14.1. The essence and content of the state's military potential

The millennium that has passed presented humanity with a troubling paradox. On the one hand, the global scientific and technological revolution and a series of socio-political changes in the world charted a course towards a new, post-industrial civilization; the opportunities for creating peaceful living conditions worthy of a human being and for the free development of every individual have expanded considerably. On the other hand, real threats to the existence of humanity have arisen – threats, moreover, created by human beings themselves. Many regions and individual countries have found themselves overburdened with acute contradictions and conflicts which in recent years alone have claimed hundreds of thousands of human lives. In this connection, the problem of protecting national interests has become exceptionally topical both for individual states and for entire alliances of states, which are compelled to allocate enormous material and other resources to the formation of their military potentials.

An examination of the essence and content of a state's military potential presupposes an analysis of such concepts as “potential” and “the potential of the state” in general, irrespective of any particular sphere of social life.

The concept of “potential” may be formulated as the maximum capabilities of an individual, a collective, a class, or a state in one or another area of social life. In principle, such an approach to defining this concept was adopted in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. “Potential” – in broad usage – denotes the means, stocks and sources available, as well as the means that can be mobilized, set in motion and used to achieve a particular goal or to accomplish some task; the capabilities of an individual person, of society, or of the state in a particular area: economic potential, production potential, military potential, and so forth.

The potentials of a state exist in relation to specific areas of social life and include all of its maximum capabilities in these specific areas of life (political, economic, spiritual, and so on). What is meant here are the state's concrete capabilities, for the realization of which objective conditions have already taken shape or are taking shape in society, and not abstract capabilities.

Thus, a state's potential in one or another sphere of social life encompasses both the capabilities actually available in a given period, already realized and actively manifesting themselves – functioning forces and assets – and other, as yet unrealized capabilities which the given state possesses in this sphere and which can be mobilized and realized given the appropriate objective and subjective conditions, as well as certain efforts on the part of the actors exercising governance.

The functions of the actors exercising governance are performed by state bodies and various public organizations. The completeness, pace and effectiveness of the mobilization and realization of all types of the state's potential depend on the degree of preparedness and the scholarly competence of these actors at all levels.

Each specific type of the state's potential is characterized at any period of time by a certain level of its realization, by the degree of its transformation into an operative, self-manifesting force. Naturally, the degree of realization of any type of the state's potential, being dependent on many causes and conditions of an objective and subjective order, is a fairly variable quantity.

The potentials of modern states represent capabilities in the most diverse areas of social life. Notwithstanding the rather complex structure of the potential of modern states, there continues today an uninterrupted process not only of its quantitative increase in scale, but also of its structural and substantive complication, and of the emergence of new types of potential.

This is explained by the fact that, as society's productive forces, science and technology, and social relations develop and improve, a further and deeper differentiation of the various areas of social production and of life as a whole takes place, entirely new branches of production and new spheres for the application of human labour and abilities appear, and previously unknown riches of nature, as well as new methods and means of using them, are discovered.

All this expands not only the sphere of production in the narrow sense of the word, but the entire sphere of human interaction with nature in the broad sense. New strata of the unknown are revealed to humanity; new horizons and new spheres of possibility, new potentials which it will be able to realize successfully, are opened up. Thus, any state possesses a multitude of diverse potentials. In the literature, however, several types of potential are singled out, which combine and encompass all the types (sub-types) of a state's potentials. These include the economic, moral (spiritual), scientific-technical and social potentials of the state. All the existing types of a state's potential, taken together, may be termed its aggregate (overall) potential. One further type of potential is also widely known – the military, which occupies a special place among the constituents of a state's aggregate potential.

It must be emphasized that the identification of these types of potential is fairly conventional in character. First, there are no clear-cut, let alone impassable, boundaries between the types of potential named; they are closely and organically connected and interpenetrate one another. Second, within each of the potentials named, many further components can be singled out, and this is precisely what specialists engaged in researching one or another concrete, narrower sphere of social life do.

The analysis of the concept of “potential” that has been carried out extends fully, in methodological and logical terms, to the concept of “military potential” as well. At the same time, as has already been noted, a state's military potential occupies its own special, specific place in the structure of aggregate potentials.

A state's military potential is the totality of the state's engaged and latent material and spiritual capabilities which can be used for military purposes when they are disclosed and applied to the maximum and in a timely manner.

