Russia spends three times more money on defense: the US took into account the purchasing power of currencies

65

Western critics, talking about the "weakness" of the Russian military machine, are used to operating with data on the amount of funding for troops. This is a rather "convenient" position, which presents in a favorable light investments in the defense of NATO countries and shows that Moscow is supposedly lagging behind its geopolitical competitors.

However, the calculations in nominal dollars completely ignore the difference in the cost of military products and differences in the payment of military service. In this regard, a number of Western observers constantly urged to take into account the purchasing power of the currencies of the "enemy" countries as an indicator of the real level of costs for the maintenance and modernization of troops. It seems that against the background of the gradual renewal of the armies of the rivals of the United States, this awareness reached the Pentagon officials.

For example, General Mark Milli, chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, in his report to the Senate, said that the combined investments of the PRC and the Russian Federation in the troops exceeded the defense budget of the United States. As Senator Jim Inhofe, who is seeking an increase in military funding, explained, given the purchasing power of currencies, China is investing $ 604 billion in the army, and Russia - about $ 200 billion.

At the same time, according to the analytical institute SIPRI, nominal defense costs in 2020 amounted to $ 778 billion in the United States, $ 252 billion in China and $ 61,7 billion in the Russian Federation. That is, Russia actually spends three times more money on troops in comparison with nominal expenditures ($ 200 billion versus $ 61,7 billion).
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +22
    12 June 2021 13: 30
    Good reason to shout to the Pentagon Give more money
    1. +4
      12 June 2021 13: 38
      "The Senate reported that the aggregate investments of the PRC and the Russian Federation in the troops exceeded the defense budget of the United States" - apparently they added two budgets and issued them as one! - a purely Anglo-Saxon approach to hang noodles on the African American electorate! laughing
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +3
        12 June 2021 13: 43
        this realization reached the Pentagon officials
        Senator Jim Inhof, pushing for more military funding

        It is always pleasant to realize that which fits comfortably into your task.
        1. +8
          12 June 2021 13: 50
          according to the analytical institute SIPRI, nominal defense spending in 2020 amounted to $ 778 billion in the United States, $ 252 billion in China and $ 61,7 billion in the Russian Federation.
          That is, Russia actually spends money on the troops three times more.

          Something the American generals-"accountants" still do not agree with the credit debit.

          Then 2% of the GDP of NATO countries is several times more than the US itself spends on the defense of NATO countries.
          Therefore, any claims of the same Trump on behalf of the United States about the need to increase %% of GDP on the part of NATO countries to invest in the defense of NATO countries are also EXCESSIVE several times!
          1. +13
            12 June 2021 20: 25
            On average, a similar sample of equipment, Russia, costs five times cheaper than the United States. Also, a very large percentage of the expenditures of the US defense budget goes to the maintenance of almost a thousand foreign military bases, logistical support points, etc. ... The position of the world gendarme is very costly. Also, the United States has contingents in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Russia has a limited contingent in Syria and spends money there literally. Therefore, the Russian Federation has the opportunity to update its nuclear missile potential, which has been updated by more than 70% and has received breakthrough weapons technologies. Therefore, the PPP also noted the enemy, although their commentators and trolls did not believe in it. Trust the enemy, and for whom and the owner wassat
        2. +1
          13 June 2021 23: 30
          Well, yes, this is called - to fit the answer.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. +3
        12 June 2021 14: 18
        Incomprehensible American mathematics.
        1. D16
          +6
          12 June 2021 15: 19
          Understandable. This is what they think Big Mac laughing .
    2. +5
      12 June 2021 13: 56
      To be honest, I did not understand at all how he counted. But there is an assumption, added a wooden and green result, a square or gladiolus.
      1. PN
        +4
        12 June 2021 14: 41
        Reread it again. There it is not about the bank rate of the currency, but about its purchasing power. Therefore, everything is correctly stated in the article.
        1. +5
          12 June 2021 19: 33
          Quote: PN
          Reread it again. There it is not about the bank rate of the currency, but about its purchasing power. Therefore, everything is correctly stated in the article.

