Posts

Military Exercise & War Game

A military exercise or war game is a measure to test the performance of the armed forces without engaging on the battlefield. On the intangible side, military exercises promote brotherhood and camaraderie between soldiers and militaries. Besides goodwill, it is a tool for the projection of a nation’s soft power.

In international relations strategy, military diplomacy has, in recent years, emerged as a powerful tool to further the diplomatic interests of nations. Participation in international level military exercises is an indication of the highest level of trust and confidence between the member nations. It is a critical confidence-building measure (CBM) and an expression of the faith reposed by India in another country or a group of member nations.

Military exercises have enabled militaries to understand each other’s drills and procedures, overcome language barriers, and familiarize equipment capabilities. It also facilitates understanding and familiarisation with new technologies that other countries may be utilizing and enables on-the-job training of each other’s crews. This is particularly useful in the event of joint operations, whether in war or in operations other than war (OOTW) – humanitarian aid, disaster relief, anti-piracy, etc. – when nations come together for a common cause. A fine example was the aid assistance provided by a host of nations during the tsunami in South East Asia, where a massive land, air, and sea rescue effort was successfully executed to give relief to the affected countries.

Australia, Japan, India, and the United States, otherwise known as QUAD, have  conducted the second edition of the Malabar naval exercises off the coast of Guam from August 26-29, 2021. This time including the fourth member of the QUAD, i.e., Australia.

According to the Indian Defence ministry, MALABAR-21 witnessed high-tempo exercises conducted between Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes, Submarines, Helicopters, and Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the participating navies. Complex surface, sub-surface, and air operations, including Live Weapon Firing Drills, Anti-Surface, Anti-Air, and Anti-Submarine Warfare Drills, Joint Manoeuvres, and Tactical exercises were conducted during this exercise. The 2020 edition of the Malabar exercise, which included Australia, was held in two phases in the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea.

This was particularly indicative of the increasing hostility between China and the Quad countries, citing to which the cooperation is bound to mature and intensify. The apprehensiveness can be seen in China’s viewpoint, at the growing Quad engagements, and the Malabar exercises in particular, with increasing concern. Beijing has called them the Quad’s efforts at “containing” China’s growing global profile and footprint.

India has different forms of bilateral and multilateral military exercises with all these nations. Recently, the Indian Navy has conducted several Passage Exercises (PASSEX) with the navies of Japan, Australia, and the US. These are basic exercises to increase operability between the navies.

Conclusion

India, as a blooming world power, has to reflect on both the Soft Power Projection and Military Influence over the world and unexplored places. Joint Military Exercises help not only in strengthening diplomatic exchange but also in familiarising the country’s military with unknown geography, making the deployment easy in such terrains if need be. UN Peacekeeping missions are a great example of such practice, as India volunteers for the third-largest peacekeeping efforts.

/0 Comments/by

The Power Struggle: Parallels of an Arm Race

The raging war impetus has got people at the edge of their seats looking at the world giving into the glory of violence. Frequent tension amongst countries over disputes that doesn’t weigh into the collateral damage. Witnessing nations build narratives on who saves who, whilst they speciously try conning one another.

The India-China standoff, the Afghanistan crisis and now the Russian-Ukraine War, have had countries building their military strengths. A high capital expenditure and revenue expenditure being incurred by countries into strong-arming one another, displaying their military strength, deftly gatekeeping their enemies. Studies suggest there is a constant rise in the defence equipment expenditure since the 2000s – the United States, China, India, Russia, and the United Kingdom were the top five spenders in 2020, accounting for approximately 60 per cent of global military spending.  There is a seething increase in defence sourcing. The Indian government recently released its budget, which allocated almost 70% of the defence capital procurement budget to the domestic industry for the years 2022-2023. In addition, private players would be encouraged to develop and improve military platforms to help the Aatmanirbharta campaign and lessen the country’s reliance on imports. 