Military potential is determined by the capabilities of a state (a coalition of states) to maintain and improve its armed forces, raise their combat capability, replenish them with trained personnel, supply them with modern weapons and military matériel and with all types of allowances in peacetime and in wartime, and to ensure the attainment of the goals of the war.

The indicators of a state's military potential are:

the state's military-scientific and military-economic capabilities;

the capacity of the nation and the state to maintain and improve armed forces of the appropriate composition, to raise their combat capability and combat readiness, to replenish them with trained personnel, and to supply them with modern weapons and military matériel and with all types of allowances in peacetime and in wartime;

the quality and quantity of armaments and military matériel, the state's capacity to increase their production, the mobilization capabilities of the country and of the armed forces, and their capacity for rapid deployment to maximum strength;

the level of combat, operational and mobilization readiness of the armed forces, the degree of mobilization preparation of the state's economy, and the availability of strategic raw material stocks, production reserves and other material resources;

the moral-psychological, general educational, military and military-technical training of the personnel of the armed forces and of the senior leadership of the state and the armed forces;

the moral-psychological condition of the people and the level of military training of the population;

the level of elaboration of military theory and its correspondence to military practice.

Depending on the specific historical conditions, on the relations that have taken shape or are taking shape with other countries, and also proceeding from its own capabilities, each state regulates the quantity of forces and assets it allocates to the formation of its military potential. A state realizes its military potential in full by no means always and only for a short time, since this has a strong impact on all spheres of social life and leads to an arms race. In peacetime the majority of states that do not pursue aggressive aims endeavour to work out the most optimal magnitude of military potential, the minimum necessary to ensure reliable defence. In this case a state's military potential is characterized by the following.

First, by that magnitude of forces and assets which the state has already allocated to military purposes out of its entire aggregate potential, taking account of its capabilities. This magnitude represents that part of the military potential which has been realized and converted into a military factor.

Second, by that magnitude of forces and assets which the state is able to allocate additionally to military purposes under the maximum exertion of all its capabilities.

At the same time, a state's military potential is dependent on the state's other potentials and is one of the constituents of its aggregate potential (for example, the economic, scientific, moral, social and other potentials). Military potential has its own source, and that source is the aggregate potential of the state. As the magnitude of a state's aggregate potential changes, the magnitude of its military potential changes as well, although not always in direct proportion.

A state's military potential constitutes an integral social system whose sources lie in the material and spiritual capabilities of society.

The first characteristic feature of the definition given above is its characterization of military potential as a concrete-historical social system whose development is determined by particular socio-political and economic relations.

The functioning of a state's military potential as a system takes place within a definite external environment which surrounds it and is interconnected with it, although it does not form part of the given system. What constitutes the external environment of a state's military potential? From a theoretical point of view, the environment of a state's military potential is everything that is not included in that military potential. Changes in the condition of a state's military potential depend on changes in the condition of the military potentials of other states.

Another constituent of the environment influencing a state's military potential is society itself. Changes in the condition of society are the immediate cause of changes in a state's military potential.

The integrity of the system of a state's military potential is the result of the interaction of its separate components, each of which occupies its own definite place within it. Definite interconnections exist between the separate components of the system of a state's military potential, and on the basis of these there arises the integrative quality of the system of the state's military potential. This integrative quality is manifested outwardly in its functions.

The intra-systemic connection of the components of a state's military potential is essential. If the quantitative or qualitative characteristic of any one of the components changes, the characteristics of the remaining components and of the system of the state's military potential as a whole necessarily change. As a result of this interaction and the organic connection of the separate components, a state's military potential appears as an integral system. This integrity has the character of a unity, the degree of which is manifested by the measure in which its functions are performed.

A state's military potential, as an integral system, exerts an active influence on the separate elements of society's aggregate potential, altering them in accordance with its own essence.

The transformation of part of society's separate potentials into components of a state's military potential also takes another form. As part of the separate potentials are “drawn into” the system of the state's military potential, they lose some of the properties they possessed prior to this and acquire new properties. From originally “non-military” potentials (for example, the economic or scientific), they are transformed into “military” components (military-economic, military-scientific, and others). This means that the system of a state's military potential confers new properties on its components, while those properties that are retained it negates and transforms quantitatively and qualitatively in accordance with its own essence and purpose.

The main components of a state's military potential are: the economic, social, political, demographic, natural-geographical, spiritual, scientific and properly military components.