          Right. And if you also take into account that in the Russian Federation arms manufacturers are companies with a large share of state capital (to put it mildly), then, I think, the amount will be even more. What am I talking about? About what we do to ourselves, and not buy from "private traders".
          1. +2
            13 June 2021 08: 30
            Even if it is correctly stated, then, even according to American calculations, Russia spends 3,7 times less on defense than the USA - 200 billion versus 778 billion.
            1. 0
              14 June 2021 00: 55
              out of 700 about 300 - 400 lard, the cost of logistics, bases and other non-lekvid directly on the troops themselves is not very much
              1. 0
                14 June 2021 13: 11
                Well, that's their problem. Let them reduce the number of bases on the territory of other countries. In addition, they have failures with new weapons go jamb. "Gerald Ford" has not yet been adopted by the US Navy, "Zumwalt" instead of the resotron is armed with a conventional naval cannon, 80 additional F-35s are abandoned American pilots, the development of the railgun was discontinued (abandoned), the development of the ultra-long-range cannon was discontinued ...
      2. +2
        12 June 2021 20: 02
        Nothing complicated. Calculated at purchasing power parity.
    3. +3
      12 June 2021 14: 13
      An excuse to ask for money for the poor American army ...
      At the same time, far-fetched, because even an increase in the US military budget will not help, it is already exorbitantly inflated.

      The idea is that Russia and China are acting asymmetrically. That is, they develop, first of all, those systems and directions that will cause the greatest damage to the enemy, while adhering to a defensive approach to military construction.
      The American approach is to surpass in all environments (Air Force, Navy, ILC, Cyber ​​Troops, etc. - "To exceed in all systems and domains") and in all systems, it is purely offensive.
      And to win, you need at least an actual threefold superiority, which is just not there.
    4. +2
      13 June 2021 11: 49
      well, let them spend more and more ... God will let them burst, finally.
  2. +4
    12 June 2021 13: 31
    That is, Russia actually spends three times more money on the troops.

    Pepper is clear. Yes Our dollar rate is 6 rubles per dollar. If it were not for bank speculators, we would long ago sneeze at the states from the high Leaning Tower of Pisa.
    1. 0
      12 June 2021 21: 50
      Quote: ROSS 42
      That is, Russia actually spends three times more money on the troops.

      Pepper is clear. Yes Our dollar rate is 6 rubles per dollar. If it were not for bank speculators, we would long ago sneeze at the states from the high Leaning Tower of Pisa.

      Who is guilty???
      1. 0
        14 June 2021 00: 19
        Quote: Mole
        Quote: ROSS 42

        If it were not bank speculators

        Who is guilty???

        Don't you think that the answer was in the comment you quoted by Yuri Vasilyevich ROSS 42?
  3. +2
    12 June 2021 13: 34
    Economy (of any country) - PRODUCTIVITY. Demand!!!
    Today the PRC LEADERS. THEY PRODUCE like ants.
    I would really like Russia to REMEMBER the hands of Russian masters (in any area).
    It's time to remember the meaning of the word ARTISAN.
    Russia HAS BEEN FAMOUS (always) FOR QUALITY ...
    1. 0
      12 June 2021 20: 04
      He studied the works of Russian economists of the second half of the 19th century. They admitted that in many industries the quality of Russian products was worse than German, American, and English.
      1. 0
        13 June 2021 23: 34
        An important amendment is the quality of factory products.
      2. 0
        15 June 2021 09: 16
        A lot of time has passed.
        + Around the world they are guided by the principle of planned obsolescence. There are things that are produced in the Russian Federation no worse than in the world.
  4. +5
    12 June 2021 13: 34
    For example, General Mark Milli, chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, in his report to the Senate, said that the combined investments of the PRC and the Russian Federation in the troops exceeded the defense budget of the United States.
    Ie the Merikatos have already made the Russian Federation and the PRC a military alliance? laughing
    1. +1
      12 June 2021 13: 38
      Quote: aszzz888
      For example, General Mark Milli, chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, in his report to the Senate, said that the combined investments of the PRC and the Russian Federation in the troops exceeded the defense budget of the United States.
      Ie the Merikatos have already made the Russian Federation and the PRC a military alliance? laughing

      and it pleases... good
  5. +6
    12 June 2021 13: 35
    It seems that against the background of the gradual renewal of the armies of the rivals of the United States, this awareness reached the Pentagon officials.


