That's a simplistic answer from a politician starting an election campaign. The more pointed question that should be asked is this: How, with a relatively small and decreasing military budget -- 2.77 trillion rubles ($42.3 billion) for 2018, down from some 3.05 trillion rubles this year -- is Russia is still a formidable military rival to the US, with its enormous and increasing budget of almost $692.1 billion in 2018, up from $583 billion this year?Russias military is leaner, but meaner
Leonid Bershidsky
During Russian President Vladimir Putins annual press conference on Thursday, a friendly journalist asked Putin whether the escalating tension in relations with the US and the crumbling of arms control treaties would draw Russia into an unsustainable arms race. We will ensure our security without engaging in an arms race, the president replied, citing widely diverging dollar numbers for the US and Russian defense budgets.
Thats a simplistic answer from a politician starting an election campaign. The more pointed question that should be asked is this: How, with a relatively small and decreasing military budget -- 2.77 trillion rubles ($42.3 billion) for 2018, down from some 3.05 trillion rubles this year -- is Russia is still a formidable military rival to the US, with its enormous and increasing budget of almost $692.1 billion in 2018, up from $583 billion this year?
The equalizing value of the two countries well-balanced nuclear deterrents is enough of a reason to avoid direct confrontation. But leaving that aside, Putin may well understand the nature of modern military challenges better than US President Donald Trump and US legislators -- and Russias authoritarian system may be more efficient when it comes to military allocations. Note that Russia is now almost an equal to the US as a power broker in the Middle East, where the Russian military has just helped Syrian regime head Bashar Assad effectively win a civil war -- in which the US was helping the other side. At the same time, Russian defense spending numbers are deceptive. The country is far more militarized than its defense spending suggests.
Trumps military spending hike, which makes it necessary to remove the existing cap on defense expenditure, is a dubious and likely outdated response to decreased global security.
Quite aside from the cost of maintaining the worlds most powerful military, the US, according to the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, has spent at least $2 trillion on its wars since 2001. But, considering the less transparent costs, such as those of caring for veterans, war-related increases to the Department of Defense base budget and interest on the debt taken on to cover defense spending, its closer to $4 trillion at the very least. The Afghan conflict has cost the US at least $840 billion -- more than four times Afghanistans cumulative GDP since 2001. Since the 2018 US defense budget contains additional funds for sending 3,500 more troops to Afghanistan, the results of the massive outlay over the years are clearly sub-optimal.
Todays wars arent fought with fat wads of money. The adversaries are mostly small, agile forces that arent as well-resourced as nation states. Fighting them requires a combination of local knowledge, brute force applied only at important points in a conflict and ability to shift risks onto the shoulders of irregular fighters. Russia kept cutting its defense budget all through its participation in the Syrian war. Yabloko, an opposition party, earlier this year put the cost of the Syrian operation for Russia at about 140.4 billion rubles ($2.4 billion at the current exchange rate) since September, 2015; thats some 4 percent of what the US allocated to overseas contingency operations in 2017 alone -- and the outcome is as good as Russia could have expected.
The US is pumping money into comparatively inefficient war-fighting -- and into preparing for the kind of large-scale war thats not likely to take place because of existing nuclear arsenals and unauthorized nuclear proliferation. Even North Korea, with its unknown but probably small nuclear capability, is dangerous enough to deter the US from attacking.
US defense budgets, of course, feed a large, powerful domestic industry; even the indirect US involvement in a conflict lifts the stock prices of major defense contractors, research has shown. In Russia, the biggest contractors are state-controlled; they have far less lobbying clout, and the technocratic Russian government has kept them on a short leash, though some of the militarys purchasing decisions have served regional development rather than defense purposes.
That said, in relative terms, Russia is spending more on force-related functions than the US does. Trumps budget proposal allocated $71.8 billion to the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department. Add that up with the defense spending, and the total security budget will stand at $764 billion, less than 19 percent of total federal spending. Russia will spend a combined 29 percent of its federal budget -- some 4.8 trillion rubles -- on defense and domestic security.
Russia could show the world how to spend efficiently on more than adequate defense -- but instead it is engaged in an arms race against its own development. For years, it has been under-funding areas such as education and health, undermining what Putin told the press conference was his vision of the countrys future -- flexible, technology-driven, highly productive. Judging by Putins answers to reporters on Thursday, he still prefers not to notice that.
Bloomberg
