Military budgets of the USSR, USA, China and the Russian Federation: a comparison in numbers


The size of the appropriations for defense spending has always been a "sore point" in our country for both conditional "liberals" and no less conditional "patriots." True, at the same time they approached its consideration and assessment from diametrically opposite positions.


The former, as a rule, reduced their point of view to the fact that the country “wasted colossal means for militarization,” seeing in it the undoubted root of all economic and social problems. The latter, as you might guess, rested on the fact that the cost of the army in Russia, in contrast to the USSR, is "completely inadequate" both in comparison with its most likely opponents (countries of the NATO bloc), and with the same China.

However, recently the “representatives of the democratic public” have taken over the baton from them, trying to assert that our country has nothing to try to enter into serious geopolitical disputes and conflicts - with its "meager military budget." So who is still right?

It depends on how you count


To begin with, the astounding figures repeatedly quoted in various domestic mass media “of the enormous expenditures on the army and the military-industrial complex” that supposedly took place in the Soviet Union and “undermined its economy” do not completely correspond to the truth. However, like the vast majority of anti-Soviet "horror stories" generated in the bad times of "perestroika" and repeated like sacred mantras by its "foremen".

Here are three of the most common and well-known options.

USSR Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze talked about 19% of the gross national product (GNP, not to be confused with GDP!) Of the USSR, which goes to defense needs. Mikhail Gorbachev “rounded” this figure to 20%. The chief of the General Staff of the Soviet Army, Army General Vladimir Lobov, outdid both of them, publicly declaring that the "war milk" devours a third of the country's GNP, if not more!

The Americans who perfectly heard what he said were immediately calculated: the percentage voiced by the chief staff officer looked like 260 billion rubles (if you take the 1988 prices). At the official exchange rate, more than $ 300 billion!

The United States defense spending in that period ranged between 250-280 billion a year, so it sounded quite reliable. That's just absolutely not true. This is partly proved by the fact that the “perestroika”, who took control of the country and began to “reduce” (and in fact just ruin) the domestic defense industry at an accelerated pace, did not solve any economic and general economic problems. On the contrary, they bred them above the roof.

However, in the United States itself, analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, who were tasked with assessing the size of the defense costs of the Soviet Union and their share in the country's budget, considered the figures of Shevardnadze, Gorbachev and Lobov to be unscientific fiction. In the CIA, by the way, from the 50s of the last century until the collapse of the USSR, a special SKAM program was in place, the purpose of which was exclusively to determine the share of military spending in the Soviet GNP. Spent on its implementation from 5 to 10 billion dollars (according to various estimates). So, with the sweaty faces of the analysts from Langley it turned out that in reality the Soviets spent up to 12% of GNP in the 70s and up to 15% in the 80s. When the tserushniki tried to comprehend the difference between the official ruble to dollar exchange rate published in the Izvestia newspaper and the real ratio of the two currencies according to their purchasing power, their brains simply began to boil.

So how was everything really? According to the most reliable data, the official military budget of the Soviet Union from 1968 to 1984 amounted to approximately $ 17 billion (with slight fluctuations over the years). In 1985-1987, it increased to 19-20 billion. In 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev approved defense spending of more than 77 billion rubles. To recalculate then rubles into dollars is an extremely difficult matter, I will leave it to those who wish to do it themselves. The military spending of the United States, as mentioned above, far exceeded 200 billion a year. So what, we spent "on guns" 10 times less than Americans ?! Let's not rush to conclusions.

MIC of Russia: risen from the ashes?


It is no coincidence that the above figures are official. In the USSR there were plenty of ways in which they, so to speak, corrected themselves so as not to jeopardize the image of the most peace-loving state on the planet. Just one example: missiles were products of the Ministry of Engineering, and warships went through the shipbuilding department. The USSR is not the United States, the military did not buy out the products produced for them by other sectors of the national economy, but received it. According to more objective data, the real military costs of the Soviet Union in the period 1985-1991 ranged from 260 to 319 billion dollars, the United States - from 258 to 306. Here you have a very real military-strategic parity, which really existed.

