Military Review

West loses leadership in arms race

33



The cost of maintaining armies in the world is reduced. First of all, this is due to the budget crisis that swept the countries of the West: in spite of their far-reaching plans of conquest, the United States and the countries of the European Union are compelled to be content with little. On the other hand, military spending in the East remained virtually unchanged, and, moreover, individual states even increased the funding of their armed forces. Thus, the balance of geostrategic balancing leaned in favor of Asia.

Global trends

East dominance in global politics is about to become a fait accompli. Following the decolonization and the Asian economic miracle, a new wave of modernization of the Asian countries is coming. This time, the East is going to succeed in the arms race with its Western rivals, becoming one of the most influential centers of power on the globe. The West cannot oppose anything: the crisis “killed” the budgets of European states. Against the background of the budget deficit, the purchase of weapons looks like an expensive pleasure.

This is evidenced by data cited by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and published in the media 14 April. Thus, the total amount of military spending worldwide in 2013 compared to 2012 in the year decreased by 1,9%.

Trends in savings on the purchase of weapons are characteristic of Western countries. For example, last year the United States reduced the funding of its armed forces by 7,8%. According to experts, this was done in connection with the end of the war in Iraq, as well as in anticipation of the upcoming withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. Auto budget cuts, approved by Congress in 2011, also played a significant role. However, the United States military budget, equaling 1.747 billions of dollars, remains the largest in the world.

In previous decades, the United States overran the cost of excessive military spending. Despite the end of the Cold War, Washington continued purchasing weapons and reinforcement of the armed forces. Americans spent more on financing the military than the rest of the nations of the world combined.

Similar trends are observed in the allied countries of America. We are talking about European states, which, although they did not take part in arms races, still suffered from the recent global financial crisis. Due to the banal lack of money, Europeans are forced to save on everything. The only exception is rich Germany, the “locomotive” of the European Union, and paranoid Poland, always waiting for some kind of attack from the east. The rest of the countries have long abandoned ambitious programs in the military sphere and are forced to take austerity measures.

But despite this, the states of the North Atlantic Alliance still remain the largest buyers of weapons in the world. This indicates that Europe is not planning to disarm at all, and at the first opportunity it will resume the policy of militarism.

The East, meanwhile, is building up military power. Analysts at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute believe that these processes are caused in part by continued economic growth, and in part to a reaction to threats from rivals, including Western countries. However, the escalation of the cost of maintaining the armed forces in some cases is caused by the ongoing regional arms races. The most striking examples of such “competitions” are the confrontation between India and Pakistan or between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

By the way, the latter, in response to the Iranian nuclear program, substantially increased its military potential. Saudi Arabia even entered the top three world leaders in terms of the growth rate of spending on arms purchases and in the number of 23 countries that have increased their military budgets more than doubled over the past 10 years. Saudi neighbors - Iraq and Bahrain - are not lagging behind: Iraq’s military spending increased by 27%, Bahrain - by 26%. It is clear that a civil war is going on in Iraq, and the government is spending all the money it earns to strengthen the army. But why Bahrain got involved in the arms race? Apparently, a significant role was played by geographic proximity with Iran, which is the regional enemy of the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf.

Of the other Muslim countries that purchase weapons in large quantities, it should be allocated Algeria, which in the 2013 year spent over 10 billions of dollars to finance law enforcement agencies. This is a record for Africa: Algeria is the first state of the “Black Continent” to overcome the ten billion mark. Military allocations are also increasing in Angola, which increased the defense part of the budget by 36% and ranked second in terms of military expenditures in Africa.

Is a new arms race between Russia and the USA possible?

The three of the countries implementing the modernization of their armed forces at the fastest pace, along with Saudi Arabia, included Russia and China. The actions of Moscow and Beijing are understandable: the United States, along with its regional allies, are carrying out continuous pressure on the western borders of Russia and on the eastern borders of China.

China needs a powerful fleet in order to protect itself from South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, who are ready, with the support of Washington, to create serious difficulties for the Celestial Empire. Recently, China has been implementing a large-scale program aimed at improving the naval forces. It is planned to build new aircraft carriers and submarines, including nuclear ones. And for rearmament fleet Beijing asks for help from Moscow.

Russia itself has increased defense spending by 5% and continues to confidently restore its military potential, partially lost after the collapse of the USSR. Foreign experts say: in 2013, Russia for the first time in 15 years overtook the United States in terms of military spending, expressed as a percentage of national GDP. The United States is spending about 5% of GDP on supporting the army, and this figure is constantly decreasing. The share of military spending in Russia is more than 3% of GDP - but this is only according to official data. Foreign experts consider the information from Russian sources unreliable, and add another 1-2% of GDP. So Moscow is in the lead?

