Financing of the Russian Armed Forces will decline
The Russian government has started creating a draft budget for 2012-2014 years. Among some radical measures proposed by the Ministry of Finance, there is a refusal to increase the number of contractors and officers in order to save 160 billion rubles. Another measure proposed in the project is to reduce the army in 3 of the year by 15 percent, thereby saving another 50 billion rubles. The state order for the supply of military equipment will also be cut for three years, on 100 billion rubles annually. If the cumulative mortgage lending for the military is reduced, which is also proposed to be done, 78 billion more rubles will be saved.
Especially strange is the latest know-how from officials, because in the conditions in which the military now live, they have definitely never been. Do not forget about the rather modest salaries, which are now received by Russian officers. However, reducing the size of the army, along with a decrease in the sums allocated in the framework of government orders of the defense industry, cause serious concerns. In fact, there is a decrease in the military potential of the state.
The Ministry of Finance is mainly led by liberal-minded people who consider the Russian armed forces, if not a parasite, then a burden that it would be nice to give up. Of course, to achieve such a goal with a swoop will not work. But you still have to strive for it, so gradual cuts in funding are a great way to start the process. On the one hand, this opinion has the right to life, because the Soviet Union partly collapsed due to the fact that it had to bear the enormous costs of maintaining the military power of the state.
How much is peace?
There is no doubt that if too much money is allocated to the defense industry, the country's economy will experience serious overloads. But if we are talking about the collapse of the Soviet Union, then no one has yet understood what the decisive role played in this process. Perhaps this is the complex ineffectiveness of the economic model, in which the state had to bear too high costs of maintaining stability.
But to contain foreign troops may be more expensive. First, the armed forces restrain external aggression, because when it comes, the costs of rebuilding the country will be higher than on maintaining the combat capability of the army. Secondly, in various diplomatic disputes, the armed forces are a weighty argument that allows us to drag the scales to our side. That is, despite the high price, it is difficult to call an army an unconditional parasite: there is benefit from it.
The national fun of Russia is walking around the rake, so few people can draw conclusions from their mistakes. Today is just screaming about how important it is to keep your army in combat readiness.
First, it is the experience of the old Europe. After the Cold War, all European countries began to cut spending on the maintenance of the armed forces, as well as reduce their numbers. But due to the fact that they use the hired principle, which is much more expensive than the draft, the costs are not reduced as quickly as they could. In other words, the army is becoming more professional, but less numerical. Armament has become very expensive, and any purchase of it is a serious expense item for the country.
The economic crisis that erupted several years ago contributed to the reduction of the armed forces of Europe. Some countries were forced to take unprecedented measures. So, in Holland they were withdrawn from the army Tankswithout which an effective war is unrealistic.
European countries, thus, lose their fighting capacity. But the matter is not only in psychology, because in European minds the ideas of pacifism and peaceful resolution of problems are becoming increasingly stronger. Reducing their weapons to a certain limit can be dangerous. Weapons will become so small that it will be instantly destroyed by the enemy, which means that it will be impossible to conduct military operations. Weapons are so expensive that you don’t want to lose them, respectively, you don’t want to send them to the embrasure. So it was with the battleships during the Second World War. But only tanks, fighters and other equipment were always considered combat material, which was a pity to lose, but not fatal.
A cheap but inefficient army, by virtue of zero efficiency, can turn out to be incredibly expensive. The most striking example of recent years is the war in Libya, where the US military has practically moved away from hostilities. They gave the opportunity to show themselves to the Europeans. Resistance from the troops of Gaddafi is almost zero. But the result is the same: the Europeans have nothing to fight. However, now the cost of warfare has reached a serious value. The inefficiency of using expensive ammunition is confirmed by the fact that they have no end in sight in the third month of combat. This is what this saving leads to: waging war is expensive, inefficient, and almost without result.
Unlike the expensive, but efficient army, “cheap” troops become a big burden for the whole country. Money needs to continue to be spent, but there is no demand. Yes, and cope with the enemy she can not. We can say that the money goes nowhere, because such an army cannot fulfill its mission in any case. Europeans have a reliable shield - this is the United States, which will protect them from any threat if necessary. If this guarantor of stability in the region were not, then they would have experienced what the expensive cheap army is and why it will not help in principle.
Saving on security is a crime
Unlike Europe, China clearly understands the problems it faces. 30-40 years ago, the Chinese army was a huge, cumbersome mechanism, the technical side of which was more suitable for scrap metal, and people who wore shoulder straps often did not have a sufficient degree of training for effective combat operations. This was demonstrated by the Vietnam War, where the Chinese were able to distinguish themselves only in savages against the local population. Wash away the stigma of shame now almost unreal.
First of all, the Chinese army was significantly reduced. If in the 90-ies 4.5 was allocated a billion dollars to maintain the country's combat capability, now, according to official statements, expenses are no less than 100 billions. In fact, this amount can be in 2, 3 and times higher, in addition, it tends to increase. The Chinese economy is not an example of "market" and more liberal than the Russian. But the Chinese would never part with their money just like that, without getting anything in return. By investing their savings in the defense industry, they get security.
The Chinese leadership is confident that defense spending, the growth rate of which is much higher than GDP growth, will justify itself.
The number of Chinese army does not decrease, while the quality of equipment, the level of training of soldiers is constantly growing. In accordance with the world rankings, the Chinese army is among the top three in the world, and it has every chance to take second place. If you look into the future, you can say that all wars will be fought for resources. China, which practically does not possess them, will be forced to look for its minerals in other countries. And a powerful army will be very welcome here. Having a huge army, it is not necessary to carry out direct aggression. Many countries will have to comply in order not to become easy prey for the eastern giant. In this sense, it is very cheap to maintain an expensive army.
In the Russian Federation, the armed forces are in poor condition. The rearmament is vitally important, while truly new equipment must be introduced, and not modernized samples of the Soviet era. After all, Mi-28, T-90 and other brands of the Russian army came to us from there. In this sense, modern money injections into the defense industry are not very rational. And it is all the more dangerous to cut them, because it is possible to cross the line beyond which restoration will be impossible. The growing threat from China should encourage Russia to increase its military potential, because threats can come from several points at the same time.
As for the housing conditions of the military, as well as their salaries, there is nothing to say here: they should be increased in proportion to the work of representatives of this industry.
Need to save, no one argues. In Russia there is a huge potential in terms of saving money: in all industries there is something to strive for. First you need to reduce the cost of corruption, which by the most conservative estimates are ten times greater than the cost of the army. Secondly, it is necessary to reform the decision-making system itself, deriving from it costly and inefficient elements (one of which is the Ministry of Finance). A great example of this is the holding of the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, a subtropical climate zone. A lot of money is spent on unnecessary propaganda, the maintenance of various youth groups, the purchase of yachts, expensive jewelry, foreign real estate. But the same Ministry of Finance can do nothing with such irrational expenses, because people making such purchases are above the law and outside the judicial systems.
Information