Alas, with the collapse of the great and powerful country, the ratio began to change rapidly - not in our favor, of course. The military budget of Russia from 1992 to 1995 collapsed from 142 to 40 billion dollars, while the Americans continued to remain at the same level. What will happen next, I will not paint: what is the point of repeating well-known truths, almost axioms? In the country there was a real pogrom of the military-industrial complex and the collapse of the armed forces, after which the defense industry had to be reborn from the ashes and ruins like a fabulous Phoenix bird. The "countdown" began after the arrival of Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin. Whether someone likes it or not, numbers and facts are stubborn. In order not to wander in the wilds and avoid discrepancies, in the future I will cite statistics according to the generally accepted estimates of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). According to the data announced by its experts, the military budget of Russia has grown from 34,5 billion dollars in 2006 to 90,4 in 2013. Now he is about 46 billion dollars.

In the future, surprisingly enough for some domestic and foreign experts, the country's defense spending decreased. In 2018, according to the same SIPRI, it amounted to 61,4 billion dollars. How so? In recent years, the United States has been increasing spending on the Pentagon with unprecedented intensity - $ 649 billion in 2019 and the expected 738 in 2020! Over the past 20 years, China has increased the amount invested in defense by 850% - from 20 to 170 billion a year! At the same time, many analysts are inclined to believe that, as in the Soviet Union, the figures officially announced by Beijing do not closely reflect the true costs. Our country somehow imperceptibly “dropped out” from its firmly occupied third position in the SIPRI ranking, leaving India, France and even Saudi Arabia ahead. What is it? The harbinger of a new army disaster, or, on the contrary, an indicator that we finally learned how to spend people's money wisely without squandering them and investing in expensive dummies? There is no way to talk about the decline or stagnation of the Russian military-industrial complex - after all, a number of countries (including China) are purchasing our S-400 air defense systems, and not someone else's. The same situation with other air defense systems, aviation, armored vehicles. Huge budgets are not at all a 3% guarantee that money from them will not be stolen or wasted in vain (there are plenty of materials on the Pentagon’s completely failed projects that cost hundreds of millions, if not billions). One more thing to keep in mind: the USA and China are countries with huge GDP. As a percentage of this, we spend about the same amount on the army as the Americans (about 2%) and even less than the Chinese comrades, who officially do not reach XNUMX%.