    It dawned on them that it would be possible to knock out more money from Congress ... Yes
    1. +2
      12 June 2021 13: 56
      Quote: cniza
      It seems that against the background of the gradual renewal of the armies of the rivals of the United States, this awareness reached the Pentagon officials.


      It dawned on them that it would be possible to knock out more money from Congress ... Yes

      So there the congressmen are also in the share.
      1. +4
        12 June 2021 14: 02
        Uh-huh, and not a small fraction at all.
  6. +3
    12 June 2021 13: 35
    Nothing is clear, but very interesting.
  7. +2
    12 June 2021 13: 36
    - At the same time, according to the analytical institute SIPRI, nominal defense costs in 2020 amounted to $ 778 billion in the United States, $ 252 billion in China and $ 61,7 (!!!) Billion in Russia. That is, Russia actually spends money THREE TIMES more on troops.
    Like this???
    1. -5
      12 June 2021 13: 40
      Quote: knn54
      - At the same time, according to the analytical institute SIPRI, nominal defense costs in 2020 amounted to $ 778 billion in the United States, $ 252 billion in China and $ 61,7 (!!!) Billion in Russia. That is, Russia actually spends money THREE TIMES more on troops.
      Like this???

      Believe me, they will never tell the actual costs))) and even more so for the general ...))
      1. +6
        12 June 2021 13: 54
        Alla, I believe in the figure of 61,7, because two years ago (and these are verified figures) the Russian Federation spent 15 times (!) Less on the defense industry than the Yankes.
        And hardly anything has changed significantly in two years.
        If 778 is divided by 61,7 (given in the report), it turns out that the United States spends almost 14 times more on military needs than Russia, which is closer to the truth.
    2. +1
      12 June 2021 13: 45
      Quote: knn54
      - At the same time, according to the SIPRI analytical institute, nominal defense spending in 2020 amounted to $ 778 billion in the United States, $ 252 billion in China and $61,7(!!!) BILLION - in the Russian Federation. That is, Russia actually spends money THREE TIMES more on troops.
      Like this???

      "Russia - about $ 200 billion." this is for this
    3. -1
      12 June 2021 20: 05
      You studied economics at the university? This is a required subject. Think back on purchasing power parity.
  8. AB
    +3
    12 June 2021 13: 39
    Directly not the Pentagon, but the Golden Calf with Panikovsky and him - Give a million, give a million, give a million!
  9. +5
    12 June 2021 13: 40
    laughing They did it. Oh, and the late Zadornov was right, completely right.
  10. 0
    12 June 2021 13: 43
    We can say that Kuzi allocated for a thorough repair, it was possible to build a new one.
  11. +1
    12 June 2021 13: 48
    What can you not "tell" the congressmen in order to push them to increase the defense budget! fellow lol
  12. +1
    12 June 2021 13: 50
    And we scientists, we do not want to feed someone else's army! negative
  13. +4
    12 June 2021 13: 53
    And if you just continue the logical chain? Purchasing power, income of Russians. average salary.
  14. 0
    12 June 2021 13: 59
    They just want a pretty figure of 1 trillion. $
  15. 0
    12 June 2021 14: 01
    Quote: Tatiana
    all the same, the debit does not converge with the credit.

