR and you’re right if we remove all this from our army, then for a big war we we will remain naked ... And really thank the USSR to those people for that Soviet military-industrial complex thanks to which we still have an army. That's how the military-industrial complex worked under the Soviets of Mig-23 years of production 1969 - 1985-the number of machines 3 (fighter modifications) 630 MiG-769UB, that is, 23 machines in 4399 years or 16 aircraft of this model only per year is impressive in my opinion.