The country will be richer - perhaps military spending will increase again (if necessary). In any case, the fact that in previous years Russia did not spare money on its security, in fact, made it possible to exist as a sovereign state today.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. GKS 2111 28 January 2020 06: 46 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    USSR Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze talked about 19% of the gross national product (GNP, not to be confused with GDP!) Of the USSR, which goes to defense needs. Mikhail Gorbachev “rounded” this figure to 20%. The chief of the General Staff of the Soviet Army, Army General Vladimir Lobov, outdid both of them, publicly declaring that the "war milk" devours a third of the country's GNP, if not more!
    They lie. Everything lies, Minkherz. The myth arose after the scandalous statements of Gorbachev and the Chief of the General Staff, Army General Lobov, who stated that "the military spending of the USSR is one third or even more of the GNP," which would correspond to 260 billion rubles at Western prices. Now these figures are not taken on faith even by the most convinced liberals. So even Gaidar called these reports "contradictory" and testifying that the Soviet leaders themselves did not know the true value of military spending due to the "data irreducibility" of various budget items. It should be assumed that these arbitrary data on Soviet military spending were used by Gorbachev as a weapon against the generals who advocated maintaining military parity with the West. In any case, this data cannot be considered true due to the complete logical absurdity and inconsistency with all known estimates.
    1. bessmertniy 28 January 2020 07: 15 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      The defense industry did not develop to the detriment of other sectors of the USSR. In all other sectors, there was also mainly constant growth. Moreover, higher than today in the last 30 years. She did not interfere with the development of our space program. And most importantly - it provided us with a long post-war world. So our military expenses paid off and continue to pay off. hi
      1. carstorm 11 28 January 2020 07: 40 New
        • 10
        • 6
        +4
        you're not right. this could not even be purely arithmetic. an army of 4-5 million people cannot be without prejudice. this crowd must be armed to feed all the time to wear. more than 10 percent of the population is somehow torn out of the economic activity of the state. with all this, the mobilization system was excellent. why it was difficult to contain such a number of troops. The huge military-industrial complex also did not release anything practically for the economic activity of the state. it is still millions of people and huge funds. I'm not saying that this is bad; I am saying that the approach is extremely unreasonable. at a certain time interval we missed the moment when it was possible to bring all this to mind and reduce costs while not losing combat efficiency. and then at the end of 80 all this game about 20-30 percent of GDP would not have appeared. and more importantly, the army would not have collapsed in the nineties.
        1. Zvonarev 28 January 2020 08: 03 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Sorry, the army of 4-5 million could not make up 10% of the population, even if we count only the able-bodied one. And these millions were needed to undergo military training, so that in which case it would be possible to calmly mobilize the already prepared replenishment and immediately deploy second-tier divisions. Right now, if something happens (God forbid, of course!) - who will be able to mobilize? Well, from the villages there will be even more or less contingent, but only how much is there, the village is dying. And the urban population ... not far from Europe.
          1. carstorm 11 28 January 2020 08: 32 New
            • 3
            • 5
            -2
            I said more than 10))) and I understand what you mean and even agree. but the reserve could be created without such difficulties and costs simply by maintaining a clear amount of this reserve through more frequent fees, for example. there were many options. You can’t keep the country in a paramilitary position all the time. tear up. I’m not stomping on the Soviet system, I just think that changes were needed and missed a critical moment for them.
            1. Zvonarev 28 January 2020 10: 01 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Fees, of course, are a good deal. But they alone are not enough. Fees should be laid on some basis, which is laid during the urgent. To form a decent contingent only at the expense of military fees, these fees should be 1-2 months annually. What economy will it pull? After all, the personnel of enterprises, not school graduates, will be withdrawn.
              1. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 48 New
                • 0
                • 6
                -6
                Quote: Zvonarev
                To form a decent contingent only at the expense of military fees, these fees should be 1-2 months annually.

                Rave. And other armies are an example of this. Enough 1 month for 5 years.
                In order to make a capable army (albeit all in the same 1975), it was necessary to disperse the SA completely. And do not take SA officers-ensigns into the new army (the fish rots from the head). Then there could still be some good from the new army.
            2. Besmaster 3 February 2020 04: 34 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: carstorm 11
              I said more than 10)))

              Even worse. Neither 10, nor even more, more than 10 can not be. 4-5 million people make up only 2% of the population of the USSR. If you count from the able-bodied, then 3%. Just take a calculator and count from 300 million.
          2. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 45 New
            • 0
            • 8
            -8
            Quote: Zvonarev
            And these millions were needed to undergo military training, so that in case of which it would be possible to calmly mobilize the already prepared replenishment and immediately deploy second-tier divisions.

            Did you go through "military training" in the SA? Do you know the quality of "prepared recruiting"?
            CA was incapacitated. A pair of German armies arr. 1941 would deliver SA arr. some 1975 on his knees for several months.
            Quote: Zvonarev
            Now, if something happened (God forbid, of course!) - who will be able to mobilize?

            Exactly the same draft contingent, as in 1975. Even better.
            1. Sailor 30 January 2020 15: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In this regard, I can say the following, I have my own equipment so that after 20 years I remembered everything on the ship and how it works (I mean my warhead-5). I don’t think that preparation was worse in combat units, especially since the service life is not one year, as it is now.
        2. EvilLion 28 January 2020 10: 30 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          4-5 Million just a person is not too much, the main expenses in the army are equipment, and not a soldier’s breakfast, or uniform. Well, for 10-11 million of the Red Army with 6-7 million of the army of the USSR during the Second World War spent about half of the GDP. The Soviet peacetime army certainly did not lose materiel and did not spend ammunition as fast as the warring one, so 15% of GDP is the maximum that the USSR could actually spend, and, most likely, 10% per ur. Russian empire.
      2. nod739 28 January 2020 07: 43 New
        • 7
        • 4
        +3
        Yeah, then you couldn’t buy tights during the day, all the silk left for military parachutes, then you can only buy a washing machine when 8 buckets of lingonberries are handed over to the state ...
        1. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 49 New
          • 0
          • 6
          -6
          Quote: nod739
          then a washing machine can only be bought upon delivery of 8 buckthorn buckets to the state ...