The economic component of military potential is the totality of material capabilities that can be used directly or indirectly for the purpose of the economic provision for the protection of the state's national interests.

For example, Russia's share of the modern world by territory amounts to 13 per cent, while about 35 per cent of all the world's resources are concentrated within its expanses, including 45 per cent of natural gas, 23 per cent of coal, 14 per cent of uranium and 13 per cent of oil. Untold riches are contained in Russia's continental shelf, which accounts for 20 per cent of the area of the entire world ocean. The total forecast reserves of resources on Russian territory are estimated by world experts at 140 trillion dollars.

Under present-day conditions the economic component of military potential may be characterized by the following most important indicators. First, by the maximum volume of production of the material resources needed for waging war that the state is capable of attaining under the greatest exertion of its forces. Second, by the mobility of the given state's economy: the speed of transition from a peacetime economy to a well-organized wartime economy, the rates of growth during the war in the production of the most important types of military matériel, and the speed with which new models of military matériel are introduced into serial production. Third, by the survivability of the economy, especially of industry and transport.

The military-economic component of a state's military potential is not a constant quantity. As a state's economic potential increases, so does the magnitude of the maximum capabilities for the economic provision of the process of forming the state's military potential. For example, in 2003 the United States spent more on defence than the 15 militarily strongest countries. Today America possesses overwhelming superiority in nuclear armaments and in aviation, and its naval forces dominate the seas and oceans. American military superiority has been established for a long time to come. The US economy is so strong that maintaining this superiority costs it only 3.5 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP). The US political elite counts, not without grounds, on its dominance in the world. The American political scientists Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth wrote in the pages of the influential journal Foreign Affairs: “If today's American preponderance is not unipolarity, then nothing ever will be. One may only argue about how long this state of affairs will last and what consequences it will have for American foreign policy.”

But, like military potential as a whole, of which it is an element, the military-economic component is by no means always fully realized in real life, since there is not always a need for this. Ordinarily the degree of its realization is determined by the same factors as that of military potential as a whole.

Social potential is that part of society's capabilities which is conditioned by the degree of development of social relations and of the social structure and which can be converted into a factor strengthening the state's military potential. These capabilities are determined by the degree of social stability of society, by the character of stratum and ethnic relations, by the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of society's social structure, by the living and working conditions of citizens, by the measure in which their needs are satisfied, and also by the degree of social security and social justice.

For example, out of the 6.5 billion people inhabiting the Earth, 2.8 billion survive on less than 2 dollars a day, and more than 1 billion suffer from a shortage of drinking water. Never before has the difference between rich and poor been so profound. “The 12 per cent of the planet's population living in North America and Europe consume 60 per cent of total world consumption of goods, while the 33 per cent of the Earth's inhabitants living in Asia and Africa are obliged to make do with a share of 3.2 per cent.” Besides owning a television set, a telephone and a computer, these people, whose numbers are constantly growing in China and India, have begun to lead a way of life that formerly only Europeans, Americans and Japanese could afford. Thus, a “rich” Italian or American consumes 25 times more than a “poor” African.

An assessment of the current condition of Russian society by the system of critical threshold indicators shows the following: the critical threshold value in world practice for the ratio of the incomes of the richest 10 per cent to those of the poorest 10 per cent of citizens is 10:1 (exceeding it leads to the antagonization of the social structure); in Russia in 2000 this ratio was 14:1. The share of the population living below the poverty line is 10 per cent (above this, the lumpenization of the population sets in); in Russia it is 25–40 per cent. The unemployment rate is 8–10 per cent; in Russia it is 13 per cent.

The social component of military potential is an expression and comparative characterization of a state's capabilities for the most rapid development and effective use of the other components of military potential in order to achieve the goals that have been set.

The political component of military potential is the decisive, integrating, system-forming factor. It determines the essential socio-political characteristics of a state's military potential as an integral system. By means of the state's military policy, this component substantially influences the integrity of the system, its mobility and its development. Through military policy, all external influences on a state's military potential are taken into account and the management of its intra-systemic changes is carried out. The political component conditions the course of development of a state's military potential and determines its direction. Through it, the political regulation of a state's military potential is effected.

The demographic component is formed on the basis of society's demographic potential. It acts as one of the basic preconditions of social development. In the event that part of this potential becomes a systemic component of military potential, it is transformed into the military-demographic component. The latter comprises that part of the state's population which directly becomes a constituent part of the system of the state's military potential.