Employees of the analytical company HIS believe that over the next three years, Russia will increase the financial support of its armed forces by 44%. If in the 2013 year the Russian army got 68 billion dollars, by the year 2016 this amount will grow to 98 billion.

Interesting and data from European countries that are part of the North Atlantic Alliance. Many of them spend on the maintenance of the army less than 2% of GDP. Such low costs do not meet the standards of the organization: the NATO charter states that the military expenditures of the member countries of the alliance should be at least 2% of GDP.

The United States has been trying to force its European partners to increase the cost of the armed forces for years, but so far without success: in addition to the aforementioned Poland and Germany, no one wants to undermine the national economy at the whim of Washington. However, the White House has a chance to intimidate the European leaders by a rising Russia. The threat from the East is the eternal horror of the Western world, and Europe, stunned by Russian might, is guaranteed to take part in the arms race between Moscow and Washington.

The US recklessly hopes to win the arms race again, but it does not take into account that the European Union, still weakened by the crisis, will not withstand the financial turmoil associated with the new cold war. Perhaps the beginning of the global confrontation will end for the EU in the same way as the first arms race turned for the Soviet Union. But is it worth interfering with the American adventure, to decide Brussels.
Author:
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mirag2
    mirag2 April 16 2014 07: 54
    +12
    I believe in a good and in our Russian future, but the West has not lost its leadership in the arms race, but simply so "stocked up" with modern weapons (with combat use) that it is time to cut the money for armament.
    And we are at the beginning of the road, because we need more money for weapons.
    And to lead us like to the moon.
    1. Nickanor
      Nickanor April 16 2014 08: 24
      +10
      If not for perestroika and the 90s, Russia would be a leader in the production of weapons.
      By the mid-80s, the military power of the Soviet state was at the highest level.
      The same applies to space technology and much more.
      But perestroika came and everything went to pieces. Humpback, having arrived at Baikonur, "personally canceled the 2nd launch of Energia-Buran, and soon the project was screwed up, like many other things.
      But, glory to BG, all unrest sooner or later ends. Go Russia!
      1. sss5.papu
        sss5.papu April 16 2014 10: 58
        -3
        Quote: Nickanor
        If not for perestroika and the 90s, Russia would be a leader in the production of weapons.
        By the mid-80s, the military power of the Soviet state was at the highest level.
        The same applies to space technology and much more.
        But perestroika came and everything went to pieces. Humpback, having arrived at Baikonur, "personally canceled the 2nd launch of Energia-Buran, and soon the project was screwed up, like many other things.
        But, glory to BG, all unrest sooner or later ends. Go Russia!

        This tore the USSR. Reagan's plan - to arrange an arms race and break the economy of the USSR, worked
        1. Nickanor
          Nickanor April 17 2014 08: 38
          0
          I think, with a competent approach, it would be possible to resolve the situation.
          But, as you know, the fish rots from the head and the beginning has already been made.
          Well, okay, that’s not about that.
      2. Cherdak
        Cherdak April 16 2014 15: 14
        +5
        Quote: Nickanor
        If not for perestroika and the 90s, Russia would be a leader in the production of weapons.
    2. Tartary
      Tartary April 16 2014 08: 34
      +5
      The author of the article, in the fourth paragraph, specify the size of the US military budget ... obviously after all a typo ... but the eye hurts.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. twviewer
      twviewer April 16 2014 11: 42
      +8
      Quote: mirag2
      I believe in a good and in our Russian future, but the West has not lost its leadership in the arms race, but simply so "stocked up" with modern weapons (with combat use) that it is time to cut the money for armament.
      And we are at the beginning of the road, because we need more money for weapons.
      And to lead us like to the moon.

      correctly do not need illusions, technology they have before the experience.
    5. Su24
      Su24 April 16 2014 20: 38
      +2
      I still did not understand what conclusion is given in the article. Perhaps because there is no conclusion.
  2. dimarm74
    dimarm74 April 16 2014 07: 59
    +9
    Do not bend the stick either ... We have a lot of empty space. Either we rivet tanks and ships like cakes, then for 15 years nothing has been received by the army. Extremes are solid. Apparently a feature of the national character. It is necessary to find the "golden middle" after all.
    1. GRune
      GRune April 16 2014 11: 11
      +1
      What kind of character, the country was drained, they all sold out and plundered in the 90s, and that's empty! The nature of the pancake.
  3. Ulairy
    Ulairy April 16 2014 08: 05
    +5
    Quote: dimarm74
    It is necessary to find the "golden middle" after all.