    On the contrary, it converges! They are doing everything to increase funding, with the further prospect of its subsequent "mastering"! smile
  16. 0
    12 June 2021 14: 03
    You haven't taken into account his Trigonometry, which is normal to teach in schools
  17. 0
    12 June 2021 14: 06
    That is, Russia actually spends three times more money on troops.
    ... Oops, what a surprise!
    And what follows from this? Give more money, and then more and more!
  18. -2
    12 June 2021 14: 14
    Well, that's why I don't like arithmetic balancing act!

    Measured this way, it turns out that Russia's military spending is almost 14% of GDP!
    This is a completely unimaginable figure.
    No other country in the world is able to lay out such a huge part of its GDP for military needs.
    1. +3
      12 June 2021 14: 28
      Quote: A. Privalov
      No other country in the world is able to lay out such a huge part of its GDP for military needs.

      Alexander. They do not come to my country in parrots, but naturally in Nata. Minimum 10 million bayonets, Navy, 1 10 to NATO, Air Force 1:20 to NATO. Glory to your Yahweh, that 10 air defense to one of your pepelats hi
      1. -4
        12 June 2021 15: 17
        Quote: Tusv
        They do not come to my country in parrots, but naturally in Nata. Minimum 10 million bayonets, Navy, 1 10 to NATO, Air Force 1:20 to NATO. Glory to your Yahweh, that 10 air defense to one of your pepelats

        Yes ...
        It looks like it's not in vain that an elderly military commander in the Chelyabinsk region takes out his fellow villagers to dig anti-tank ditches on Fridays ...
        1. 0
          12 June 2021 15: 22
          Whig you. It is enough to raise the tracking station to the height and NATO tryndets. Let me repeat: don't play the air defense against NATO. Let's just drop it or love it, but let's just say it was It's air defense baby hi
          1. 0
            12 June 2021 16: 20
            Quote: Tusv
            It is enough to raise the tracking station to the height and NATO tryndets.

            Damn it, where have you been before? Why did you hide such a wonderful decision?
    2. +2
      12 June 2021 20: 10
      It is necessary to take Russia's GDP at PPP, and not at face value. And then it will be much less than 14%. Somewhere around 5%.
    3. 0
      14 June 2021 01: 40
      Quote: A. Privalov
      Measured this way, it turns out that Russia's military spending is almost 14% of GDP!
      This is a completely unimaginable figure.

      It doesn't mean anything like that. This means that Russia's GDP, expressed at the dollar rate, when measured at purchasing power parity, is also subject to a threefold increase. What is actually correct. Therefore, the percentage of defense spending will not change.
  19. bar
    +2
    12 June 2021 14: 29
    There is no reason not to start the printing press again. Maybe it's for the better, the more green papers are printed, the less interesting they are to the rest of the world, and the faster they will grunt.
  20. -1
    12 June 2021 14: 30
    There is a grain of truth in this. You can recall the McDonald Index, which compares the cost of their assortment in different countries.
  21. +2
    12 June 2021 15: 11
    Yet this is called - spending money three times more efficiently, and not spending three times more. Americans just have to spend :)
  22. +3
    12 June 2021 15: 13
    Before the spring jump in prices for building materials and plots in Sochi, if there was a plot in Sochi, in three years it was possible to build a house, two-storey, it all depends on the hands and feet. In my department, the mechanics have houses from 140 m2 to 300 m2. lived a square. A locksmith, Russian, he has two hotels of 15 rooms. That's the price of a dollar. Maybe they are right.
  23. +7
    12 June 2021 15: 44
    He's about right. Country spending on government programs and budget spending are considered taking into account PPP - purchasing power parity. It is slightly different for different sectors of the economy. For example, the Big Mac Index is 24 rubles. per dollar, and in mechanical engineering 27 rubles. for the dollar. It is more correct to use the Big Mac index, since it is more synthetic and takes into account the cost of food and fuel, for example. Then we divide the current dollar exchange rate of 73 rubles / $ by 24 and get 3,041. This is a real PPP.
    Now we multiply 61,7 billion / $ by 3,041, we get 187,7 billion / $. This is the real budget of the RF Ministry of Defense in US dollars.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. +3
    12 June 2021 20: 30
    Quote: Sergej1972
    Nothing complicated. Calculated at purchasing power parity.

