the defense Ministry Military police of the armed forces conducts a patrol near the Syrian city of Kobani.
the Ministry of defence
the Center for political information (TSPI) has introduced a new rating military influence States, which includes a broader analysis of indicators, rather than simply the quantitative and qualitative state of the armed forces of any country.
“We have taken into account the cost-effectiveness of States in the armed forces, the ability to apply soft power, the economy and the amount of natural resources, the quality and stability of management, the presence of military alliances, and much more that is not included in most current ratings,” – said during an online conference the CEO of CPS Alexei Mukhin.
the study notes that most current ratings are limited to the comparison quantitative, financial indicators, and these estimates often put Russia in second place in the world after the USA. But it does not take into account other important criteria such as the existence of nuclear weapons, qualitative indicators of military and political leadership of the country, the so-called “soft power” and much more.
in addition, most rankings do not consider the impact of international sanctions and systematic unfair competition with the partiesNY other countries in the world arms market, the rationality and efficiency of spending of funds allocated to the military, in consequence of which manifested an underestimation of the defense potential of Russia.
As noted in the CIP, all ratings and evaluation of military/national power are provisional and debatable, whereas the real potential can only show real conflict, and its outcome is influenced by many factors. A new comprehensive analysis that includes such factors as “weapons”, “military expenditure”, “personnel”, “management”, “image”, “mapfactory”, changes the usual balance of the first three States – Russia, USA and China, although all three members of it are still present, inform “Arguments and Facts”.
the report’s Authors draw attention to the fact that a simple increase in military spending does not mean the automatic achievement of military superiority. As stressed by the study’s author Alexey Mukhin, the distinctive feature of the situation in Russia was that its military capacity is going up, military spending down.
the Participants of the online conference also acknowledged the contribution of the Minister of defence of Russia Sergey Shoigu in increasing the defense capability of Russia. As stated by the Director of the Center for political analysis Pavel Danilin, in recent years in the Russian army in a 3.5-fold increase in the number of contract professionals that seriously raised the fighting capacity of the army. And such a level of development of the Russian army is directly linked to the quality of the work of the Ministry of defense of Russia.
in addition, the experts pointed out that the reassessment of military capabilities should take into account the possession by countries of a new kind of weapon – a hypersonic, yet no one in the world except Russia. And this fundamentally changes the balance of power. Beyond the commitment to losing, the positive experience of military operations outside the country, you also have to take into account the possibility of other conflicts and potential adversaries in the event of a global conconflict.
Based on all the collected and analyzed indicators, ranking of the 15 strongest military influence of countries in the world as follows.
1. Russia. the Stability of the political and military institutions. Parity with the advanced world powers. Participation in the resolution of the majority of the world’s armed conflicts. Effectively implements humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. Able to create and maintain a full-fledged military alliances of different formats. In conflict resolution comes from positions of non-interference in the internal Affairs of States, supporting the legally elected government. Introducing efficient and flexible financial instruments for the maintenance of national power, guaranteeing the continued foreign influence and maintaining internal defenses.
2. USA. lack of coordination in the higher echelons of the state and military administration. Defense capabilities ensures complete protection of the territory with the ability to project military and political force in several directions at once. Humanitarian and peacekeeping mission – with varying degrees of success. In military-technical cooperation (MTC) with allies and partners often use leverage. The high level of spending on the military. The efficiency of resource allocation is questioned: a significant part of the funds allocated for the maintenance of a large number of military bases abroad and conducting several military campaigns.
3. China. Stability of political and military institutions, showing the ability to protect the interests in the international arena, but always ready for action. Develops qualitative and quantitative preserves the capacity of the armed forces. There is an opportunity to project political and military power, but no real to the experience. The willingness to sacrifice own resources to maintain regional and global security is not obvious. In military-technical cooperation with partners in quality importer of arms often is mechanisms illegal copying technologies, which complicates cooperation. Over the past few decades did not engage in direct or indirect armed conflict. Maintains a high level of spending on the military.
4/5. France and the United Kingdom. Have relatively stable political and military institutions. Actively developing the quality potential of armed forces. Have the ability to project military and political power on a limited scale and often act as auxiliary forces of the United States. Take limited participation in peacekeeping missions. In conflict resolution come from a position of active interference in the internal Affairs of States. The positive results of participation in the latest armed conflict is not obvious. Have relatively high spending on defence.
6/7. India and Pakistan. More focused on domestic issues, and the bilateral resolution of border conflicts. Have significant quantitative military and human resources, and also have a nuclear potential capable of guaranteeing the protection of the territory. In foreign policy more take a passive position. Opportunities for limited projection of political and military power, but no real experience.
8/9/10. Turkey, Iran, Israel. Retain and develop quantitative quality level of defense capability at an acceptable level. Limited to interests within the region, but can take an active role in international Affairs. Have the potential to spread soft power on neighbouring countries, involved in the formation of coalitions. Have a balanced military budget. Defence capabilities of Turkey and Iran to focus more on quantitative indicators, Israel – on quality.
11/12. South Korea and Japan. Have a high level of defense spending. Limited to interests within the region, but also can take an active role in international Affairs. Participate in the formation of coalitions, but mainly rely on allied help of the USA. There is limited capacity to project military and political power in the region, but there is no real for this experience.
13/14/15. Italy, Germany, Poland. Show a desire to increase the quality indicators of the defense potential, form a defense policy based on Alliance obligations within NATO, but Italy is developing its military-political interests outside Europe. Periodically participate in resolving some conflicts, as the political, diplomatic and peacekeeping force.
the Full study is available on the website of the LIC.