    Feeling for the "wallet" of the generals who send the latest technology for "modernization" and not in the army.
  4. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN April 16 2014 08: 11
    +3
    They just recently relaxed fighting with almost defenseless peoples! We hoped that this time it would burn out ...
    1. mamont5
      mamont5 April 16 2014 08: 16
      +2
      Quote: VNP1958PVN
      They just recently relaxed fighting with almost defenseless peoples! We hoped that this time it would burn out ...


      Even Amer’s generals admit that the US Army is no longer suitable for a major war with a strong enemy.
      1. Morgan
        Morgan April 16 2014 11: 22
        +3
        Who will really fight the NUCLEAR POWER? Poland? The Yankees won’t stand Vietnam ...
  5. Baikal
    Baikal April 16 2014 08: 24
    +5
    I don’t understand one thing.
    As soon as any article refers to the advantage of Russian technology - why would a jumping-shooting tank be a mandatory illustration for the article? ..
    Well, seriously) These poor tanks are already like wall carpets in the photo of glamorous girls smile
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet April 16 2014 14: 58
      +2
      Quote: Baikal
      Why is a jumping-shooting tank a mandatory illustration for the article? ..

      Shooting from a tank in a jump is like breaking a bottle on your head showing your daring! Ponty all this. And the head (as one comrade from the special forces correctly said) is needed in order to think, and not to beat bottles on it!
  6. serega.fedotov
    serega.fedotov April 16 2014 08: 33
    +8
    An arms race of the types of the Cold War is unnecessary in Russia. Having more tanks than America is stupid! It is more efficient to have vigorous loaves and means of GUARANTEED delivery! Russia needs to determine the amount of equipment that is not required, and go to this level with the latest technology!
    My personal opinion: it is necessary to invest in the production of military equipment, to support the economy, and not on the road, as some people think! Because they steal less in the military-industrial complex, (control is easier) more money will remain in the country, rather than go to sunny Uzbekistan, and most importantly it will raise the whole culture of production, and it will also fill the vocational school, and not the school of secretaries and boogalter!
    Well, roads, enterprises will work, there will be roads!
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 April 16 2014 10: 14
      +3
      Quote: serega.fedotov
      , and go to this level with the latest technology!

      1. the creation of a reconnaissance ... satellite constellation, a full-fledged GLONASS / navigation robot (((
      2.creation of Russian strike and reconnaissance UAVs (((
      3. Adoption of the 5 generation fighter and serial production (((
      4. adoption for service and mass production of modern armored vehicles: MBT, BMP, armored personnel carriers, mine-protected armored vehicles of the "Typhoon U.K." series, in thousands of units (((
      5.construction, destroyers and icebreaker class ships capable of operating in the Arctic (((

      and, in order to translate all this into reality, we need: INDUSTRIALIZATION OF RUSSIA, with the creation of our own machinery and equipment base !!!
      then we can be one of the leaders in the production of weapons .....
  7. La-5
    La-5 April 16 2014 08: 49
    +2
    Germany recently also does not increase its military budget - it reduces the purchase of fighter jets and tanks.
  8. parusnik
    parusnik April 16 2014 10: 47
    +2
    Perhaps the beginning global confrontation will end for the EU the same as the first arms race turned around for the Soviet Union...Very, I want it to be so .. Let them experience what they arranged for us in their own time ..
  9. Aldo
    Aldo April 16 2014 12: 09
    +1
    In vain you hope. There, unlike the Russian Federation, they do not make any sudden movements, they all do cleanly and for sure ...
  10. kenig1
    kenig1 April 16 2014 12: 57
    0
    The United States military budget of $ 1.747 billion remains the largest in the world.

    Author decipher the budget.
  11. silver_roman
    silver_roman April 16 2014 14: 10
    0
    However, the United States military budget of $ 1.747 billion remains the largest in the world.

