A look at Russia's manufacturing sector as it plans to boost powerful weapons production

Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev has said that Russia is speeding up the production of its weapons to counter western nations that are supplying arms to Ukraine, as per a report from Russia's TASS. Medvedev said that Russia's enemies are not just in Ukraine but in North America, Japan, Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zeland, as they have sworn allegiance to "today's Nazis". It isn't clear how consequential Medvedev's statements are because there is some speculation suggesting that he is not as influential as he used to be.

Medvedev served as the President of Russia from 2008 to 2012. He was born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) in 1965 and studied law before entering politics. Medvedev's political career began in 1999, when he was appointed as the Deputy Chief of Presidential Staff by then-President Vladimir Putin. He later served as the Chief of Presidential Staff and as the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia. In 2008, he was elected President of Russia, succeeding Putin.

Medvedev's actions as President

As President, Medvedev pursued a number of liberalizing reforms, including reducing the power of the Russian security services and increasing the independence of the judiciary. However, his presidency was also marked by continued state control of the media and the suppression of political opposition. In 2012, Medvedev announced that he would not seek a second term as President, and Putin was elected to succeed him. Medvedev was appointed as the Prime Minister of Russia, and he served in that role until 2020. 

Manufacturing and war

The importance of manufacturing during war cannot be overstated. A strong manufacturing base is essential for a country's ability to sustain a war effort and achieve victory. Individuals' acts of courage dramatised by popular culture does not lead to victory in war, structural advantage in manufacturing does. A seminal study, published in the Journal of Strategic Studies, found that countries with a larger manufacturing base were more likely to win wars. The authors of the study, which analyzed data from over 100 wars fought between 1816 and 2008, concluded that a country's manufacturing capacity is a key determinant of its military success.

Another study, published in the Journal of Economic History, found that the ability to produce weapons and other war-related goods was a key factor in the outcome of World War II. The study found that countries with a strong manufacturing base, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, were able to produce large quantities of weapons and other military equipment, which gave them a significant advantage over their enemies. Many strategic thinkers have discussed the importance of manufacturing in war.

These include military strategists, economists, and political leaders who have recognized the crucial role that manufacturing plays in a country's ability to sustain a war effort and achieve victory. One notable example is Alfred Thayer Mahan, an American naval officer and strategist who wrote extensively about the importance of sea power and industrialization. In his book "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History," Mahan argued that a strong manufacturing base was essential for a country to build and maintain a powerful navy, and that this in turn was crucial for achieving victory in war.

Another example is John Boyd, an American military strategist who is widely regarded as one of the most influential thinkers in the field of military strategy. In his writings, Boyd emphasized the importance of speed, agility, and flexibility in warfare, and argued that a country's ability to quickly produce weapons and other military equipment was essential for achieving victory. In addition to these military strategists, many economists and political leaders have also recognized the importance of manufacturing in war. 

For example, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist, argued that the production of weapons and other war-related goods was essential for supporting the economy during times of conflict. Similarly, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his famous "Arsenal of Democracy" speech, emphasized the importance of American manufacturing in supporting the country's war effort during World War II. Russia however suffers from the resource curse, or the paradox of plenty. 

Paradox of plenty and challenges Russia's manufacturing sector faces

The paradox of plenty, is the phenomenon in which countries with an abundance of natural resources, such as oil and minerals, tend to have weaker economic growth and poorer development outcomes compared to countries with fewer natural resources. The resource curse occurs for a number of reasons. One is the so-called "Dutch disease," which refers to the negative impact that the extraction and export of natural resources can have on other sectors of the economy. For example, if a country relies heavily on oil exports, the influx of foreign currency from these exports can cause the value of the country's currency to appreciate, making its other exports less competitive in the global market. This can lead to a decline in other industries, such as manufacturing or agriculture, and a lack of diversification in the economy.

The data does indicate that Russia suffers from the resource curse. According to the World Bank, Russia's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has been relatively stagnant in recent years, and is significantly lower than that of other developed countries. In 2019, Russia's GDP per capita was $11,865, compared to $61,957 for the United States and $48,360 for the European Union. This indicates that Russia's economy is not growing as quickly as other countries, and that the wealth generated by its natural resources is not being distributed evenly or used effectively to improve the lives of its citizens. 

Furthermore, data from the World Bank also shows that Russia has a high level of income inequality. In 2019, the GINI coefficient, a measure of income inequality, was 0.41 for Russia, compared to 0.32 for the United States and 0.30 for the European Union. This indicates that the wealth generated by Russia's natural resources is not being distributed evenly among its citizens, and that a small elite is benefiting disproportionately from the country's natural wealth.

Lack of diversification in the economy is the main challenge of Russian manufacturing. Russia's economy is heavily dependent on the extraction and export of natural resources, particularly oil and gas. This has led to a decline in other sectors of the economy, such as manufacturing and agriculture. As a result, Russia's manufacturing sector is relatively small and underdeveloped compared to other countries. In addition, Russia is facing an aging and declining workforce. The country's population is shrinking, and many of its workers are reaching retirement age. This is leading to a shortage of skilled labor in the manufacturing sector, and is making it difficult for Russian manufacturers to compete with other countries. If Russia does boost its production, the US will do the same and the conflict will only escalate. Russia cannot manufacture more than the US.