While the world has been gripped by the unprecedented, multi-billion-dollar military aid effort to Ukraine, another arms boom has already begun that may have even more far-reaching and long-term consequences. Russia’s norm-shattering invasion of its neighbor is leading countries around the world to look more warily at their own security landscapes, catalyzing what is sure to be a massive and potentially risky expansion of the international arms trade.
Over the last year, the world has watched as Ukraine fends off an invasion from a global power. And while interstate conflict has long been an unrelenting fixture of the international system, Russia’s breach of Ukraine’s sovereignty is a qualitatively different case. Such a violent and categorical violation of international norms by a permanent member of the UN security council has restored the specter of irredentism by force and shaken faith in the international order to prevent conflict or moderate its worst excesses.
In light of the Russian invasion, many states have come to see expanding their arsenal of conventional arms as an appealing hedge against an increasingly uncertain global security environment. Countries that share tense relations with their neighbors or disputes over borders will feel that the threshold for conflict has been lowered and the need for military preparedness heightened. This will be especially true for countries that feel more peripheral to the interests of great powers, and that may have diminished confidence in their ability to turn to a mighty patron for support in the event of war, as Ukraine has done. With the great powers focused on the flashpoints of their own rivalries, many states may feel that, in an increasingly unsettled world, the time has come to expand their independent defense capacities by adding weapons to their arsenals.
Similarly, for global powers like China and the United States, the events of the past year have underscored the preeminence of strategic competition in their national security outlooks and darkened the looming shadow of great power conflict. In this context, powerful defense-exporting countries may feel new incentives to deepen defense ties with partners and frontline states both as a matter of practical defense and as a means of drawing countries towards their orbits of influence.
Beyond a handful of independent producers, the vast majority of countries depend on imports for their defense needs, meaning a global rise in defense spending can only be effectively satisfied by international arms transfers. The result is likely to be a stark acceleration in the international arms trade, which carry many well-known risks for global peace and stability. In short, destabilizing weapons accumulations can militarize intra-state and inter-state disputes; greater volumes of transfers may add to the strain of existing arms control and regulation regimes, increasing the likelihood of diversion into the illicit market; and new military acquisitions can contribute to warped perceptions about what geo-political ends can be achieved through force of arms. Moreover, increasing tolerance for transfers to risky partners on the part of powerful exporting states may be perceived as lending both practical and diplomatic support to the abusive or disruptive behavior of recipients.
For the United States, it will be important to watch how these evolving dynamics shape arms transfer decisions and assessments. All too often, arms transfers from the United States have reflected a compromise of values for the sake of perceived security imperatives. That was certainly true in the era of the Global War on Terror, when Washington frequently found itself in military partnership with undemocratic and abusive governments across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. But great power competition implies elevated stakes, and with the war in Ukraine offering a glimpse of modern industrial warfare’s horrific toll, American defense planners may see the dangers in increasingly existential terms. With the “future of the international order” at stake, it is easy to see how the United States may feel ever more enticed to sacrifice its human rights, civilian protection, and good governance imperatives in the name of strategic interests and great power politics, liberalizing an already highly permissive arms transfer posture.
Though proliferation risks from Ukraine’s military aid effort will continue to be a challenge more robust mitigation, coordination, and contingency planning efforts can help address some of the most immediate dangers. Addressing the normative damage of Russia’s invasion and the sense of insecurity it has bred will be a far greater challenge, and one that holds no simple solutions. Across the globe, there will be an understandable urge to lean ever more heavily on conventional defense as a means of hedging against a far more tense geo-political landscape. Demand for arms and a new eagerness on the part of exporters to provide them is likely to contribute to an acceleration in the pace and scale of the global weapons trade, adding to an already challenging moment for international peace and stability. For its part, the United States should resist the temptation to lower its standards for potential security partners, even those that can couch their defense demands in terms of strategic competition.