The rising demand for defence equipment has led to an influx of demand for equipment such as riot control equipment, and body armours. The urgency to protect oneself against the advancing technology and defence sourcing has stirred up the geopolitical front. Countries strategically forming alliances, to cut down the cost of procurement and production has helped them make an evident stand, which has further accelerated the pace of this arms race. India recently signed a $375 million contract with the Philippines for the BrahMos shore-based anti-ship missile system, marking the country`s first big defence system export transaction. The supersonic missile with a range of 290 kilometres was developed in collaboration with Russia and is manufactured in India. While Japan and the United States appear to have strengthened their defence relations with two significant defence treaties. The agreement will pave the way for the two countries to collaborate on advanced defence research and development, including a defence system against destructive supersonic missiles. The agreement establishes a new mechanism for the two countries to share the costs of the US military deployment in Japan.

Since the Taliban took power in Afghanistan. The Taliban has amassed a considerable amount of weapons that were abandoned on their soil by US forces. The Taliban was rumoured to be providing Pakistan with a large amount of American weaponry taken from the Afghan Army. These hush-hush deals have closely impacted the growth of defence equipment in the South Asian continent. Surrounding countries fear a rise in terrorism. The Indian home ministry suspects a high chance of these weapons being used for violence in Pakistan and neighbouring states suggesting an unjust turmoil against the deeply ingrained communal clashes in the territory. Apart from the unsought threats, India has found itself in a showcase of gallantry against China. India seems to have been building and strengthening their military while China setting up bases in Sri Lanka and Pakistan. The Chinese debt-trap strategy has played a vital role in giving way to these military advancements in the debt-ridden countries. Concerns have been raised about China’s loans to Sri Lanka, with fears that the government would be unable to repay them, and that it will use them to undermine India and the United States supremacy in the Indo-Pacific region.   

The Russians invading Ukraine makes people wonder if the world will experience another world war. If I were to give my opinion, the war was inevitable, and so is the arms race that follows. The USA has officially sanctioned $350 Million for Ukraine’s aid for weaponry. Following a wave of the US and other western sanctions against Russian banks and billionaires, intended at punishing Putin and his inner circle for the invasion of Ukraine and hurting the Russian economy, the new help comes as a welcome relief. 

Deviating from the terms of a treaty is an act of war, bringing the treaty to stand null and void. It raises questions, manoeuvring the greys of the circumstances – is humanity collateral damage? Is powering through ranks in terms of strength important to have caused a stir in peace that a treaty held secured? Humanity often gets side-lined in chaos stirred by the wrath that war brings along. 

While on the sidelines, another contest is brewing. China has long claimed Taiwan as its own, intimidates it with its armed forces, and maintains the right to attack it. The recent decision by the US President to send a delegation to Taiwan has given additional validity to fears that China may take action against Taiwan. China’s military, known as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), is undergoing enormous reforms, and the government is spending more money on defence than it has in the past, bolstering China’s influence in international issues such as the South China Sea. A domino effect has been set in motion for us to see, who’ll come on top. 

Never did we know power has such a hold over our consciousness. Not being content with what one possesses has led to this psychological concept of being on top. The power players lay out strategic plans, to aggravate conditions just to benefit and not think of how the preceding consequences will haunt what is left of humanity. Will the arms race come to an end, or we shall remain unthought for as collateral damage?

/0 Comments/by

Countries increasing their defense expenditure, stalwarting their dominance in the geopolitical scenario.

All revenue and capital expenditure on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces of defence ministries and other government agencies engaged in defence projects, and paramilitary forces when judged to be trained, equipped, and ready for military operations, is referred to as defence expenditure. It typically reflects a country’s perception of the possibility of threats against it, as well as the level of aggressiveness it desires to use. It also provides an estimate of how much funding should be allocated for the future year. A budget’s size also reflects an organization’s capacity to support military actions. The size of that entity’s economy, other financial pressures on that entity, and the government’s or people’s willingness to pay such military activities are among the factors.

  • Capital expenditure refers to the money spent by the government on the development of machinery, equipment, buildings, health facilities, education, and other similar projects. It also includes the price of acquiring long-term assets like land and defence equipment, as well as government investments that will generate future revenues or dividends. These expenses result in the creation of assets, which allow the economy to produce income by expanding and improving production facilities and improving operational efficiency. It also improves labour participation, examines the economy, and boosts the economy’s future ability to create more.
  • Revenue expenditure refers to the portion of government spending that does not result in the creation of assets; such expenditures are spent to fulfil the government’s running needs. Salaries, salaries, pensions, subsidies, and interest are all examples of revenue expenditures. 

