The Russian government has begun to create a draft budget for 2012-2014. Among some of the radical measures proposed by the Ministry of Finance is the refusal to increase the number of contract soldiers and officers in order to save 160 billion rubles. Another measure proposed in the project is to reduce the army by 15 percent in 3 years, thereby saving another 50 billion rubles. The state order for the supply of military equipment will also be cut within three years, by 100 billion rubles annually. If cumulative mortgage lending for the military is cut, which is also proposed to be done, another 78 billion rubles will be saved.
The latest know-how from officials seems to be especially strange, because in the conditions in which the military now live, they certainly have never been. Do not forget about the rather modest salaries that Russian officers now receive. However, the reduction in the size of the army, along with a decrease in the amounts allocated within the framework of state orders for the defense industry, raise serious concerns. In fact, the military potential of the state is decreasing.
The Ministry of Finance is mainly run by people of a liberal orientation, who consider the Russian armed forces, if not a parasite, then a burden that it would be nice to abandon. Of course, it will not be possible to achieve such a goal with a swoop. But you still have to strive, so a gradual cut in funding is a great way to start the process. On the one hand, this opinion has a right to life, because the Soviet Union partly collapsed due to the fact that it had to bear huge costs to maintain the military strength of the state.
How much is peace of mind?
There is no doubt that if too much money is allocated for 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 played a decisive role in this process. Perhaps this is a complex inefficiency of the economic model, in which the state had to bear too large costs to maintain stability.
But maintaining foreign troops can be more expensive. Firstly, the armed forces restrain external aggression, because when it comes, the costs of rebuilding the country will be higher than maintaining the combat capability of the army. Secondly, in various diplomatic disputes, the military is a powerful argument that allows you to tug the scales to your side. That is, despite the high price, it is difficult to call the army an unconditional parasite: there is benefit from it.
The national fun of Russia is walking on a rake, therefore, few people in our country know how to draw conclusions from their mistakes. Today is simply screaming about how important it is to maintain your army in a combat-ready state.
First, this is the experience of 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 hiring principle, which is much more expensive than the draft, costs do not fall as quickly as they could. In other words, the army is becoming more professional, but less numerous. Armament has become very expensive, and any purchase of it is a serious item of expenditure for the country.
The economic crisis that broke out several years ago has contributed to the reduction of the armed forces of Europe. Some countries were forced to take unprecedented measures. So, in Holland, tanks were withdrawn from the army, without which it is unrealistic to wage an effective war.
European countries are thus losing their combat capability. But the point here is not only in psychology, because the ideas of pacifism and the peaceful solution of problems are increasingly being strengthened in European minds. Reducing your weaponry to a certain limit can be dangerous. Weapons will become so small that they will be instantly destroyed by the enemy, which means that it will be unrealistic to conduct hostilities. The weapon is so expensive that you don’t want to lose it, and, accordingly, you don’t want to send it “to the embrasure”. This was the case with battleships during World War II. But only tanks, fighters and other equipment have always been considered combat material, which was a pity to lose, but not fatal.
A cheap, but ineffective army, due to its zero efficiency, can turn out to be incredibly expensive. The most striking example of recent years is the war in Libya, where the US armed forces have practically withdrawn from hostilities. They gave the opportunity to show themselves to Europeans. Resistance from Gaddafi's troops is practically zero. But the result is the same: the Europeans have nothing to fight with. However, already now the cost of conducting hostilities has reached a serious value. The ineffectiveness of the use of expensive ammunition is confirmed by the fact that in the third month of warfare they do not see the end in sight. This is where this kind of economy comes in: waging war is expensive, ineffective, and practically ineffectual.
Unlike an expensive but efficient army, "cheap" troops become a big burden for the entire country. Money must continue to be spent, but there is no demand. And she will not be able to cope with the enemy. We can say that money is going nowhere, since such an army will not be able to fulfill its mission in any case. The 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 did not exist, they would have experienced themselves what an expensive cheap army is and why it will not help in principle.
Saving on security is a crime
Unlike Europe, China clearly understands the challenges it faces. 30-40 years ago, the Chinese army was a huge, clumsy 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 war in Vietnam, where the Chinese were able to distinguish themselves only in atrocities against the local population. To wash away the stigma of shame is now almost impossible.
First of all, the Chinese army was significantly reduced. If in the 90s, 4.5 billion dollars were allocated to maintain the country's combat capability, now, according to official statements, the costs amount to no less than 100 billion. In fact, this amount can be 2 or 3 times higher, in addition, it tends to grow. The Chinese economy is by no means more "market" and more liberal than the Russian one. But the Chinese will 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, which is growing at a rate much higher than GDP growth, will pay off.
The size of the Chinese army is not decreasing, while the quality of equipment, the level of training of soldiers is constantly growing. According to world rankings, the Chinese army is among the three strongest in the world, and it has every chance of taking second place. Looking into the future, we can say that all wars will be fought over resources. China, which practically does not possess them, will be forced to look for its minerals in other countries. And a powerful army will come in handy here. Having a huge army, it is not at all necessary to carry out direct aggression. Many countries will have to submit in order not to become easy prey for the eastern giant. In this sense, maintaining an expensive army is very cheap.
In the Russian Federation, the armed forces are in a deplorable state. Rearmament is vital, while really new technology should 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, the current injection of money into the defense industry is not very rational. And cutting them down is all the more dangerous, because you can cross the line beyond which recovery will no longer be possible. The growing threat from China should prompt Russia to build up its military capabilities, because threats can come from several points at the same time.
As for the living conditions of the military, as well as their salaries, there is nothing to say: they should be increased in proportion to the work of representatives of this industry.
You need to save money, no one argues with that. There is a huge potential in Russia in terms of saving money: in all industries there is something to strive for. To begin with, it is necessary to reduce the costs of corruption, which, according to the most conservative estimates, are dozens of times higher than the costs of the army. Secondly, it is necessary to reform the decision-making system itself, removing costly and ineffective elements from it (one of which is the Ministry of Finance). An excellent example of this is the holding of the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, a subtropical climatic zone. A lot of money is spent on unnecessary propaganda, the maintenance of various youth groups, the purchase of yachts, expensive jewelry, and foreign real estate. But the same Ministry of Finance cannot do anything about such irrational expenses, because people who make such purchases are above the laws and outside the judicial systems.