    something this confused me confused. what nonsense? syshya budget under 600 billion cu in year. now the truth is less.
  12. Bayonet
    Bayonet April 16 2014 15: 01
    0
    The Barack Obama administration plans to spend more than $ 2014 billion on military targets in fiscal 624.
  13. Signaller
    Signaller April 16 2014 16: 15
    +1
    Specifically, they lose not in technology, but in spiritual material-PEOPLE. This is the main thing in victory. Steadfast soldier. ready to put his life for the good of the motherland. They have less and less of these. Gays, lesbians, drug addicts are so small a group, there are frank losers. Like to play war. But when the bullets whistle ???? I think diapers will not help .. This is a personal opinion. They are weak without war, and fight with grass rubbing. Weaknesses, definitely.
  14. 52
    52 April 16 2014 17: 14
    0
    In percentage terms, it is certainly greater, but in reality, what are the efficiencies of these movements? I want invincible, trained soldiers and a lot of highly effective and relatively inexpensive modern equipment! Grandfather Frost, give your child a present, and give Shoigu a lawn of the White House for potatoes, otherwise the Americans will not breed anything worthless there. And let him come more often to look for the harvest, otherwise there are no summer residents of the Aboriginal people. And let him come by tank, otherwise traffic jams, you know, will be difficult to drive through.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet April 16 2014 20: 01
      +1
      Quote: 52gim
      and then of the Aboriginal summer residents no.


      For the first time, the White House garden was defeated by President John Adams in 1800. During the Second World War, Elenor Roosevelt set up the Victory Garden on the lawn, and in the 1990s, the Clintons built a small garden on the roof of the White House, where vegetables and herbs were grown. At the initiative of the Kitchen Gardeners International Gardeners Association, more than 100 people signed a petition calling for the Obama couple to revive the garden that previously existed at the White House.

      Therefore, in the second half of March 2009, US First Lady Michelle Obama, along with schoolchildren and assistants, took up tools to create a garden on the south lawn of the White House.
  15. basmach
    basmach April 16 2014 19: 59
    +3
    Yes, the "increase" in Russian military spending is large, especially compared to the USSR. for 3 years they will buy as many as 48 su-35s (for one and a half regiments and that is not enough) For example, in the USSR, as a result of flight accidents and disasters, the Air Force and Air Defense lost about a hundred aircraft (almost a division) a year counting the supply of new weapons. But soon there will be no one to create it. What do you think is the salary of a design engineer, for example in KBP or "Splav". With all the markups and allowances, 20 thousand. I know for sure, I wanted to get a job and my friends are working There are many who wish (competent and intelligent designers and operators) to work. So a large part of the expenses goes to the pocket of the generals (salary, theft, etc.) and other bigwigs associated with the purchase of weapons.
  16. vitaliy707
    vitaliy707 April 16 2014 20: 59
    0
    The American economy is essentially speculative, many Americans expect to capitalize on market fluctuations, such an economy cannot develop sooner or later, it is degrading, today Apple has already placed production in China and cannot transfer it back to America and this state of most of the American economy, and in Asia, people produce with their own hands and such an economy will develop.
  17. capex1
    capex1 April 16 2014 21: 40
    +2
    Russia must strengthen the expansion of its weapons. By increasing the sales of our weapons, the Russian defense industry will be able to afford, without looking back (the country's budget), to develop an advanced weapon for its army that is capable of guaranteed response to any challenges with minimal casualties. And in the end it’s jobs, replenishment of the budget, the prestige of the country as a superpower.
  18. Kurkin
    Kurkin April 16 2014 22: 58
    +1
    Article plus, only here
    and dumbfounded by Russian power, Europe is guaranteed to take part in the arms race
    Russian is necessary with a capital letter, and a geyropa with a small one!
  19. kodxnumx
    kodxnumx April 18 2014 08: 01
    0
    Now all the transferring developments of the USSR have gone in a bit having finalized them, they are the best in the world according to all technical specifications, if corruption is enough for the army and the citizen of Russia doesn’t have a chance to defend himself!
  20. beifall
    beifall April 19 2014 16: 52
    -1
    Russian folktale!!!!!!!!!
  21. arslan23
    arslan23 April 23 2014 09: 05
    +1
    The defense industry is good. Still, nanotechnology and electronics would be generally super developing. And as for America, I will say that quality also matters. Especially in the modern world. Where one missile cruiser can put an end to the advancement of an entire squadron of aircraft carriers and support groups. Missiles are cheaper than aircraft carriers. The most important thing is the East Kazakhstan area. No one will conduct a ground operation against Russia until they destroy the country's missile potential. So the first thing to do is shelling with intercontinental missiles and with all the missiles in general. This is where the aerospace defense is needed. Intercept all missiles and planes and suppress all firing positions whenever possible. In Iraq, the Americans initially fired rocket artillery at first, and only then sent tanks. In general, come up with an anti-gravity engine and extinguish all of the high Earth orbits. This is a breakthrough. We can’t catch up. We need to overtake. And for cheap. An anti-gravity engine would be a breakthrough that would give an advantage in space. And this is not for you.
  22. ALEK7SANDR
    ALEK7SANDR April 25 2014 21: 56
    0
    the main thing is that the variety of weapons does not turn your head