Russian military spending – USA Gov Policy

It has been a familiar refrain, from those seeking to further reduce the already dramatically shrunken U.S. defense budget, that America’s allies aren’t doing their part. Obviously, they haven’t been paying attention. From one end of the planet to the other, Washington’s friends are hiking their military spending even as the U.S. continues to dangerously defund its armed forces.

The Philippines have drastically increased its defense budget by 25%, notes Defense News. to a record high level for that nation.

Korea Observer reports that South Korea’s defense budget will increase by 4%.

Japan Today reports that Tokyo’s defense budget will exceed five trillion yen for the first time. The budget even includes funding for a controversial U.S. military base to replace the U.S. Marine Corps’s Futenma air base on the southern island of Okinawa, host to the bulk of U.S. military forces in Japan.

The United Kingdom’s defense spending has risen fairly steadily throughout the 21^st Century.

UPI reports that France will increase its 2016 defense budget .

Defense News reveals that “The German government under Chancellor Angela Merkel has approved plans to increase defense spending by 6.2 percent over the next five years.

Reuters reports that Lithuania will increase its defense spending by a third.

Perhaps the most significant dedication to countering the rising threats from the new and dangerous military threats from the Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean axis can be found in Poland, which has hiked its military expenditures by 18%. In fact, an Ozy review emphasizes: “A new military power may be rising on the plains of Central Europe. According to data recently released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading tracker of global defense spending, Poland’s military outlays last year jumped higher than any other country in Europe bar Ukraine, which is in the midst of a full-blown war. That includes Russia, which is on the other side of that war in Ukraine. In 2015, Poland’s plans for military spending top $10 billion. This is part and parcel of a 10-year, $36 billion modernization plan Warsaw launched in February to bulk up its defenses.”
Not only that, if the product is online cialis no prescription freeze-dried no heat has been used in the manufacturingprocess. GERSHOWITZ said the price of our prescription viagra uk remote control toys in the U.S. was $ 641 million, which exceeds the total sales in 2009. The only drawback is that organic burst acai berry is grown only generic tadalafil online in Brazilian rainforests and is very rarely available in its natural form. Quite a large number of males are dependent on purchase generic cialis these drugs and that you need to help yourself too.
Digital Journal, In fact, states that “NATO-member Poland has kicked off an unprecedented military spending spree worth billions to overhaul its forces as Warsaw believes peace in Europe is no longer a given…Poland has earmarked 33.6 billion euros ($42 billion) on [upgrades] over a decade, which includes a missile shield and anti-aircraft systems, armoured personnel carriers and submarines as well as combat drones…Its long shopping list is full of pricey items including multi-role and combat helicopters, an anti-missile system and cruise missiles for submarines and drones.”

Poland’s tragic 20^th century history, which saw it invaded by both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, gives that nation’s leadership a sober view of looming danger.

IBI Times reports that Poland, in addition to its NATO obligations, has signed a military cooperation agreement with Sweden over Russia’s increased military activity in the Baltic Sea. “Once a sea of peace, the Baltic has become a sea of danger,” said Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak. Sweden had already signed military agreements with Denmark and Finland as Russia’s actions continue to reverberate across the region.”

Defense News notes that Poland is taking a leading role in assisting the defense plans of nations formerly occupied by the Soviet Union. In October, Poland began its “Regional Security Assistance Program” to help Eastern European arm to defend itself against Moscow. Poland seeks to “boost defense and industrial cooperation with the Visegrad Group countries — Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic — as well as Romania, Bulgaria and the three Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia…local analysts said the move is part of a comprehensive strategy by Poland to enhance regional defense and security cooperation.”

America and its allies face a swiftly growing threat.

In Europe, Forbes notes that “From 2013 to 2014 Russia’s military budget increased by 26% in nominal terms. Hikes of a generally similar magnitude [were] announced for 2015…”

In Asia, Foreign Affairs notes “ in almost every year for over almost two decades, China increased its military expenditure by double-digit percentages” This years’ increase is 10.1%. At the same time, North Korea http://www.nkeconwatch.com/2015/04/14/rok-report-on-dprk-military-spending/ has increased its defense spending by 16 percent over the past five years.

