You need to look at purchase power parity for a real world assessment of the budgets. Bang for buck. Both China and Russia have indigenous and well developed industrial military capacity. So this matters. Or maybe not look at that because it’s not reassuring. At all.
Looking at Russia's management of its Ukraine campaigns, it seems pretty clear that her "indigenous and well developed industrial military capacity" is mainly vaporware. Looking at the US failure to swiftly bring its Iran campaign to a conclusion, it seems apparent that budgeting for war is not as crucial as it used to be. We are ignoring some obvious shifts here. Note that China remains cautious in its campaign to conquer Taiwan and the Asian Pacific. They are deploying money and soft power, and gaining more influence than they would if they were deploying troops and weaponry. If we want to fight and win wars, then we need to learn how to do that without overwhelming force--because that way is just too damned expensive.
Thank you. The article’s distinction between presidential misjudgement and deeper structural realities is particularly thought-provoking. If the Iran war is ultimately remembered as a moment of revelation rather than transformation, its historical significance may prove greater than many currently appreciate.
I wouldn’t take issue with what Mark says but neither would l agree with it in its wider sweep. Too early to say. Like most of the democratic powers the key issues are how the bombs v butter issue plays out (in various countries) and whether the US can eventually appreciate the potential for mending its fences with its natural allies. The latter allowing it to resume its trusted leadership role and significantly increase its own power and influence. These issues play out over longer timescales than this presidency. The shambles of the Iranian war could be turning point, in future history, for a significant improvement in the overall geopolitical landscape (in a number of ways). Or it might not…..
According to SIPRI: The US therefore spends more than twice as much as China and Russia combined.
You need to look at purchase power parity for a real world assessment of the budgets. Bang for buck. Both China and Russia have indigenous and well developed industrial military capacity. So this matters. Or maybe not look at that because it’s not reassuring. At all.
Looking at Russia's management of its Ukraine campaigns, it seems pretty clear that her "indigenous and well developed industrial military capacity" is mainly vaporware. Looking at the US failure to swiftly bring its Iran campaign to a conclusion, it seems apparent that budgeting for war is not as crucial as it used to be. We are ignoring some obvious shifts here. Note that China remains cautious in its campaign to conquer Taiwan and the Asian Pacific. They are deploying money and soft power, and gaining more influence than they would if they were deploying troops and weaponry. If we want to fight and win wars, then we need to learn how to do that without overwhelming force--because that way is just too damned expensive.
Very interesting. Is my perception wrong that US military spending is high and has been so for decades, or are they spending it on the wrong things?
Best summary I have read- laser like focus on what this “war” means re US power in the 21C and the post- Cold War revised settlement.
Thank you. The article’s distinction between presidential misjudgement and deeper structural realities is particularly thought-provoking. If the Iran war is ultimately remembered as a moment of revelation rather than transformation, its historical significance may prove greater than many currently appreciate.
I wouldn’t take issue with what Mark says but neither would l agree with it in its wider sweep. Too early to say. Like most of the democratic powers the key issues are how the bombs v butter issue plays out (in various countries) and whether the US can eventually appreciate the potential for mending its fences with its natural allies. The latter allowing it to resume its trusted leadership role and significantly increase its own power and influence. These issues play out over longer timescales than this presidency. The shambles of the Iranian war could be turning point, in future history, for a significant improvement in the overall geopolitical landscape (in a number of ways). Or it might not…..
Very cogent Mark.