One thing China and the USSR don't have in common

[t_co]

One Thing China and the USSR DON'T Have in Common | China Power

As I recovered from a rough bout of jetlag over the weekend, I came across an interesting piece by William Wan over at the Washington Post. The article explores China's study of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The author points out that, "the shadow of the U.S.S.R. still hangs over many parts of Chinese society. What is considered bygone Cold War history by much of the rest of the world, even by many in Russia, lives on in China." Wan goes on to note "The obsession is fueled by the fear that, with a few wrong steps, China's Communist Party would face a similar fate."

Comparisons between the Soviet Union and China are certainly all the rage these days. The Diplomat has covered this subject several times, with an excellent piece by Center for National Interest's A. Greer Miesels and another by China Power Blogger David Cohen – well worth your time.

While there are many areas scholars can try and draw comparisons between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the CCP—such as political power, economic reform, technological innovation, and foreign affairs— the roll that massive military spending played in the Soviet Union's collapse is one area that China should study.

Although figures from different sources vary dramatically (with one estimate as high as 40% of the budget and an amazing 15-20% of GDP by the early 1980s), the Soviet Union spent tremendous sums of rubles on its military. From MIRV'd missiles and advanced nuclear submarines, to the latest jet fighters, Moscow spent lavishly on the most advanced weapon systems to keep pace in a global struggle for dominance — the classic guns or butter example. As America built companies like IBM, Apple and Microsoft the CPSU struggled to stock its shelves with basic necessities.

So what does China spend on its defense? In a recent piece, Andrew Erickson he observes that:

"Even during the past decade of rapid increases to defense spending, the official defense budget has held steady at roughly 1.3-1.5 percent of GDP—when calculated based on high-end foreign estimates of actual total defense spending during the same period the figure still falls between 2 and 3 percent of GDP."

For all the talk of new aircraft carriers, advanced missiles, and a blue-water navy, China's military modernization is nowhere near Soviet levels or anywhere near where it could harm its economy.

The trick now will be for China to keep its defense expenditures in line with the size of its economy. This may be a challenge in the coming years with its territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas, as well as competition with the U.S. becoming more intense, and its need to protect its growing investments in the Middle East and Africa. Keeping up with these newfound challenges will be particularly burdensome should economic growth slow.

Thankfully for Beijing, the likelihood of some sort of global Cold War with the United States developing remains remote, regardless of hyperbolic rhetoric on both sides. Yet, as China's power grows, so will its interests in other parts of the world, and so will the need to project military power to protect such interests. As Fareed Zakaria wrote about America's ascent in the late 19th century, "With greater wealth, the country could build a military and diplomatic apparatus capable of fulfilling its aims abroad; but its very aims, its perception of its needs and goals, tended to expand with rising resources. As European statesmen raised under the great-power system understood so clearly, capabilities shape intentions."

Can China buck this historical trend by striking an equitable balance between its international goals that demand greater defense spending, and domestic challenges such as caring for an aging population and rebalancing the economy from one that relies on exports to one based on domestic consumption?

Harry Kazianis serves as editor of The Diplomat.

This is just for everybody on the forum who still believes China spends more than India on defense, on a % of GDP basis. China doesn't. It barely spends more than Japan.

 

[Yusuf]

There is lack of transparency in China about its defence spend so we never know.

Good topic though for the author to write about.

There are some similarities between China and the USSR. Both are made of provinces that are nations within the nation. Both are brutal and suppress their population.

One difference is that China is making sure its economy prospers and people have enough to eat so to say so that they remain quiet unlike The Soviet era which became pretty bad.

 

[datguy79]

One more thing they don't have in common: China is communist only in name.

 

[indian_sukhoi]

Soviets were forced to spend on defence budget to match with US.

The author did brought a good point

The trick now will be for China to keep its defense expenditures in line with the size of its economy. This may be a challenge in the coming years with its territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas, as well as competition with the U.S. becoming more intense, and its need to protect its growing investments in the Middle East and Africa. Keeping up with these newfound challenges will be particularly burdensome should economic growth slow.

 

[G90]

In terms of econcomy size (measured by industrial output), China is 6-8X of the peak of soviet union, in an arms race, the US will fall short upon China.

Thats why you can see the US always try to play down the China's threat now, whilst hype-up Soviet's military threat in the past, thats because the US know they will lose badly in an arms race with the former, and win easily with the latter.

Thats also explain why China now love to show-off our ever-growing arsenal, because we all know we will win a arms race with the US easily, and likely to draw US in.

1.5% of GDP yet we have delievered so many stuff, imaging what we could be if our military spending were at the US level (4-5% of the GDP) or the Soviet level (20% or more of GDP).:cool2:

 

[SATISH]

Still don't know what will happen when their undervalued currency reaches the equal as a dollar?what will the Chinese do? Buy more American debt?

 

[badguy2000]

CHina's industry capacity is much larger than USA"s.
Its industry products cost is much less than USA's, so real purchase power of CHina's defence budget is much larger than exchange rate shows...

as for purchase power,China's 120 BIllion USD defence expenditure may be equal to 300 bilion USD defence expenditure of USA's...

 

[huaxia rox]

unlike the soviet union prc has a history of fighting a big scale of real war with the us in korea but the cold war era has gone for good.......golobalization has made the us need prc much more vis a vis soviet union and vice versa prc needs the us big time in many fields now......how much we think we need the other side surely can off set the equivalent chance we think we may confront directly using force......so the article is by and large correct.....