          And not a washing machine, but a “Soviet washing machine”. Those. subject of incomprehensible purpose and doubtful performance.
      3. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 41 New
        • 0
        • 7
        -7
        Quote: bessmertniy
        The defense industry did not develop to the detriment of other sectors of the USSR.

        Of course, not to the detriment. Only there was nothing to eat. And all sorts of funny pieces of iron "military purpose" in the USSR was the sea.
        Quote: bessmertniy
        In all other sectors, there was also mainly constant growth. Moreover, higher than today in the last 30 years.

        Yes, the growth was huge. And permanent. Only when there was absolutely nothing to eat, the USSR took and grunted.
        Quote: bessmertniy
        And most importantly - it provided us with a long post-war world.

        Something has not been her for a long time. And the world is still here.
        Quote: bessmertniy
        So our military expenses paid off and continue to pay off.

        The Soviet desire to eat shit surrounded by mostly incapable pieces of iron, it surprises. The Germans had to scare them like that.
  2. rocket757 28 January 2020 07: 01 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Military expenditures within reasonable necessity \ sufficiency!
    True, who will determine these limits and how is an important question !!!
    But in any case, the military-industrial complex is not only “valuable fur”, it is also the development of many related, related industries ....
    But in summary, these are heavy but necessary expenses of all, many state resources.
    1. Boris55 28 January 2020 07: 53 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      True, who will determine these limits and how is an important question !!!

      Everything is very simple. Today we have excellence in defense over a potential aggressor. So the limit is reached. It remains only to maintain this superiority, and to maintain resources it is always necessary less.
      1. rocket757 28 January 2020 09: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Boris55
        Everything is very simple.

        It is of course, to make tanks, planes, ships and missiles and ....
        WILL NOT WORK!
        Everything changes too quickly and you will have to spend resources on scientific and design developments, and then the manufacture of new equipment again and again!
        such a world is NOT PEACEFUL and very fast changing. One thing does not change, Wishlist all sorts of different, envious and raking.
        1. Lexus 28 January 2020 23: 03 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          One thing does not change, Wishlist all sorts of different, envious and raking.

          Which, if they associate their future with Russia, it is only as a "feeding trough".
          The country will be richer - perhaps

          Will we survive? With "these" for sure not.
          1. rocket757 29 January 2020 08: 20 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: lexus
            Will we survive? With "these" for sure not.

            For our age, everything, everything was enough in abundance. There is someone to hand over the baton to, and by themselves to rest. FINE!
      2. asv363 28 January 2020 11: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Boris55
        Everything is very simple. Today we have achieved superiority in defense over a potential aggressor. So the limit is reached. It remains only to maintain this superiority, and to maintain resources it is always necessary less.

        I can’t agree with you, Boris. Now we are spending unacceptably little on the army, weapons, etc. We must return to the amounts of previous years (about 60 billion in USD), and, moreover, gradually increase them to 100, at least. We cannot afford the luxury of requiring defense industry enterprises to switch to the production of up to 50% of civilian products by 2025, the order should be maintained and increased, just look at aviation. I’d better keep silent about the fleet.
        1. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 53 New
          • 0
          • 6
          -6
          Quote: asv363
          Now we are spending unacceptably little on the army, weapons, etc.

          Probably social programs and health care are unacceptably a lot? Need to cut back yet?
          Quote: asv363
          We must return to the amounts of previous years (about 60 billion in USD), and, moreover, gradually increase them to 100, at least.

          Charming. You will learn to count on the accounts, and you will be treated with plantain?
          Do you recall one country that defended itself to death?
          Quote: asv363
          I’d better keep silent about the fleet.

          Russia's fleet (surface) is not needed at all. Nothing but a mosquito fleet providing underwater strategic nuclear forces.
      3. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 50 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        Quote: Boris55
        Today we have achieved superiority in defense over a potential aggressor.

