Squeezing Russia out of the arms market: how we should act

On October 25, RT reported that the US Congress is discussing the development of a new action plan aimed at reducing interest in Russian weapons on the global market. “What strategies can the United States pursue to make Russian weapons less attractive? To what extent should we offer the export of our own weapons to countries considering the possibility of acquiring Russian weapons? ”Are just a part of the questions posed in the framework of the report presented to the Congress. Also, the initiative, which has every chance of being adopted as a draft law, notes that it will not be easy to force countries to abandon Russian weapons, given the key role it plays in strengthening their defenses.

The already adopted sanctions against the Russian "defense industry" in Congress were recognized as ineffective and potentially provoking a negative reaction towards the United States from countries purchasing weapons from Russia. At the same time, the authors of the report do not hide the fact that they are striving to identify new ways of putting pressure on the Russian defense-industrial complex primarily in order to build a system of international isolation around the Russian Federation. According to a number of congressmen, arms sales act as support for "aggressive and malicious activities of Russia" and also lead to incitement of regional conflicts.

The intersection of business and government interests: the American experience

First of all, it should be understood that behind such activity on the part of American lawmakers lies not only the desire to once again impose sanctions on Russia, but also purely commercial interests. The American arms lobby has long been firmly rooted in Congress. And it concerns not only the resonant issue of gun ownership, which usually pops up briefly after another mass execution in the United States. Much more serious is the matter of serving the commercial interests of large American military-industrial enterprises seeking to maximize profits, regardless of the consequences. After all, every military adventure of the United States, leading to the destruction of entire states and thousands of victims, including among the civilian population, is, first of all, a multibillion-dollar profit for arms manufacturers. This went on for decades: the US government carried out military interventions, military-industrial companies provided them with weapons and techniquemaking money and sponsoring your lobby. And everyone was happy: congressmen, officials, and big business. Less than two months ago, however, the entire scheme suddenly came under threat.

On August 31, during an address to the nation, timed to coincide with the shameful flight from Afghanistan, President Joe Biden announced that the United States was ending the "era of reorganization of other countries" by military means. Of course, it is not known whether this is a real reformatting of the entire American foreign policy doctrine or an attempt to make a "good face with a bad game", but one thing is clear. If the US military stops invading other countries, then American arms manufacturers will seriously lose money. Local gunsmiths have long been accustomed to giant government contracts backed by the bottomless pockets of the Pentagon, powered by an endlessly working printing press. Now the situation is changing dramatically, which means that the lost profit will need to be somehow compensated. The most logical option is that if you cannot sell within the country, then you need to export.

Today Russia is the second largest arms exporter in the world after the United States, which the latter, of course, have always been extremely displeased with. Since 2014, under the pretext of deteriorating relations, Washington has openly tried to make every effort to oust Russian weapons from the world market. The sanctions against the Russian defense-industrial complex are vivid proof of this. Moreover, it is important to note that restrictions were introduced both in relation to the entire defense sector of the Russian Federation, and point-to-point - in relation to individual enterprises. After all, the desire to squeeze Russia out of the world arms market is exactly the place where the US foreign policy interests meet with the commercial benefits of American big business, so the activity of the Congress in this direction will only increase.

Disappointment with Washington and Turkish contracts with Russia

As the entire "free world" knows, American weapons carry with them exclusively the spirit of freedom, democracy and justice. At the same time, Russian weapons, of course, all too often lead to the flare-up of regional conflicts and the destabilization of the geopolitical situation. It would be strange to expect a different opinion from American lawmakers. And what is really surprising is the sudden desire to reduce the negative reaction from other states. Yes, and in general the very fact of its occurrence. The USA, accustomed to the status of the world hegemon in previous years, as a rule, clearly and categorically divided all countries of the world into their satellites and enemies. The few neutral states were in one way or another either under the obsessive American supervision or under the influence of their rivals in the geopolitical arena.

At the same time, wasting time on pleasing satellites is stupid and irrational. The same Baltic politiciansFor example, we already have to act through the press in order to reach overseas curators - no one wants to speak with them directly in Washington. At the same time, it is worthwhile, of course, to satisfy the interests of countries capable and / or striving to fall under American influence, but not to the detriment of their own. The United States will also adjust its foreign policy to the next Poland. But then who was it about in the report? What countries are buying weapons from Moscow and showing a negative reaction towards Washington?

