Tweet
TECHNICAL ASPECT OF COLLECTIVE DEFENSE
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
November 7, 2012 Wednesday
Development of military economic cooperation in the framework of the
CSTO has some problems
The tenth meeting of the interstate commission for military economic
cooperation of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
took place in Astana last week. It is known that the process of
renovation of collective defense in the post-Soviet space does not
go on smoothly. Uzbekistan suspended membership in the CSTO. NATO
does not perceive the CSTO. The CSTO did not earn reputation of a
serious partner in fulfillment of peacekeeping tasks and defense of
sovereignty of the member states of the organization (Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan are its members now) yet.
However, some steps forward were taken in the framework of the CSTO.
The so-called collective operational response forces, peacekeeping
forces and rapid response forces in Central Asia were formed.
Uzbekistan terminated its participation in the CSTO because the CSTO
tried to form these super-national armed forces. Along with this,
from the standpoint of a wish to improve efficiency of the CSTO
formation of super-national troops is an important and pressing
task. The CSTO can strengthen its authority in the CIS and in the
world through improvement of efficiency of the military component.
Because of this the steps related to the military economic component
of this organization are also important and logical. Official sources
reported that documents on further strengthening of the CSTO in
the military economic aspect were approved during the meeting of the
interstate commission in Astana. These are the list of enterprises and
organizations preserving of specialization of which is expedient and
program of military economic cooperation of the CSTO member states
for the period until 2015 and later. It was said that participants
of the meeting paid special attention to the role of standardization
of defense products and provision of competitiveness of the military
industry of the CSTO member states, creation of the international
system for cataloging of the items for supply to the armed forces in
the CSTO format, as well as issues of improvement of the mechanism
of supply of military products.
Commenting on these documents, General Secretary of the CSTO Nikolai
Bordyuzha announced that "There is the following task set: first,
to make the procedures of making of decisions on purchase of armament
easier and, second, making of the system of pricing of the products
purchased on the market of our states for arming of the armed forces
more transparent." Along with this, if we conduct an analysis we
will see that there are much more problems in the military industrial
cooperation in the framework of the CSTO.
It is quite clear that Russia is the most powerful member in the CSTO
and it will be Russia that bears a burden in the military economic
field. Meanwhile, it is known that no money is allocated for activity
in the framework of collective defense plans in the Russian budget for
2013. This means that military economic cooperation in the framework
of the CSTO will be financed from ex-budget sources and most likely
from the general military budget of the country. Military economic
activity is always connected with the budget and defense expenses
that are planned by the countries. Meanwhile, contribution of the CSTO
countries into national defense is different. Russia and Armenia have
the biggest percentage of defense spending that exceeds 3% of the GDP.
Along with this, Kazakhstan and Belarus finance military expenses on
a level slightly bigger than 1% of the GDP. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
invest less than 1% in the budget for military needs. These countries
live mostly at expense of military aid on the part of Russia, NATO
and China, although the main military aid comes to them from Russia.
Meanwhile, Kazakhstan and Belarus may become the countries most active
in development of defense enterprises in the CSTO besides Russia. They
have a relatively developed military industry. Moscow will evidently
develop the military economic relations including such relations in
the framework of the CSTO with these very countries.
From: A. Papazian
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
November 7, 2012 Wednesday
Development of military economic cooperation in the framework of the
CSTO has some problems
The tenth meeting of the interstate commission for military economic
cooperation of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
took place in Astana last week. It is known that the process of
renovation of collective defense in the post-Soviet space does not
go on smoothly. Uzbekistan suspended membership in the CSTO. NATO
does not perceive the CSTO. The CSTO did not earn reputation of a
serious partner in fulfillment of peacekeeping tasks and defense of
sovereignty of the member states of the organization (Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan are its members now) yet.
However, some steps forward were taken in the framework of the CSTO.
The so-called collective operational response forces, peacekeeping
forces and rapid response forces in Central Asia were formed.
Uzbekistan terminated its participation in the CSTO because the CSTO
tried to form these super-national armed forces. Along with this,
from the standpoint of a wish to improve efficiency of the CSTO
formation of super-national troops is an important and pressing
task. The CSTO can strengthen its authority in the CIS and in the
world through improvement of efficiency of the military component.
Because of this the steps related to the military economic component
of this organization are also important and logical. Official sources
reported that documents on further strengthening of the CSTO in
the military economic aspect were approved during the meeting of the
interstate commission in Astana. These are the list of enterprises and
organizations preserving of specialization of which is expedient and
program of military economic cooperation of the CSTO member states
for the period until 2015 and later. It was said that participants
of the meeting paid special attention to the role of standardization
of defense products and provision of competitiveness of the military
industry of the CSTO member states, creation of the international
system for cataloging of the items for supply to the armed forces in
the CSTO format, as well as issues of improvement of the mechanism
of supply of military products.
Commenting on these documents, General Secretary of the CSTO Nikolai
Bordyuzha announced that "There is the following task set: first,
to make the procedures of making of decisions on purchase of armament
easier and, second, making of the system of pricing of the products
purchased on the market of our states for arming of the armed forces
more transparent." Along with this, if we conduct an analysis we
will see that there are much more problems in the military industrial
cooperation in the framework of the CSTO.
It is quite clear that Russia is the most powerful member in the CSTO
and it will be Russia that bears a burden in the military economic
field. Meanwhile, it is known that no money is allocated for activity
in the framework of collective defense plans in the Russian budget for
2013. This means that military economic cooperation in the framework
of the CSTO will be financed from ex-budget sources and most likely
from the general military budget of the country. Military economic
activity is always connected with the budget and defense expenses
that are planned by the countries. Meanwhile, contribution of the CSTO
countries into national defense is different. Russia and Armenia have
the biggest percentage of defense spending that exceeds 3% of the GDP.
Along with this, Kazakhstan and Belarus finance military expenses on
a level slightly bigger than 1% of the GDP. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
invest less than 1% in the budget for military needs. These countries
live mostly at expense of military aid on the part of Russia, NATO
and China, although the main military aid comes to them from Russia.
Meanwhile, Kazakhstan and Belarus may become the countries most active
in development of defense enterprises in the CSTO besides Russia. They
have a relatively developed military industry. Moscow will evidently
develop the military economic relations including such relations in
the framework of the CSTO with these very countries.
From: A. Papazian