        Yes? Oh well.
  3. apro 28 January 2020 07: 20 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It is not entirely correct to consider the figures as the figures. The efficiency of the spent I think is the main criterion. Moreover, VPK is not only all but industrial production and science and education.
    1. Lexus 28 January 2020 23: 23 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      It’s not quite correct to count the figures

      Moreover, biased. Like the value of the consumer basket. In the western, “dear”, with a similar amount of products, there will be jamon, cheese made of milk, chocolate candies with cocoa butter and pastries on sunflower, in Russian, “cheap” - sausage from meat processing waste flavored with soy, and the rest from putties "in the form of technical palm and rapeseed oils. It is also worth taking into account the difference in wages in absolute figures, and not linked to unreliable teaching staff. Therefore, at the exit from the enemy, a new generation of equipment is obtained, and in the RF Armed Forces a slightly muffled Soviet one, albeit in somewhat large quantities. A hundred muskets have an insignificant chance of defeating twenty-five automatic rifles with five machine guns. hi
      1. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 54 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        Quote: lexus
        It is also worth taking into account the difference in wages in absolute figures, and not linked to unreliable teaching staff.

        Yes, PPP is bred for suckers.
        They really believe that approximately the same products in the age of globalization can have very different prices.
  4. Vadmir 28 January 2020 07: 22 New
    • 14
    • 3
    +11
    Again, these tales that military spending undermined the economy of the USSR and contributed to its collapse. The USSR did not buy weapons abroad, it produced everything by itself, paying wages to workers and employees. Military technology has contributed to the improvement of consumer goods.
    After all, they tried to turn off the defense industry, as a result of not only a decrease in defense capability and competitiveness in the arms market, but also unemployment and the loss of high-tech production. What contributed to the impoverishment of people and turned Russia into a gas station.
    And the tale of the dangers of weapons production was invented by the people who ruined the Great Power in order to minimize their guilt a little.
    The military-industrial complex provides jobs and salaries, these salaries go to the sphere of trade and services, as a result, the entire economy is growing, and therefore the state also benefits the people directly.
    1. EvilLion 28 January 2020 10: 41 New
      • 2
      • 8
      -6
      Russia does not buy weapons abroad either. What consumer goods in the USSR did the military improve, I am afraid to even ask. Voenka with her approach that any equipment can be destroyed very quickly, which means that it is not worth investing in it more than necessary, in principle, can not improve anything on a civilian. It can only, for example, take away hundreds of helicopters from industry, ensuring the loading of factories, so that similar equipment becomes available to others. But you can’t sell a tank to a civilian.

      MIC gives jobs and salaries


      Can the question be, from the fact that thousands of people gathered the tank, your welfare has somehow improved? Can you somehow use this tank on the farm? No? Well, that’s all then, weapons produced for your army do not increase well-being, it’s just a necessary investment so that all white people don’t come and take away what is, or to come and take by yourself. In ordinary peacetime, the military-industrial complex is only a devourer of resources, human and material, not giving anything in return. As for salaries, if 1 million cars are produced in the economy, it doesn’t matter if there are 10 billion rubles, or 20 billion, in this economy, because there will be no more cars from this, just in the first case the car costs 10 thousand and in the second, 20 thousand. Throwing money into the economy can only warm it up by accelerating the concentration of resources, but it cannot replace, for example, the availability of real energy or raw materials.
      1. Vadmir 28 January 2020 11: 10 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Voenka with her approach that any equipment can be destroyed very quickly, which means that it is not worth investing in it more than necessary, in principle, can not improve anything on a civilian.
        What country are you talking about? Our military man is making sure that a lot of what was produced back in the 60s still functions.
        It can only, for example, take away hundreds of helicopters from industry, ensuring the loading of factories, so that similar equipment becomes available to others.
        In the 90s, it stopped picking up, and where are these hundreds of helicopters? Rotted or sold for a penny.
        But you can’t sell a tank to a civilian.
        Do not sell, it's true, but how can it be without a tank? If people do not want to feed their army, they will feed someone else's.
        Can the question be, from the fact that thousands of people gathered the tank, your welfare has somehow improved?
        The tank factory paid taxes. workers deducted income tax, pension fund fees. Workers went to the store and bought food, clothes, furniture, etc. The store received additional profit, the furniture factory hired more workers, the sewing also expanded production. All is well.
        Do not think in rubles, let's think in the additional jobs that the defense industry creates and which are created thanks to the defense industry. We do not have socialism, those people who will not assemble the tank will not be redistributed to another production - they will simply be fired.
        Throwing money into the economy can only warm it up by accelerating the concentration of resources, but it cannot replace, for example, the availability of real energy or raw materials.
        We have energy and resources, all this is sold for a penny just because there is not enough available money, especially long money - no one gives loans for a long payback, there is no loan, there are no plants, and therefore there are no high-tech industries.
        The State is investing in the defense industry and building factories, restoring factories, and not only tanks will be making at these factories.
        1. EvilLion 28 January 2020 11: 25 New
          • 2
          • 8
          -6
          Now it is functioning, the shell will hit and immediately stop.