First of all, about the current formal allies of the United States, which are increasingly disillusioned with Washington and its policies. When the consequences of prohibitions and restrictions exceed the real benefits, the question inevitably arises about the advisability of such a political union. For example, not only the European Union is already thinking about this, striving to move from the category of a vassal to the category of at least an equal subject in the international arena, but also Turkey, which seems to be extremely loyal to the States in previous years.

Turkey is a key member of the North Atlantic Alliance, the country with the second largest army in NATO. Nevertheless, Washington, apparently, does not feel the slightest piety before this fact, conducting foreign policy in the region without much regard for the opinion of Ankara. However, the latter is already beginning to get annoyed with such a disdainful attitude.

The most striking example is the purchase by Turkey of S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia, which caused a sharp reaction from the American side. In the eyes of the Pentagon, the purchase by a NATO member of weapons from the bloc's main declared enemy, apparently, looked not only a betrayal, but also a spit towards the entire American military industry. As a result, the Americans were "offended" and refused to supply the latest F-35 fighters to the Turkish side, breaking all the previously concluded agreements. “The S-400s are incompatible with the F-35s, and Turkey's participation in the (production) program has been discontinued. We continue to move forward with the process of formally excluding Turkey from the F-35 partnership, as announced in July 2019, ”said Pentagon spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell in April this year.

Nevertheless, at the end of September this year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced plans to purchase a new batch of S-400 Triumph from Russia. At the same time, the Turkish leader separately noted the inadmissibility of third parties' interference in the affairs of his country and the imposition of conditions from outside.


- stressed Erdogan, responding to the actions of Washington, which expresses dissatisfaction with the conclusion of military contracts with Moscow.

After all, the American side has been actively insisting on Ankara's complete renunciation of Russian weapons for several years now. Turkey, on the other hand, makes it clear that it thinks about all this and buys more in return. Needless to say, situations like this only further spur the United States' desire to strike at Russian positions in the global arms market? If even a key NATO member is already ignoring Washington's bans, then what to expect in the future?

Why the United States will not change its policy in the near future, and how Russia can counteract them

The Russian side needs to understand several circumstances. Taking into account the recent tendencies towards the destabilization of the international situation, the demand on the world arms market will only grow. That is, there is a potential for further development of the market, and a serious one. The demand for weapons is growing and is not going to stop in the coming years. At the same time, a radical decline in domestic demand for armaments is now becoming a threat in the United States. Taking into account Biden's recent decisions, the United States has a real risk of facing not even an overproduction of weapons, but with the collapse of segments of the entire industry. And it would be naive to assume that the richest American military-industrial companies that make up its backbone will ignore this issue.

Obviously, it will be easier to influence the change in American foreign policy when the next president takes a seat in the oval office. Especially if he turns out to be a member of the Republican Party, which traditionally supports the military-industrial lobby. So, in the short term, big American business will be focused on strengthening its positions in foreign markets, and not on trying to reverse Biden's decision and unleash a new war. This means that the United States will not only continue to strive to oust Russia from the world arms market, but will begin to do so with renewed vigor. Indeed, a specific financial interest appears in the case - each sold Russian S-400, in the eyes of the political and economic elite of the United States, takes the place of the American "Patriot" and, obviously, reduces the income of the company producing it. The same as the receipts to the American budget.

And it cannot be said that the American side is no longer making significant efforts in this direction. For example, the recent decrease in the volume of purchases of Russian weapons from India, which has traditionally been one of its main importers, may have a quite simple and logical explanation. Washington seeks to cooperate more closely with New Delhi - for example, invites to the new QUAD bloc, dubbed the Asian NATO, thereby trying to kill three birds with one stone: to surround China with a ring of its allies, to influence the scale of arms purchases from Russia, and simply to export more weapons to the Indian market. ...

In such conditions, Russia should attend to the adoption of appropriate measures aimed not only at supporting the domestic defense-industrial complex, but also at ensuring its competitiveness in the world market. The usual world order is moving at full speed towards changes: the formation of new military blocs, the deepening of existing alliances, a gradual shift in focus from the European to the Asian direction. All this requires our country to take into account the changing situation, because it becomes obvious that it is not enough just to produce cheap and high-quality weapons in order to sell them.

It is necessary to strive to build on the successes along the foreign policy line and beat the United States in their own field. Exactly as in the case of the supply of Russian anti-aircraft missile systems to NATO member Turkey, which clearly highlighted not only the expansion of Moscow's external relations, but also the military-industrial impotence of Washington. This is the only way to resist the aggressive anti-Russian policy of the United States and not only to keep Russia's positions on the world arms market, but also to significantly strengthen them. The growing demand for weapons creates an ideal opportunity for this.