According to new figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, total worldwide military expenditure grew to $1981 billion in 2020, up 2.6 per cent in real terms from 2019. (SIPRI). The United States, China, India, Russia, and the United Kingdom were the top five spenders in 2020, accounting for 62 per cent of worldwide military spending. 

India’s budget allocation has continually increased over time. Between 2011-12 and 2020-21, defense spending climbed by 127 per cent. The distribution of this allocation between revenue and capital spending, on the other hand, is skewed, with revenue expenditure expanding faster than capital expenditure. The key driver of greater revenue expenditure growth is increased spending on defense pensions. To achieve India’s new set aim, ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat,’ the country’s drive toward an enduring indigenous defense manufacturing industry, as well as to build a strong upholding for the new system, more revenue spending will be required. India is also one of the world’s largest importers of military equipment. The nation has aimed to bolster the expenditure by increasing private sector involvement in defense production and research and development. Manufacturing still is moving slowly, but research and development is gaining traction. India’s total defense budget has increased at a rate of 9% per year over the last 10 years. 

Between 2011-12 and 2018-19, defence revenue spending increased by 140 per cent, while capital expenditure increased by 101 per cent. During the same time period, the percentage of the total defence budget spent on pensions increased from 18 per cent to 26 per cent.

Furthermore, China’s, regional expenditure growth slowed in 2020 as countries like Thailand, South Korea, and Indonesia lowered their defence budgets in order to finance emergency relief efforts in the aftermath of the outbreak. The majority of the time, expected growth was slashed rather than actual cutbacks to the previous year’s budget. Asia’s defence expenditure growth slowed to 4.3 per cent in 2020, down from 4.6 per cent in 2019, as a result of the slowdown in China and the rest of the region. Despite this, the region’s share of global defence spending is expected to rise to 25.0 per cent in 2020, from 17.8 per cent in 2010 and 23.2 per cent in 2015. Despite increased investment in Europe, this is expected to remain relatively flat in 2021. 

While in real terms, total European defence spending had increased by 2.0 per cent in 2020. This was a relatively smaller increase than the 4.1 per cent increase witnessed in 2019, and Europe’s proportion of global defence spending declined somewhat in 2020, from 17.8% to 17.5 per cent. However, over the previous years, average spending across European NATO members has gradually climbed as a percentage of GDP, rising from 1.25 per cent in 2014 to 1.52 per cent in 2019 and rising further to 1.64 per cent in 2020. This is still well below the NATO recommendation that its members aim to spend 2% of GDP on defence, despite the significant 7.0% average economic contraction expected in 2020. When it comes to spending on defence equipment, NATO’s European members maintained the higher investment share of defence spending that they achieved in 2019, allocating 23% on average in 2020, beyond the NATO-recommended level of 20%.

The defence expenditures in the Middle East and North Africa have declined, falling to US$150 billion (excluding security expenditure), while the percentage of global defence spending fell to 8.9%, down from 10.5 per cent in 2017. Despite dedicating by far the highest share of economic production to defence, at 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared to the world average of 2.08 per cent, the area continues to struggle. Other oil-dependent economies began to feel the pinch as well. Following a significant 3.8 per cent real rise in the core ‘national defence’ budget in 2020, Russia was only able to execute a minuscule 1.4 per cent increase in 2021, resulting in a 3.6 per cent real reduction. Total Russian military spending (which includes pensions, military housing, and health and social assistance) is expected to drop from over 4.1 per cent of GDP in 2020 to under 3.8 percent in 2023.

Conclusion:

Peace is important to maintain fruitful trade relations in a given region. However, this peace can only be achieved if military spending is done. Military spending builds military might. This power acts as a deterrent for aggressors. In the absence of military spending, opponents may view the nation as a soft target. Hence, even though local defense spending may be more expensive, it creates more value in the form of more robust national security and fewer disruptions to trade and commerce. If the defense system of a country is fully integrated, there are economic benefits to it. Defense expenditure is, without a doubt, an unambiguous demonstration of power, as current patterns of growing defense spending shows.

/0 Comments/by

China Expanding its Arsenal.