          We have energy and resources, all this is sold for a penny


          Not for a penny, but for dollars, for which they take things that we don’t produce, for example, prom. the equipment is often at a unique level and some very complex machine, for which there are a dozen orders in the world, is simply unrealistic to develop from scratch on its own. Actually, therefore, the USSR in any way sought to obtain a currency for which you can purchase something you need. Space by space, but Japanese machine tools for the production of tanks, AvtoVAZ was actually bought from Italians, and at least some kind of film from leading German concerns, to which the domestic chemical industry still has to grow and grow. You cannot be a leader, or at least competitive everywhere.

          Workers went to the store and bought food, clothes, furniture, etc. The store received additional profit, the furniture factory hired more workers, the sewing also expanded production. All is well.


          Workers can only buy what someone else has produced. You sew a uniform, you can sew less jeans. You make tanks, so you don’t produce trucks, or something else. And if in the end the tank was not needed, then this is just a cost.

          Do you know that by the 80s, for example, in the USSR in the construction of 500 thousand people there was a shortage? Of course, it was sad with the new houses. Something the same Europe does not want to make weapons, and to improve the economy in this way.
          1. Vadmir 28 January 2020 11: 48 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Not for a penny, but for dollars, for which they take things that we don’t produce, for example, prom. the equipment is often at a unique level and some very complex machine, for which there are a dozen orders in the world, is simply unrealistic to develop from scratch on its own.
            And who needs this machine, if there is no industry as such? With the exception of the military-industrial complex.
            You sew a uniform, you can sew less jeans.
            You reason in terms of socialism and a closed economy. Now everything is different - you sew the uniform, so the textile factory workers have more money and they can buy more jeans, which means the factory will hire additional workers to sew them. Or they’ll bring it from abroad, and the producers themselves will bring it, not only without taking a penny from the State, but they will also pay taxes and duties.
            Do you know that by the 80s, for example, in the USSR in the construction of 500 thousand people there was a shortage? Of course, it was sad with the new houses.
            Again, give an example from the socialist past and the planned economy. Here's a quote about today:
            Rosstat summed up the results of a sample labor force survey as of the second week of January 2019.
            Workforce aged 15 and over in January 2019 amounted to 74,9 million people, of which 71,2 million people were classified as engaged in economic activities and 3,7 million people - as unemployed using ILO criteria (i.e., they did not have a job or a profitable occupation, they were looking for work and were ready to start it in the study week).

            Something the same Europe does not want to make weapons, and to improve the economy in this way.
            But the first economy in the world - the United States makes weapons for itself and its European vassals and considers this very profitable. Trump promised his voters to increase military spending and arms production. And he kept this promise, as a result of GDP grew, wages of workers increased, and so on.
            1. Fisherman 28 January 2020 13: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Vadmir
              The world's first economy - the United States makes weapons for both itself and its European vassals, and considers this highly profitable.

