faz.net
Resource Revenue and Military Success: A Study on Conflict Outcomes
A Kiel Institute study shows a 32% increase in winning chances in conflicts if military spending rises by 10% of GDP; Russia's recovered oil and gas revenue (€107 billion in 2024) boosted its military, highlighting the need for continued Western aid to Ukraine, which is debated within the German government.
- How significantly did increased military spending, fueled by resource revenues, influence the outcome of conflicts in the study?
- A Kiel Institute study analyzed 700 conflicts (1977-2013), revealing a 32% increase in a party's chance of winning if military spending rises by 10% of GDP. This holds regardless of funding source (e.g., resource sales or aid). Russia's 2024 oil and gas revenue recovery, despite sanctions, bolstered its military capabilities.
- What are the potential long-term strategic consequences of Russia's increased military spending, and what are the implications for Western aid to Ukraine?
- The research suggests a strong correlation between increased military spending and successful conflict outcomes, with implications for future conflicts and resource-rich nations. The Ukrainian conflict underscores the need for continued financial support from the West to counter the impact of Russia's resource-fueled military spending. The German government's internal debate regarding additional aid reveals significant policy challenges.
- What are the broader implications of this study for understanding the interplay between economic resources and military success in international conflicts?
- The study quantifies the link between economic and military power, showing that increased military spending significantly impacts conflict outcomes. Russia's increased oil and gas revenue, reaching approximately €107 billion in 2024, exemplifies this, enhancing its war effort. This highlights the importance of sustained Western aid to Ukraine.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the Kiel Institute's study and its conclusions, which seem to support increased military spending and aid to Ukraine. The headline (if there was one) and introduction likely prioritized this perspective. The inclusion of Schularick's comments, who advocates for increased military spending, further reinforces this viewpoint. By focusing on the study's findings about the link between increased military spending and war outcomes, it implicitly supports the need for greater military investment and aid to Ukraine. The counterarguments are minimized.
Language Bias
The language used is mostly neutral, although the repeated emphasis on "mehreinnahmen" (increased revenue) in relation to Russia's military capabilities could be considered slightly loaded. It subtly implies that Russia's success is solely due to financial gains and not other strategic or tactical factors. While this is based on the study, presenting it as a primary driver without further qualification could influence the reader's perception. A more neutral phrasing could emphasize the role of increased revenue as one of several contributing factors.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the impact of increased military spending on war outcomes, using a study that analyzes conflicts from 1977-2013. However, it omits discussion of other critical factors influencing war outcomes, such as military strategy, leadership, public support, terrain, and technological advantages. While acknowledging limitations of scope is mentioned in the guidelines, the omission of these crucial elements might lead to an oversimplified understanding of the conflict. The article also doesn't explore potential counterarguments to the study's findings or alternative interpretations of the data.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the debate around Ukraine aid as a choice between Scholz's proposal to suspend the debt brake and the opposition's view. It simplifies a complex political and economic discussion, overlooking other potential solutions for financing aid or alternative approaches to managing the nation's finances. The nuance of various financial strategies and political considerations is lost in this simplified eitheor presentation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The study highlights a strong correlation between increased military spending and a higher chance of winning conflicts. This fuels conflicts, undermining peace and stability. The case of Russia benefiting from increased oil and gas revenues to fund its military efforts in Ukraine directly exemplifies this negative impact on peace and security. The disagreement within the German government on further financial aid to Ukraine also points to challenges in achieving international cooperation for peace.