Thus, in the countries that took part in the Second World War (excluding colonies), out of 210 million men of conscription age, 110 million people were mobilized into the army. In order to take part in combat operations in the Persian Gulf zone, the United States of America needed to call up 250 thousand reservists, but because of poor training only 100 thousand people were sent to the conflict area.

The demographic component of a state's military potential influences its functioning through both its qualitative and its quantitative aspects. The qualitative aspect of the military-demographic component expresses its essential connections and characteristics. It shows, above all, its social conditioning by the socio-political order and the socio-political, spiritual and physical readiness of the population to defend its national interests. Its quantitative indicators include, above all, its volume and its form of reproduction.

Today Russia ranks 7th in the world by population size (145.5 million people), after China (1,285 million people), India (1,025 million people), the USA (286 million people), Indonesia (215 million people), Brazil (173 million people) and Pakistan (146 million people). Since 1992 an active process of not the population's growth but its depopulation has been under way here; in other words, mortality exceeds the birth rate. Over the past 10 years the total number of Russians has decreased, on average and according to various sources, by 7–8 million people. And this ruinous process is continuing.

It follows from the report of the UN Secretary-General “On Monitoring the World Population” that by 2050 Russia is set to take 1st place in population decline. Our numbers will decrease by 26 million people and will amount to 121 million people; according to other forecasts, there may be 22 million fewer Russians within just 15 years. Moreover, demographers note that Russia's dying out has a Russian face.

Under present-day conditions a change in the dialectic of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the demographic component of military potential is evident. The significance of the qualitative aspect is increasing, which is connected with the growing demands placed on the human factor in the process of operating modern military matériel.

In Russia, however, the mass degradation of the population is leading to unfavourable demographic consequences. A way of life that destroys the personality has become an everyday norm for certain social strata. Over the past ten years Russia, according to UN data on “human development”, has slipped from 31st place to 72nd among 173 countries, ending up behind Mexico and Turkey.

A considerable proportion of the population in present-day Russia is afflicted by drug addiction and alcoholization. In particular, the consumption of recorded and unrecorded alcohol per head of population, converted into pure alcohol, amounts in Russia today to between 11 and 14 litres, whereas the situation is assessed as dangerous at an indicator of 8 litres. Drug addiction is likewise assuming threatening proportions. As of June 2000 the number of drug addicts in Russia amounted to 181.3 per 100 thousand of the population. Moreover, the incidence of drug addiction among minors is almost twice as high as among the population as a whole. Since 1991 this indicator has increased 14-fold. Every 10 years the number of schoolchildren suffering from mental disorders increases by 10–15 per cent. The trend in the spread of drug addiction is such that in the near future Russia will become a drug-dependent country. On this basis the number of cases of cancer, tuberculosis and AIDS (about 1 million people) is growing. For this reason mortality increased 12-fold from 1997 to 2000, and some 300 thousand people have come to die annually.

The natural-geographical component comprises the natural and geographical conditions and possibilities for defending the state. The content of this component includes natural raw materials, which form part of economic potential, as well as the geographical environment.

The role of the natural and geographical environment in modern armed struggle is changing qualitatively. On the one hand, the importance of using the “natural properties” of the geographical environment for defence (mountain ranges, impassable marshes) is diminishing; on the other, the role of hitherto unheard-of possibilities for using the geographical and natural environment in the conduct of armed struggle is increasing. These possibilities are so diverse that it became necessary to find a corresponding conceptual expression – the “natural-geographical component of a state's military potential”. The scope of the latter is determined above all by the space in which it is possible to conduct combat operations.

For example, the Arab countries occupy 9 per cent of the land surface and rank fifth in the world by population size. At the same time their water resources amount to only 0.7 per cent of total world reserves, and the volume of water per head of population equals 1.5 thousand cubic metres a year, against a world average provision of 13 thousand cubic metres. The situation is such that the mounting water shortage will soon become an important constraint on economic growth. It is no accident that the water problem in the Middle East is increasingly becoming an object of disagreement in the relations of the Arabs with neighbouring countries and among themselves. The shortage of water resources has long been generating contradictions between Turkey, Syria and Iraq, between Israel, Syria and Jordan, and between Egypt and Sudan. Thus the water problem is becoming a problem of life support and is acquiring paramount importance within the framework of national security. Proceeding from the situation that has developed, the question of the mounting threat of conflict over water has been raised ever more frequently in the Arab world since as early as the mid-1980s.