              I agree. The production and trade of weapons that will be highly regarded in the world is a pretty profitable business. Look at the USA. And if this weapon will have no analogues in the world and the price will not be overestimated, then in general it’s good. An example is our C400 complexes and others.
    2. URAL72 28 January 2020 11: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Well, in general, the USSR bought weapons abroad. L-29, L-39 in Czechoslovakia, in thousands. Landing ships in Poland, Mi-1 too. Icebreakers, incl. for the fleet in Finland. Ship repairs were carried out in many countries, even in Bulgaria.
      1. Zvonarev 28 January 2020 12: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I bought something, but it was a political decision rather than a technical one. It was necessary to load the power of the allies, give them money. At that time, not the landing barges themselves, but the cruisers were riveting. Now it’s just the opposite, we are building boats, and what’s bigger ...
        1. isaira 29 January 2020 00: 00 New
          • 0
          • 7
          -7
          Quote: Zvonarev
          At that time, not the landing barges themselves, but the cruisers were riveting.

          The penny was that “cruisers”. Samotopot.
    3. Fisherman 28 January 2020 13: 07 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      In addition, the defense industry moves forward all branches of industry, and science is also very important. Today, precision and high-tech weapons are the norm. To develop it and even more to produce it requires brains and smart hands. The development of the military-industrial complex will move science and knowledge-intensive branches of the national (peaceful) economy forward. For example, the same strong, intelligent programmers are needed in the military-industrial complex and in peaceful industries. The same thing can be said about chemists, mathematicians, physicists. It is a pity that only secondary and higher schools (universities) began to suffer, we receive very few sensible specialists at the exit. Education needs to be raised. Then in 20-30 years we will get a confident leap forward in all sectors, including the military-industrial complex. And so, for the most part, developers are no longer young, 50 years or more. A friend is connected with aviation, he is a little engineer))), he says that they only have one old fellow in the design bureau (about 60 years and older), there are practically no young people 25-35 years old. He is 42 years old.
    4. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 58 New
      • 0
      • 10
      -10
      Quote: Vadmir
      Again these tales that military spending undermined the economy of the USSR and contributed to its collapse.

      That's right, undermined and promoted.
      Quote: Vadmir
      Military technology has contributed to the improvement of consumer goods.

      Yes? And what became better of them? Are civilian tanks more comfortable?
      Quote: Vadmir
      What contributed to the impoverishment of people and turned Russia into a gas station.

      In fact, the gas station with a poor population was just the USSR.
      Quote: Vadmir
      destroyed the Great Power,

      And what was the greatness of that ridiculous "power"? Did the General Secretary have more than all the stars on his jacket?
      Quote: Vadmir
      The military-industrial complex provides jobs and salaries, these salaries go to the sphere of trade and services, as a result, the entire economy is growing, and therefore the state also benefits the people directly.

      The military-industrial complex gives the necrosis of fixed and circulating assets.
      The death of capital.
      The military-industrial complex, like the ARMY, for ANY COUNTRY, is an economic HARM.
  5. Sayan 28 January 2020 07: 42 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    MIC - the locomotive of any economy, any country - a proven fact
    1. Gleborg 28 January 2020 08: 12 New
      • 2
      • 7
      -5
      The military-industrial complex is an expense item necessary but unprofitable.
      1. Zvonarev 28 January 2020 08: 21 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Just like R&D, but where would it be without it?
    2. EvilLion 28 January 2020 10: 45 New
      • 0
      • 8
      -8
      Exclusively, as a mechanism of forced concentration of resources for the development of dual-use technology. Large corporations do the same thing, and the USSR could do this simply by order on a cap scale. countries unthinkable. In the analysis of the military-industrial complex, one should not be guided by any economic considerations. The military-industrial complex is a waste of money on defense. And from the fact that the military-industrial complex buys the products of a plant, it will be good only to the plant.
      1. Vadmir 28 January 2020 11: 53 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        And from the fact that the military-industrial complex buys the products of a plant, it will be good only to the plant.
        And also to the workers of this plant, their wives, children. And also to everyone who sells or provides something to these workers, in general, to the whole city in which this factory operates.
    3. isaira 29 January 2020 00: 01 New
      • 0
      • 10
      -10
      Quote: Sayan
      MIC - the locomotive of any economy, any country - a proven fact