Group of Two - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[W.G.Ewald]

@t_co

This is just for everybody on the forum who still believes China spends more than India on defense, on a % of GDP basis. China doesn't. It barely spends more than Japan.

The article you posted does not recognize the fact that the Soviet Union was made up of many separate nations enslaved by USSR after WWII. That is totally different from situation with CCP and China.

 

[roma]

updating this to today's- world

one thing russia and china do not have in common is the scale of their popuations and consequently, the demographic trends

my prediction is that while many russians think their 100 and some million is gonna keep them going , my response is:-

watch it !

if they dont take serious action in terms of brith rate/ death rate & total immigration/emiigration - then the fall of russia could come as suddenly as the fall of the soviet union did ! -- in particular the russian far - east

 

[dhananjay1]

USSR had a totally dysfunctional economical system. It would have collapsed decades earlier but for the enormous boost it received during WW2.

 

[average american]

China's Dysfunctional Political System Profiled in Wall Street Journal
April 15, 2011



The Wall Street Journal had a fascinating report detailing how decisions are made, in a report called "Political Overlords Shackle China's Monetary Mandarins."
Here are a few notes from the article :

All decisions are made by the Politurbo and by consensus, with the People's Bank of China competing with 12 ministries for policies whose goals conflict with each other.
While the PBOC would rather fight inflation, the commerce sector wants a cheap currency so they can undercut international competition. Local government interests want cheap credit so they can direct money to regional building projects.
For example, The People's Bank of China cautioned against the monetary stimulus in 2008 saying the cheap credit would lead to bad loans and asset bubbles, and more recently would have tightened earlier, but lost out to powerful interests.
Since PBOC has no decision making authority, international communication and coordination frustrates foreign central bankers.
HistorySquared

What ministry or politician represents what the people want? None. In the end, what you have is a massive misallocation of resources. The article misses out on the corruption link between the ministries and personal business interests. Wikileaks exposed cables showing how the leadership has divvied up the economy.

China's state capitalist system have been admired by government officials across the world, particularly in certain factions in the US, who'd like to expand power over the economy and direct even more resources to industries to sectors they deem most important, such as high speed rail and alternative energy. They've admired how quickly China's decisions get made. They push for a similar "partnership between government and corporations," where government officials get a say in how businesses conduct their investments, again pointing to China as an example of how this has worked. But this invites corruption, bubbles, and misallocation of resources that can be hidden from view for long periods of time. The market, which represents the collective wisdom of all, eventually corrects the massive distortion creating a crash. These same people whose policies created bubble and bust, then look for people, or banks, to blame. When it was they themselves that planted the seed, that turned out to be a weed.

Who will China blame when the massive misallocation of resources come crashing down?

http://historysquared.com/2011/04/1...tical-system-profiled-in-wall-street-journal/

 

[Yusuf]

@t_co


The article you posted does not recognize the fact that the Soviet Union was made up of many separate nations enslaved by USSR after WWII. That is totally different from situation with CCP and China.

Disagree. Tibet, East Turkestan and Mongolia.

 

[t_co]

Disagree. Tibet, East Turkestan and Mongolia.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree about that point, that has no bearing on the key point of the article:

China's military is more powerful than India's, even when China spends less as a proportion of its GDP on defense than India does.

That, in and of itself, is an inescapable strategic issue for Indian planners.

 

[Singh]

I would dispute Chinese "official" defence spending. However, a few things to note

1. Chinese economy is more robust and powerful than Soviet's particular towards the collapse.
2. Chinese defence spending (and as a component of GDP) is lower when compared to Soviet's during its last years.

 

[Yusuf]

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree about that point, that has no bearing on the key point of the article:

China's military is more powerful than India's, even when China spends less as a proportion of its GDP on defense than India does.

That, in and of itself, is an inescapable strategic issue for Indian planners.

It is but it doesn't changed the fact about Tibet, East Turkestan or Mongolia.

 

[Yusuf]

USSR had a totally dysfunctional economical system. It would have collapsed decades earlier but for the enormous boost it received during WW2.

What boost did it receive in WWII? It bore the brunt of Nazi Germany.

 

[t_co]

It is but it doesn't changed the fact about Tibet, East Turkestan or Mongolia.

Yusuf, you're a mod.

You're violating the following rule, since this thread has nothing to do with Xizang, Xinjiang, or Menggu:

15. Make sure to check for relevant, recent threads when posting a new topic. Topics must be posted in the appropriate forum. Make sure your post is relevant to the thread you are posting in, please try not to post off-topic comments, make tangential remarks, or otherwise derail a discussion. Avoid one liners. When presenting an argument as factual, please take care to be able to back up your argument with actual facts or evidence that you are able to source. Arguments based on unsubstantiated rumors or conspiracy theories are not welcome.

This is a rule you wrote yourself. Please don't be a hypocrite. Thanks!

EDIT: @Singh @Kunal Biswas @Decklander @ice berg @cinoti @badguy2000 come look.

 

[asianobserve]

What boost did it receive in WWII? It bore the brunt of Nazi Germany.

It annexed key industrial countries after WW2...

 

[pmaitra]

It annexed key industrial countries after WW2...

Read again. Quoted below for your convenience. It is about a claim that the USSR would have collapsed, but for the boost received during WWII.

USSR had a totally dysfunctional economical system. It would have collapsed decades earlier but for the enormous boost it received during WW2.

What boost did it receive in WWII? It bore the brunt of Nazi Germany.