Thus, a state's military potential introduces substantial changes into the process of using the geographical and natural environment. Whereas hitherto the geographical and natural factors did not differ substantially in their scope, today the sphere of the conduct of armed struggle, or of preparation for it, extends beyond the bounds of society's immediate geographical environment and draws into play other domains of nature (outer space), used first and foremost for military purposes.

The spiritual component of military potential is derived from the spiritual potential of society. Society's spiritual potential expresses the possibilities for society's development and functioning that are determined by the quality of its spiritual sphere. The spiritual component of a state's military potential is the totality of the state's spiritual capabilities directed towards the protection of its national interests.

One of the criteria that make it possible to assess spiritual potential is the patriotism of the population making up one or another society. An analysis of the socio-political situation in present-day Russia shows that today it stands in especially urgent need of patriotism on the part of its society, which finds itself at a sharp historical turning point. The destruction of the Soviet system of patriotic education of young people occurred practically without its being supplanted or replaced by a new system, as a result of which the Russian edifice of state was deprived of its most important support – its foundation. The reconstruction of this edifice and the further implementation of reforms are hardly possible – or, more precisely, are hardly likely to be successful – if the system of education, culture, and the formation and development of the young generation of Russians is deprived of so necessary a component as patriotism.

The role of spiritual potential within the structure of military potential can be assessed most vividly by analysing the data of sociological surveys among Russian young people. In the opinion of Russian youth, the future foundation of spiritual potential, being a patriot means first and foremost the following: to love the Motherland (50%); to believe in Russia's future (49%); to know and value the culture of the peoples of Russia (37%); to be ready to defend Russia with arms in hand (31%); to take pride in a glorious past (24%). Each of these manifestations of patriotism is endorsed by a quarter or more of young respondents. Somewhat less frequently do young people associate patriotism with the isolationist aspirations of living and working only in Russia and of countering forces that seek to undermine Russia from within (18-19%). An even smaller share of young people believe that being a patriot of Russia means buying only Russian goods, placing state and public interests above personal ones, or feeling nostalgia while abroad (7-10.5%). Thus, young people clearly prefer the positive variant of patriotism, associating it more often with love for Russia and faith in its future, and less often with isolationism and xenophobia.

That part of scientific potential which forms part of a state's military potential constitutes its military-scientific component. The military-scientific component of military potential comprises the scientific forces and means of the state employed in the interests of its defence, and it depends on the following elements.

First, on the state of theoretical and fundamental research in the military sphere of production. Second, on the presence of research institutions and the level of funding for their activities. Third, on the number and level of training of scientific and engineering personnel. Fourth, on the state of education in the country. Fifth, on the level of the productive forces and the character of economic relations in society.

The role of the military-scientific component in a state's military potential can be demonstrated most vividly using the example of the United States. In 1999, one third of all foreign direct investment in the world was made in the American economy. US spending on scientific and technical development equalled the spending of the seven wealthiest countries in the world. Today US military superiority is explained not so much by the quantity of armaments as by their quality. The American army, air force and navy are equipped with the latest communications systems and advanced information technology. They demonstrate unique capabilities for processing information, including from the battlefield, along with the ability to destroy targets at great distances. The United States does everything to preserve this overwhelming superiority. It spends three times more on research and development (R&D) than the six next most powerful military states combined. On research in the field of military technology the United States spends more than the United Kingdom and Germany spend together on their armed forces. America remains a magnet for scientists and specialists from other countries in new technologies, mathematics, physics, chemistry and computer science.

Like the military-economic component, the military-scientific component grows (or diminishes) in step with the growth (or decline) of the state's scientific potential. The degree to which it is realised is determined by the same factors as the degree of realisation of military potential as a whole.

A special place in the structure of a state's military potential belongs to the military component proper (the potential of the state's armed formations), which synthesises the separate elements of the state's military potential into a system. It may therefore be regarded as a practical indicator of the integrity of military potential as a system and as an indicator of its functionality.

Thus, the military potential of a state incorporates portions of the means and forces of all types of potential. It represents a definite part of the material and spiritual forces and means of the aggregate potential at the state's disposal.

The military potential of a state is the ultimate measure of its military capabilities. Its practical realisation is carried out through military policy and takes the form of military force.