    beautiful word "parity", mysterious ...
    This is the type of purchasing power - how much gold can be bought for 1 (1000) dollar in the USA, for 1 (1000) ruble in Russia?
    or how much gold can you buy for $ 1 in Russia?
    I got confused something (((
    I even remembered one mattress general - he calculated how many dollars Gaius Julius Caesar spent in the Gallic campaign - it was an enchanting calculation)))
  26. +1
    13 June 2021 08: 34
    Bad dancers are always hindered by something (or someone) and something is missing.
  27. 0
    13 June 2021 12: 48
    Surely some kind of Russian defector explained to them the essence of the matter, navryatli themselves doped laughing
  28. -2
    13 June 2021 18: 13
    Certainly there is a good grain in this. For example, Uralvagonzavod, fresh news:
    https://www.rbc.ru/business/28/05/2021/60ae5dc99a7947ef4d363f14
    "The Scientific and Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), located in Nizhny Tagil, in 2020 reduced labor costs by 22%, or 2,5 billion rubles, in comparison with the previous year. This follows from the company's reporting on the results of last year.
    It follows from it that in 2020 UVZ allocated a little more than 9 billion rubles to pay its employees. (versus 11,7 billion in 2019). Of these, more than 2,6 billion went to pay for the main management personnel of 3662 people.
    The number of employees of the company at the end of 2020 decreased by 326 employees and amounted to 29 people. "

    We take 2,6 billion, divide by 3662 people of the main management personnel, then by 12 months and deduct 13% of personal income tax (it sits in the reporting within the costs of salary). We get 51,5 thousand rubles ($ 725 at the rate of 71) per month on average for a manager.
    Then we take the total number of 29 employees and subtract 748 managers. We get 3662 thousand hours. We take with a margin of 26086 billion of all expenses for salaries (too lazy to go into reporting), subtract 9,6 for managers. We also divide the remaining 2,6 billion by 7 tch. workers, 26 months and -12%. And we get the average salary of a worker 13 thousand on hands ($ 19,5).
    Low salaries are cheap products.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  29. +2
    13 June 2021 20: 54
    If we consider this methodology, then Russia's GDP is 4 trillion dollars, not 1,5.
  30. -2
    14 June 2021 01: 25
    Yes, with these calculations, not everything is so simple. For example, R&D is not taken into account directly by arms concerns without a contract with the state. In the states, the concerns themselves spend billions on new developments, focusing on foreign markets. In our country, almost all R&D is tied to the budget, or so insignificant on an initiative basis that the output is zero. The Kalashnikov concern may be an exception.
  31. 0
    14 June 2021 08: 57
    And then there are legal factors - the fact that in Russia a criminal offense, albeit often not punishable, because of corruption, in the United States, thanks to many decades of corruption and a slightly different approach, is not a crime. Well, for example: pushing the necessary decisions for a rollback is completely legal with them, and is called lobbying, and theft is called bonuses, making a profit or raising wages. And that, the owners and management of the corporation are private individuals, they legally received money under the contract, having previously legally allocated funding to the congressmen or senators who supported the conclusion of the contract, and honestly paid taxes, which means they are further free to dispose of the money received as they see fit. And the fact that politicians and officials are their shareholders, receiving dividends from their block of shares and / or in a private conversation received a promise of employment in this corporation or another company of the same owners, for a dusty grain position, this is their own business - everything is legal, and most importantly, it is convenient and safe.
  32. +1
    14 June 2021 14: 16
    Quote: cniza
    Uh-huh, and not a small fraction at all.

    Without rollback and rollback - they cannot see the golden cakes as their own ears ... recourse
    And something always wants to eat ... wassat here and there they are lobbying according to their interests, who is not too lazy ... tongue