      Nonsense, of course.
  6. Gleborg 28 January 2020 08: 11 New
    • 4
    • 9
    -5
    The "glorious" tradition of the Soviet VPK remains in force. Glorious write-offs of debts to enterprises, social payments for various items of expenditure, the sale of weapons on credit, which are then written off for a rollback, so do not tell people, the sawmill does not work for $ 61 billion on the military budget. Assad’s “help” alone cost the company the same budget.
    1. EvilLion 28 January 2020 11: 26 New
      • 0
      • 7
      -7
      To whom did we write off loans?
      1. The comment was deleted.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. 2 Level Advisor 28 January 2020 08: 19 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    and if you compare not with the United States, but look at the financing of industries within the country, power structures are one of the largest articles (official table)

    and all the security forces are somewhere around 30 percent and the only rising expense items. I’m just for the sake of objectivity, but after reading the article, the feeling that we spend a penny ..
  9. nikvic46 28 January 2020 08: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Maybe I’m wrong. You can’t equate the threat of the USSR and the threat of the Russian Federation. At that time there were very little contacts with the leader of the entire western United States. Now they are undoubtedly larger. Our main adversary for NATO has become a companion. It was necessary to maintain the combat effectiveness of the Warsaw Treaty. And the borders of our country have become smaller. Otherwise, I agree with the author.
    1. rocket757 28 January 2020 09: 25 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: nikvic46
      The threat of the USSR and the threat of the Russian Federation cannot be equated.

      It has fundamentally changed that there shouldn’t be political contradictions ... so minor inconsistencies, who didn’t concede to someone there ... it happens.
      But the economic contradictions have not disappeared, i.e. they still want to have in their possession, in the priority right to exploit the strangers \ our natural wealth. After all, nothing has changed! Only one can remain here.
    2. Vadmir 28 January 2020 11: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The threat of the USSR and the threat of the Russian Federation cannot be equated.
      Yes, there is no ideological confrontation between the two systems. But the whole history of mankind is the history of wars. In 1812 there was no ideological confrontation, which did not prevent the emperor from invading the empire. In 1914 there were no communists in power in any of the countries of the world, nor were fascists, but a world war began.
      Now the threat is lower, but can you guarantee that tomorrow there will not be any event that will increase the threat to the maximum?
      The rule always works: "if you want peace, get ready for war."
      1. isaira 29 January 2020 00: 07 New
        • 0
        • 6
        -6
        Quote: Vadmir
        In 1812 there was no ideological confrontation, which did not prevent the emperor from invading the empire.

        In fact, before this, Russia declared war on France.
        Quote: Vadmir
        In 1914 there were no communists in power in any of the countries of the world, nor were fascists, but a world war began.

        Russia was very upset by the defeat in the REV. Therefore, she decided to quickly crush Germany and Austria-Hungary with the help of Britain and France.
        And this, in general, succeeded in 1918. Only Russia then was gone.
        Quote: Vadmir
        The rule always works: "if you want peace, get ready for war."

        And there’s also a rule: “you are too diligently strengthening your defense capability - you are losing the defense state”.
  10. Ros 56 28 January 2020 09: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    laughing To paraphrase, it wasn’t a matter of a woman, it was, is and will not be in budgets, but in brains.
  11. maden.usmanow 28 January 2020 10: 31 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    The Union not only spent hundreds of billions on weapons and equipment, but also did not know how to properly maintain all its military property and therefore spent even more
  12. Djusha 28 January 2020 10: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    when the Tserushniks tried to comprehend the difference between the official ruble to dollar exchange rate published in the Izvestia newspaper and the real ratio of the two currencies in terms of their purchasing power, their brains simply began to boil.

    And if they knew that in the USSR there were three mutually not convertible rubles: cash, non-cash and foreign ...
  13. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 36 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    Military budgets of the USSR, USA, China and the Russian Federation: a comparison in numbers

    Charming.
    China is richer than the Russian Federation by 24,6 times.
    The United States is 99,3 times richer than the Russian Federation.
    Even India is richer than the Russian Federation 2,94 times.
    However, Pontus is prevented from comparing themselves with their Soviet classmates. Therefore, they are measured in pipettes with those who crush them, without even noticing it.
    With Davina, one must compare oneself, Soviet. With Israel. With Singapore. With Mexico (Mexico is most similar).
    And then, like children, by golly.