For the first time in years, China’s nuclear arsenal looks to be growing significantly. China possessed just approximately twenty silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles in the last couple of decades. However, fresh information suggests that the government is set to build around 200 additional missile silos. China’s current nuclear weapons modernization and updating program is operating at an unparalleled pace and scope. Over the next decade, China’s nuclear weapons arsenal is likely to increase (if not triple or quadruple. If this is the aim, the new silos may be able to help China achieve it. The country’s growing concern is that the US military capabilities, including the likes of missile defense and conventional precision strike weapons, might damage China’s ability to respond to a nuclear assault. The potential vulnerability of China’s nuclear deterrence is continuously reminded by new developments in US capabilities. As a corollary, Chinese experts have repeatedly agreed that the country’s nuclear capabilities must be gradually modernized. For decades, it appeared that China’s senior political officials felt the country’s top goals were more vital than a huge nuclear buildup—especially at a time when China saw no imminent external danger, but that time is passed.

The actions of the other major nuclear weapons nations have had a significant impact on China’s development of a sea-based nuclear capability. Only four years after the United States launched its first nuclear submarines and one year after the Soviet Union, China chose to begin manufacturing nuclear submarines in 195810. Land-based ballistic missiles were prioritized above nuclear submarines and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) development during the Cold War. However, when China’s economy grew rapidly, it began to devote more resources to the nuclear submarine and SLBM projects, making significant advances since then. China has deployed four 094-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), China’s second-generation SSBNs, and is developing two more, according to official US estimates and open-source information. Twelve JL-2 SLBMs are installed on every 094 submarine. China is also working on the JL-3 SLBM and the next-generation 096-class SSBN. For China’s entire nuclear deterrence, this developing capacity will become increasingly significant. However, with this increased capability comes a slew of new concerns for China.

China’s continuous steps towards the development of a nuclear arsenal are being accompanied by increased disagreements with Western countries over topics such as human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law, and international conventions under its present leadership. These developments have led China’s leadership to conclude that the country is confronted with a new geopolitical reality in which Western countries are purposefully causing trouble and inventing excuses to demonise and contain China, fearful that the country’s rise will threaten the West’s dominance in the international system. Beijing believes that Western antagonism is the outcome of larger structural changes in the international system and that the only answer is to cement its own power until Western countries accept the new reality—that China’s success and strength are undeniable.

President Xi Jinping stressed the importance of the Second Artillery—the Chinese military’s missile branch, which was eventually raised to full military service and renamed the Rocket Force—shortly after taking office in 2012, calling it “a strategic foundation of China’s great power status.” He urged the military to “accelerate the building of sophisticated strategic deterrent” capabilities during a major national political conference in March 2021, which was the toughest and most specific public command on the matter to come from China’s highest-ranking leader. With China’s national decision-making authority increasingly concentrated in one person, the present paramount leader’s support for increased nuclear capabilities might go a long way toward shifting the country’s nuclear development strategy away from its previous moderate path.

In 2020, Beijing also began to deploy the dual-capable hypersonic glide-vehicle system paired with a medium-range ballistic missile, known as DF-17. The U.S. intelligence alleged that China tested in July a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle, carried on a rocket, that flew through low-orbit space and circled the globe before striking within two dozen miles of its target.

The stakes are raised by the possibility of a clash over Taiwan:

Experts have felt that the free decline in US-China ties since 2020 has increased the risk of a crisis or confrontation involving nuclear weapons use by either side. As the conventional (non-nuclear) military balance in East Asia continues to favour China, one major concern is whether the US would be more tempted to threaten nuclear use as a deterrent to China’s use of force against Taiwan.

Analysts have expressed concern that the US may use low-yield nuclear weapons against a Chinese navy en route to attack Taiwan. If the United States’ nuclear weapons and missile defences combined to severely limit China’s capacity to react, that temptation may be much stronger. In this sense, a greater nuclear arsenal has improved China’s prospects of preventing the US from using nuclear weapons, but it may also raise China’s confidence in using conventional weapons. 

Conclusion:    

Beijing’s nuclear buildup is ultimately an attempt to persuade geopolitical power to abandon the ostensible strategic assault in favour of a mutual vulnerability relationship in which no country has the capability or inclination to threaten nuclear war without risking destruction. China’s expanding capabilities are aimed at strengthening its capacity to fight and win wars, a euphemism for controlling the geopolitical scenario, pressure Taiwan and rival claimants in territorial disputes, counter a third-party involvement in a conflict along the periphery, and project dominance internationally.

/0 Comments/by