Beyond Ukraine: Russia’s Invasion & Its Impact on the Conventional Arms Trade
By Elias Yousif
Conventional Arms
While the world has been gripped by the unprecedented, multi-billion-dollar military aid effort to Ukraine, another arms boom has already begun that may have even more far-reaching and long-term consequences. Russia’s norm-shattering invasion of its neighbor is leading countries around the world to look more warily at their own security landscapes, catalyzing what is sure to be a massive and potentially risky expansion of the international arms trade.
Over the last year, the world has watched as Ukraine fends off an invasion from a global power. And while interstate conflict has long been an unrelenting fixture of the international system, Russia’s breach of Ukraine’s sovereignty is a qualitatively different case. Such a violent and categorical violation of international norms by a permanent member of the UN security council has restored the specter of irredentism by force and shaken faith in the international order to prevent conflict or moderate its worst excesses.
In light of the Russian invasion, many states have come to see expanding their arsenal of conventional arms as an appealing hedge against an increasingly uncertain global security environment. Countries that share tense relations with their neighbors or disputes over borders will feel that the threshold for conflict has been lowered and the need for military preparedness heightened. This will be especially true for countries that feel more peripheral to the interests of great powers, and that may have diminished confidence in their ability to turn to a mighty patron for support in the event of war, as Ukraine has done. With the great powers focused on the flashpoints of their own rivalries, many states may feel that, in an increasingly unsettled world, the time has come to expand their independent defense capacities by adding weapons to their arsenals.
Similarly, for global powers like China and the United States, the events of the past year have underscored the preeminence of strategic competition in their national security outlooks and darkened the looming shadow of great power conflict. In this context, powerful defense-exporting countries may feel new incentives to deepen defense ties with partners and frontline states both as a matter of practical defense and as a means of drawing countries towards their orbits of influence.
Beyond a handful of independent producers, the vast majority of countries depend on imports for their defense needs, meaning a global rise in defense spending can only be effectively satisfied by international arms transfers. The result is likely to be a stark acceleration in the international arms trade, which carry many well-known risks for global peace and stability. In short, destabilizing weapons accumulations can militarize intra-state and inter-state disputes; greater volumes of transfers may add to the strain of existing arms control and regulation regimes, increasing the likelihood of diversion into the illicit market; and new military acquisitions can contribute to warped perceptions about what geo-political ends can be achieved through force of arms. Moreover, increasing tolerance for transfers to risky partners on the part of powerful exporting states may be perceived as lending both practical and diplomatic support to the abusive or disruptive behavior of recipients.
For the United States, it will be important to watch how these evolving dynamics shape arms transfer decisions and assessments. All too often, arms transfers from the United States have reflected a compromise of values for the sake of perceived security imperatives. That was certainly true in the era of the Global War on Terror, when Washington frequently found itself in military partnership with undemocratic and abusive governments across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. But great power competition implies elevated stakes, and with the war in Ukraine offering a glimpse of modern industrial warfare’s horrific toll, American defense planners may see the dangers in increasingly existential terms. With the “future of the international order” at stake, it is easy to see how the United States may feel ever more enticed to sacrifice its human rights, civilian protection, and good governance imperatives in the name of strategic interests and great power politics, liberalizing an already highly permissive arms transfer posture.
Though proliferation risks from Ukraine’s military aid effort will continue to be a challenge more robust mitigation, coordination, and contingency planning efforts can help address some of the most immediate dangers. Addressing the normative damage of Russia’s invasion and the sense of insecurity it has bred will be a far greater challenge, and one that holds no simple solutions. Across the globe, there will be an understandable urge to lean ever more heavily on conventional defense as a means of hedging against a far more tense geo-political landscape. Demand for arms and a new eagerness on the part of exporters to provide them is likely to contribute to an acceleration in the pace and scale of the global weapons trade, adding to an already challenging moment for international peace and stability. For its part, the United States should resist the temptation to lower its standards for potential security partners, even those that can couch their defense demands in terms of strategic competition.
Recent & Related