By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russia intends to spend approximately $1.1 trillion on rearmament by 2036, representing its largest arms program since the Soviet Union’s collapse. The Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine reports that this investment accompanies a comprehensive mobilization of Russian resources for potential large-scale conflict. Within its military reform, Russia is establishing new military districts and formations while aiming to destabilize the existing global order through increased influence in Africa, hybrid operations, and cyber warfare. Russia seeks to reshape the world order, prioritizing the dominance of major powers and control over essential resources.
Read the original article here
Russia plans to spend over a trillion dollars on rearmament by 2036, a figure that’s certainly making waves. It’s a headline grabber, no doubt, and sparks a lot of questions. The ambition is clear, but the feasibility? That’s where things get interesting.
The question that immediately jumps to mind is: where is this money coming from? It’s a common thread in the discussions. Russia’s economy is, let’s say, not exactly known for its robust nature. The current ruble value compared to the dollar paints a certain picture. Then there’s the persistent issue of corruption. If a trillion dollars is being earmarked for arms, how much of that actually makes its way into the intended purpose, considering the potential for graft and skimming? The idea of a massive influx of funds also brings up the issue of what is actually being rearmed.
Russia’s recent military performance in Ukraine raises some serious doubts, especially in terms of production. The quality and capability of their equipment and the attrition they are facing. One has to wonder what the outcome will be. After the war, it’s likely they need to replace equipment more than upgrade. Given this, even this large sum might be nothing more than a drop in the bucket. Also, what’s being replaced? It might be a lot of old WWII technology, which will take a considerable amount of money.
We have to remember that this isn’t a fixed amount. Russian economic planning and forecasting hasn’t exactly been stellar, either. Just because they *plan* to spend this amount doesn’t guarantee it will happen. It’s an announcement, a statement of intent, but not a guarantee of reality. Let’s remember the plans to take over Ukraine in three days and how that turned out.
If they’re really planning on a significant rearmament push, what does that mean in terms of the kind of military they are intending to build? Are we talking about a modern, technologically advanced fighting force, or something else? Russia is having issues with high-tech equipment, so this would be a huge challenge to deal with. The attrition has likely been massive, and how are they planning on recruiting more people to build their new army? A huge issue is the population pyramid, which could be severely impacted by the current war.
The US military budget is a great point of reference. If this is a ten-year investment, it’s similar to a year of US military defense spending. That’s a lot, but the US has a much larger and more developed economy. But we need to keep in mind the level of waste, as many people note.
The potential for arms sales is there. The US is unlikely to stand by and do nothing. This is an opportunity for a lot of countries to spend on weapons.
The situation does raise questions about Russian priorities and its long-term strategy. While the rearmament plan may be a play for increased global influence and military strength, it also points to some deeper issues. The country is facing significant economic challenges, resource constraints, and potential social unrest. Investing a trillion dollars in the military, while arguably necessary for some, might come at the expense of other crucial sectors, like infrastructure, healthcare, and social welfare.
Ultimately, Russia’s rearmament plans are a complex issue with many moving parts. We have to consider the resources available, the corruption factor, the actual production capabilities, and the ever-changing geopolitical landscape. A lot depends on whether this is a realistic strategy or simply a bold claim. The outcome will be interesting to follow.