The empire strikes back! But Putin is better at using his resources...

The US spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined.  Depending on the definition of a military base there are between 400 and 800 US military bases in 150 foreign countries – there are 200 countries in the world.  By any definition, the United States is an empire.  The US military presence is intended not only for defense – to fence in Russia and China - but also to secure supply lines and markets and support friendly governments.  Highlights of the 2020 budget include:

• $34.7 billion, the largest request in more than 20 years for shipbuilding, to grow and modernize the Navy’s fleet which includes three destroyers, a frigate, two amphibious ships, and three unmanned surface vessels along with three new nuclear submarines to bolster nuclear attack capabilities, and one new aircraft carrier to add to the fleet of 10 US aircraft carriers.
• $12.2 billion for 90 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter planes at roughly $100 million each with operating costs of $40 K per hour.
• $2 billion for 24 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters and $1.1 billion for 8 Boeing F-15 jets.
• $3 billion toward the U.S. Air Force’s new long-range stealth B-21 bomber.
• $2.2 billion for 165 Abrams tanks.
• But only 1.4% or $9.8 billion for cybersecurity.

Military spending makes up about 16% of entire federal spending and about half of discretionary spending.  This commitment was 3.2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2018 which is consistent with historic rates – levels of expenditures generally rise under Republican Administrations and stay level during Democratic but are still enormous.  This percentage does not include military-related non-Department of Defense spending, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, interest paid on debt incurred in past wars, or qualitative social costs such as physical and psychological disabilities of veterans.  US defense spending has increased markedly during the Trump Administration – an increase of about 15% in the 2020 budget compared to the 2016 budget.  Regardless of tribal media spin, 85 US Senators voted for those increases so there was bipartisan agreement and largely has been.

​By contrast, the Russian Federation’s 2018 expenditures were only about 9.5% that of the US, about 3.9% of a rather small economy (the 10th largest in the world).  Despite the huge disparity in investment, the Russian Federation has done quite well since 2014 and has remained internationally relevant using a combination of opportunistic projection of traditional power and asymmetric warfare strategies:

• Annexed Crimea in 2014.
• Have established squatter’s rights in Eastern Ukraine through the Little Green Men strategy (Russian troops in unmarked uniforms) evincing a long-term intent annex Ukraine.
• Reestablished a Cold War Naval Base in Syria, saving Russian warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through the Bosporus, which is a strategic advantage.  It is the Russian Navy's only overseas base.
• Backstopped the Assad regime in Syria and engaged in a proxy war in Syria.
• Filled the vacuum created by the US exit from Syria.
• Established a military presence in Libya and engaged in another proxy war.
• Destabilized US society through using impostor social media profiles to inflame culture wars, hacked networks and released data through Wikileaks and so interfered in the US Presidential election of 2016.

China has a significant military but devotes a smaller percentage of GDP – 1.9% in 2018 - of a smaller economy and has also utilized low-cost high-value strategies to enhance their position:

• Industrial espionage across a wide range to acquire US technologies, but specifically to obtain critical information about stealth technology in military aircraft design allowing them to develop two stealth aircraft using design information from the US F-35 and F-22 fighters.
• Creation of man-made islands in the South China Sea and establishment of military bases to project Chinese influence and power in the area and supporting future territorial claims.
• Substantial loans in various countries in Latin America and the construction of large civil projects that provide long-term access to raw materials and markets.

​Perhaps the Russians and Chinese have succeeded simply because they were compelled to due to limited resources.  Their new asymmetric strategies are not muddled by troublesome election cycles – both have autocratic leaders who will likely be in power for decades and each has a strategic vision.  Achieving those goals by increments in accord with a long-term strategy, chipping away, corroding established relations, inching into new territory and markets, sometimes at a seemingly glacial pace, but effective over horizons envisioned as decades.

​Due to higher debt service on immense deficits accrued through tax cuts and coronavirus-related costs, the next budget debates will center on reductions of costs, and the defense budget will get a great deal of scrutiny, regardless of the bipartisan acclamation of the huge recent budget increases.  Still, at 3.2% of GDP (2018), the costs are in line with historical values.  Cyberwarfare techniques have the possibility of starting and winning a war without firing a shot pose a huge threat, shutting down the ability to communicate with planes and ships, shutting down utilities, Internet communication, financial markets, and other vital resources.  Perhaps the bigger discussion should be about how we spend our money – more expensive and perhaps outmoded weapons and planes or more intelligent expenditures:

• Is the cybersecurity effort enough and is it targeted and efficient?
• Are we adequately protecting power, water, and financial systems from a cyberattack?
• Are aircraft carrier groups and fighter jets outmoded and should we rethink these massive capital investments?
• Is it time to reengage in negotiations for nuclear and conventional weapons reductions and control?
• Is our offensive cyberwarfare capability robust and would it be more effective and cheaper to enhance these capabilities?

​The reference for the number of US military bases was derived from an article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history).  Data on military expenditures was sourced from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex) and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison).  Data on current US defense expenditures were collected from the US Defense Department (https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2079489/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2021-budget-proposal). Information on Chinese industrial espionage was presented by The National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-knows-all-about-f-35-and-f-22-thanks-data-it-stole-61912).  Information on the Russian Federation presence in Libya was provided by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (https://www.csis.org/analysis/moscows-next-front-russias-expanding-military-footprint-libya).