In the Middle East, Business Insider stresses that Iran’s military budget is going to get a huge boost from the nuclear deal.

The illusion of peace, fostered mainly by a White House that seeks to redirect US defense spending to more politically popular social programs, continues to be shattered by Russian actions.

In statements eerily reminiscent of the excuse Hitler used to justify Nazi aggression in Europe, Yevgeny Lukyanov, the Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council is claiming that Russian speakers in the Baltic states need Moscow’s protection.

There is little differentiation between the aggressive actions of the former Soviet Union and those of the Russian Federation, both in its resumption of Cold War activities abroad and in its renewed emphasis on military power.

Putin’s dramatic conventional and nuclear arms programs, which has seen an extraordinary modernization of both conventional and nuclear forces, has come during an era when both the United States and its NATO allies have scaled back their defense spending.

While the U.S. was in the midst of an extensive reduction in military spending, Moscow, starting in 2010, launched a $720 billion modernization program. As noted by the Economist in 2014, “Russia’s defence spending has nearly doubled in nominal terms since 2007. This year alone it will rise by 18.4%.”

Russia has major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. The National Interest notes that Putin “has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet several years ago…… Perusing budget reports and position papers, Russian plans—spearheaded by the Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of the defense industry—certainly look impressive—and ominous. … If all goes according to plan, the Russian military, by 2020, will return to a million active-duty personnel, backed up by 2300 new tanks, some 1200 new helicopters and planes, with a navy fielding fifty new surface ships and twenty-eight submarines, with one hundred new satellites designed to augment Russia’s communications, command and control capabilities. Putin has committed to spending billions over the next decade to fulfill these requirements.
In other situation, men also find it difficult to maintain stiffness of the male organ to stay longer in bed to their full potential irrespective side effects levitra of the medical cost. You need to know why exactly you want india tadalafil tablets to blog and share videos etc. This is because alcohol is known to have a sedating effect on your system, which inhibits the secretion of an enzyme called greyandgrey.com viagra pfizer cialis phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE5). Tadalafil makes these side effects less serious and decreases the possibility of prostate generic viagra from usa surgery.
And a growing number of Russians support the military buildup. A Levada Center poll found that 46 percent of Russians were in favor of increasing military spending even if it led to an economic slowdown (versus 41 percent opposed if defense increases caused economic hardship.”

The Kremlin has not been shy about flaunting its power. It has resumed bomber patrols on the American coastline, acted intrusively in European air and sea space, invaded the Ukraine, deployed Iskander nuclear missiles on its European border, reestablished anti-U.S. military relations with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and engaged in large scale war training maneuvers with its ally China.

It also militarized the Arctic. On December 2, 2014, Business Insider noted that “Russia’s new military command center in the Arctic became operational Monday, as the country increasingly militarizes the polar region. Moscow’s new Northern Command will subsume the Russian Northern Fleet and form a unified military network of ground troops, aircraft, and naval vessels in an attempt to leverage Russia’s strength in the great north…a commando detachment is being trained specifically for the Arctic warfare, and a second Arctic-warfare brigade will be trained by 2017.Furthermore, a year-round airbase is under construction in the New Siberian Islands Archipelago alongside an additional 13 airfields and ten air-defense radar stations. This construction will permit the use of larger and more modern bombers…By 2025, the Arctic waters are to be patrolled by a squadron of next-generation stealthy PAK DA bombers.”

Russia has also violated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty. According to the U.S. State Department, “The United States has determined that in 2014, the Russian Federation continued to be in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”

Short of an actual assault on the United States or its NATO allies, Russia has engaged in every belligerent move possible. That assault is not a mere distant concern. Russia has engaged in threatening words and actions against Baltic states NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, an action which could precipitate a major Russia-NATO clash.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.