With his ratings down and state funds needed to hedge against new Western sanctions and raise living standards, Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot afford to get sucked into a costly nuclear arms race with the US.
Alleging Russian violations, Washington this month said that it was suspending its obligations under the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and starting the process of quitting it, untying its hands to develop new missiles.
That raises the prospect of a new arms race between Washington and Moscow, which denies flouting the treaty.
Putin responded by saying Russia would mirror the US moves by suspending its own obligations and quitting the pact.
However, Putin, who has sometimes used bellicose rhetoric to talk up Russia’s standoff with the West and to rally Russians around the flag, did not up the ante.
He did not announce new missile deployments, said that money for new systems must come from existing budget funds and declared that Moscow would not deploy new land-based missiles in Europe or elsewhere unless Washington did so first.
“We must not and will not let ourselves be drawn into an expensive arms race,” Putin told Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu.
His statement was born of necessity.
Harsh economic and political realities and memories of how the cost of the Cold War arms race contributed to the Soviet Union’s demise means Putin’s options are limited, a situation that might curb his appetite for escalation.
That does not mean Putin is not still spending heavily on the military. He last year unveiled an array of new weapons, which he billed as world-beating, including a hypersonic missile, a laser weapon, an underwater nuclear drone and a nuclear-powered cruise missile.
However, his ability to bankroll a full-on arms race is limited.
“We need to keep in mind that the question of an arms race that could cut us into pieces is entirely realistic,” former Russian central bank governor Sergei Dubinin told Russia’s RBC TV channel before Washington announced its exit.
He said that the US was trying to repeat its successful Cold War strategy of pushing Moscow into an arms race it could not afford and that Russia would be ill-advised to try to attain parity and needed a smart response instead.
Memories of empty supermarket shelves in the run-up to the 1991 Soviet collapse still haunt many older Russians as the then-Soviet Union directed huge cash flows to the military-industrial complex to try to keep up with the US while neglecting the consumer economy.
“They [the Americans] recall that the Soviet Union collapsed in part because it tried to keep up with the United States when it came to who produced more missiles, nuclear submarines and tanks,” military expert Viktor Litovkin told the Russian army’s Zvezda TV channel.
“They are trying to do the same thing today,” he added.
With the INF treaty suspended, Washington and Moscow have said they will develop previously prohibited short and intermediate-range land-based missiles, with Russia saying it wants them ready by 2021.
Shoigu told Putin the money to develop two new land-based missile launchers would come from this year’s budget by reallocating existing funds.
Russia does not disclose the full extent of its military and national security spending, but said it would account for about 30 percent of its 18 trillion ruble (US$273 billion) budget this year.
Oil revenues mean Russia is not short of money. Its budget surplus this year is projected to be 1.932 trillion rubles or 1.8 percent of GDP. Its foreign-exchange reserves stand at US$478 billion, the fifth-largest in the world.
However, the money is already allocated in a way dictated by Moscow’s difficult geopolitical situation and by Putin’s own increasingly tricky domestic political landscape. Reallocating the money would be painful.
Moscow is hoarding cash to try to give itself a US$200 billion buffer against new Western sanctions and is embarking on a multibillion dollar spending push to try to overhaul the country’s creaky infrastructure and raise living standards.
With signs of rising discontent over years of falling real incomes, rising prices, an increase in value-added tax and an unpopular plan to raise the pension age, Putin is under pressure to deliver.
Igor Nikolaev, director of auditor FBK’s Strategic Analysis Institute, said that Putin might have to take money from other parts of the budget to fund a new arms race, which would force him to scale back social spending plans or dip into the national wealth fund to top up the budget.
If a burgeoning arms race intensified, such a scenario would become more likely and Putin would be reluctant to spend more on defense in the current political climate, he said.
“It would not be desirable, especially as we know what’s happening with real incomes and that there are problems with his rating,” Nikolaev said. “Cutting spending on national projects would receive a mixed reaction.”
Although re-elected last year until 2024, and therefore not under immediate political pressure, Putin’s trust rating has fallen to a 13-year low. A poll this month showed that the number of Russians who believe their country is going in the wrong direction hit its highest level since 2006.
Putin’s symmetrical response to Washington, which involves developing new missiles, has already angered some Russians.
“Are new arms a source of joy?” blogger Vladimir Akimov wrote, saying the money would be better spent on lifting people out of poverty. “Why not begin by repairing the roads and knocking down the wooden shacks [that people live in] across the country.”
Additional reporting by Andrey Ostroukh
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry