imran: global military spending has hit a new record. parts of europe saw the biggest increases of all. as the world witnesses more conflicts, can this trend be reversed? this is "inside story." ♪ hello and welcome to the program. i'm imran khan. global military spending has soared at one all time high. it reached a whopping $2.2 trillion last year, and that's according to data just published

by the think tank stockholm international peace research institute, or sipri. it's the biggest year-on-year increase since the end of the cold war, and there's no denying russia's invasion of ukraine led to an immediate surge in spending in europe and elsewhere as countries move to enhance their military capabilities, or exported weapons and equipment to kyiv. but let's take a closer look at the reports. the sharpest rides in spending was, of course, in europe. jumping 13% its steepest , increase since 1989. and much of that was because of ukraine, where military spending soared 640% to $44 billion. but the trend also spread to kyiv's neighbors and any country feeling a potential threat by russia, including finland, lithuania, sweden and poland. as for the global picture, the big spenders are the u.s., china and russia, who together make up more than half the world's total.

but they're nowhere near being equal. u.s. military spending remains without a match, hitting $877 billion last year. that's three times higher than china, which has increased its spending for the past 28 years, and both are higher than russia, which sits in third place that $86.4 billion. but even away from the battlefields of ukraine, there have been developments. take japan, for instance, which sipri says is going through a profound shift in its military policy, from a pacifist to an active army. india is investing heavily to o, increasing its drones, light tanks and their equipment. and in the middle east, saudi arabia is now the fifth highest spender in the world, jumping to around $75 billion. so while russia's invasion of ukraine has had a clear impact, sipri says global military spending has been rising continuously for the last eight years. the data is also showing us something else. >> it really is quite a

fundamental shift in that 2022 not only is the highest level of military spending ever recorded, it really reflects maybe a changing of the times. where countries are signaling that we are living in an increasingly insecure world where states are essentially bolstering military strength. building security through a deterrence, rather than essentially peaceful negotiations. ♪ imran: we have a lot to discuss. let's bring in our guests in washington. elisabeth braw, senior fellow with the foreign and defense policy at the american enterprise institute, and the author of "the defenders dilemma, identifying and deterring grey zone aggression." in new delhi, major general s b asthana, a former director general infantry in indian army. general asthana is also director of the united service institution of india, a national security and defense services think tank.

in berlin, domitilla sagramoso, a senior lecturer in security and development at king's college london. a warm welcome to each of you. i would like to begin in washington, d.c. with elisabeth. if this report is to be believed, and the evidence is certainly there, then this is all about ukraine, ukraine, ukraine, and russian aggression. that is why the world is arming. is it as simplistic as that? guest: it is partly because simplistic is that. to see where arms expenditures are going, it is very much about ukraine. but it is also about china. we are seeing increased defense expenditures in china's neighborhood in response to the worsening relations between china and its neighbors, but the

most dramatic increase is clearly in europe. 27%, 36% even in finland. very extraordinary figures of growth in defense expenditure. we should remember that for 20 years after the cold war, the direction was completely opposite. now it is racing towards more and more expenditures. imran: domitilla in berlin, here we are looking at the biggest defense rates since the end of the cold war, traditional weaponry -- heavy weapons, tanks, because of the russian war in ukraine. but is this the right thing that people should be spending their money on, given that we are in the 21st century, cyber warfare is still something people need to be worried about permit or are we going backwards? guest: in the way, we are going backwards in terms of conflicts

in the european continent. we don't have much of a choice. european countries would much prefer that governmentd spend funding on health education, addressing climate change, transmission of industry. we have very serious challenges. but unfortunately the russian invasion of ukraine is forcing european countries to spend quite a lot in the military sector. i think this is a trend that for the next few years is not going to change unfortunately. and although it is very sad, this is a reality that now european publics are coming to terms work, understanding that this is a necessity, that challenges are ahead, and that europe benefited very much from decades of peace in the european continent, but unfortunately the situation now has changed. so europeans are becoming

increasingly aware, especially at the level of government, that europe needs to contribute more to its own defense, that reliance in the united states is positive in some ways, but it also presents challenges. it's clear with the war in ukraine europeans also need to increase their defense spending and provide their fair share. imran: it's not just about europe, it's also about china. it comes to china, it is pakistan and india. let's bring in the general joining us from new delhi. there is no way india can keep up with china's defense spending , you have to spend smarter. is that what india is doing, or are you just trying to keep up? guest: as far as defense spending is concerned, every country has to decide what is fair to that country, and thereafter, structure its poster structuring as well as defense spending. as far as india is concerned, we

are perhaps the only country which has two delicate neighbors who have nuclear weapons and share borders with. with chinese aggression, the way it has had demonstrations on the south china sea, with taiwan, and with the incremental encroachment strategy in china, whether it is economic, digital, cyber, you name it, but that is the way that china is governing. therefore, to ensure that we maintain our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we have to spend up to a point which we feel is appropriate for us to create a credible minimum tolerance with which we can ensure our territorial integrity and sovereignty. that is what india is doing. that is how you would see that the indian defense expenditure -- of course wwere not

fortunate enough that when we got independence, we could have had a big defenseman infection sector. but we have created, to some extent -- and we are relying on external exporters. it so happens that since we didn't get too much technology from the west initially, we were overly dependent on russia, which we are aware of. therefore, you will see the difference, the kind of diversification which we have done. and you will find that it is increasingly getting more usa, france, and israel. imran: let me speak to elisabeth. you heard what our guest in new delhi had to say. india is having to spend money because of the threat it faces from china and pakistan. however, diplomacy is still the only way through this. the world spending more money on

weapons, is that a damage to the diplomacy, or a failure of diplomacy? guest: i think we would all like a world where almost no money is being spent on weapons because countries would choose to get along. problem is as soon as you have one or more countries that refuse to accept other countries ' territorial integrity and behave in aggressive ways, other countries have to spend money on defense and that is where we are today. that does not mean that diplomacy cannot coexist for that it cannot happen at the same time as countries spend more on defense, clearly even when he spend more on defense as a country wishing to defend itself, then you still hope that you will not need to use your weapons. you hope that those weapons will convince the other side from

attacking. even while you spend additional money on defense, you conduct diplomacy with richard countries or countries that -- diplomacy with belligerent countries. tell them it is not worth attacking our country because we are willing to defend ourselves, and it would be better for you not to engage in war against us. it would cost you in blood and treasure. these are the two parallel tracks happening in both europe and china's neighborhood. countries spending more defense to communicate, to better able to defend themselves and communicate that that is the case. telling the other side, whether it is russia or china, that, thank better in engaging in more productive actions towards us

because it will benefit you and not just us. imran: domitilla, what are the things that we regularly hear on the show and order the things that russians and the chinese regularly say to me is, the reason we are in the position we are in is we have a sphere of influence in eastern europe which the west does not respect. we have a sphere of influence in southeast asia, the philippines and taiwan, et cetera, that the west does not respect either. that is why we want to defend our position, suddenly people want to start spending money on weapons. is there a failure of listening to china and russia's concerns, a traditional failure of that? guest: the problem lies in the narrative. the right to have spheres of influence where other countries are not allowed, according to them, to operate. where countries that find themselves in this sphere of influence are losing their

sovereignty and their agency. this is unacceptable. we are listening carefully to what they have to say, and we understand security concerns. if we think about russia in particular, there have been a lot of efforts for the war broke out in february of last year to try to find and negotiate an outcome and to understand and address issues of security and conflicts and transparency with russia through various channels, by laterals with the united states, nato, the russia council, and russia decided to sideline these channels and just move ahead with the use of force in ukraine. it's important to send a message also that we need to uphold international law, the right of territorial and sovereign integrity of these countries. we understand security cannot be paid at the expense of other

powers. it is why it is important to try to reconfigure the heaters of defense and security both in europe, and in asia. but that cannot come at the expense of great powers deciding the fate of smaller countries and changing the borders through use of force. what we are talking here is really the upholding of international law and not allowing powers to decide the fate of smaller countries. that is one of the lessons that we learned from the cold war and the post-cold war period was over period were we were trying to support and sustain the sovereignty and independent foreign policy of these countries. imran: general asthana, one of the rules china has played in various conflicts between pakistan and india, the effective cold war that still continues between pakistan and india, is it stopped it from becoming a hot war. india has looked to china's

backing almost without any kind of clauses to pakistan, and that stop a war. so it is useful in some way, right? guest: so far, in most of the wars with pakistan, china never intervened. but the situation has changed to a greater extent. no, chinese with their economic engagement and cpc getting into pakistan, their stakes in pakistan have increased. at the same time, you would notice that when pakistan is continuously launching a proxy war against india, the chinese, firstly, they look the other way around. secondly, they have tried to shield in number of u.n.-designated terrorists too. therefore, pakistan is a low-cost nuisance to india. as far as pakistan is concerned, china is a high value security

guarantor to them. that is one issue. the second issue is that there is increasing footprints of chinese soldiers also in several areas of baltistan which is not comfortable to us. therefore, in future conflicts, to say that the sino pack says will not work would be an understatement. we expect china to behave in a particular manner as they have behaved so far. number two, as far as the sino-india implementation is concerned, we are at. in that standoff, pakistan has not intervened. so this nexus has not worked in that manner. as far as we are concerned, they both are a threat. and to make sure that we confront or handle the two-front threat, we have to believe that

we can handle. if we can do so, there are ways to handle this two-front threat. imran: i want to talk about the finances of this effectively arms race that is going on. take a look at saudi arabia, spending billions and billions upgrading their defensive capabilities. this is good news for the business. but when there is this much money floating around, you tend to get politics involved as well, you tend to get people wanting to sell weapons. i guess what i am asking you is, we are at a boom time and actually rolling back on defense spending will be very difficult because people are making too much money, right? guest: defense companies are making a lot of money. you mentioned saudi arabia -- part of the reason saudi arabia has managed to establish this extraordinarily powerful position in international politics is that it has bought

not just in recent years, but over many years, a lot of defense equipment from western arms manufacturers, from many kinds of manufacturers, even though it didn't need that weaponry because defense companies, especially in the west, western countries and western governments, as they reduced defense spending, defense companies were desperate to sell weaponry. saudi arabia bought a lot of it. which of course made it very popular with western governments. so the challenge with defense companies or arms manufacturers is that they make products that only governments can buy. so they are very dependent on whether governments are able to buy defense equipment, weapons at any given time. they can't turn to the general public and expand clientele. that does not work.

so they go from rags to riches, really extreme, but rags to riches, as the fortunes of the world wax and wane. and so, what we have now is a lot of western governments catching up with defense spending. but then facing the issue that oh, arms makers don't have space in the order books to accommodate all these weapons that many western governments want to buy. imran: domitilla, it's an interesting thing, isn't it? because once one country, one particular region, starts to spend money, then the neighbors look at them and say, ok, we probably should do this as well. we are seeing this here in the middle east. qatar is almost rebuilding its own army. it doesn't manufacture anything domestically, so it has to buy. when you are spending that kind of money, it also gives you influence within the countries

which you are spending that money in. the nexus between the politics influence and the money being spent is also quite heavy, isn't it? so for a country like qatar, for saudi arabia, it actually gives them an outsize influence whilst they're buying. buying. right? guest: yes and no. it is not automatic. many countries are buying weaponry and then they're carrying out more independent foreign policies. sometimes the purchases are quite complex. as happened in the case of turkey was trying to buy a russian military equipment, and turkey is a nato member. we have instances where -- for example, you mentioned saudi arabia, which is now carrying out an energy policy which is not very favorable to the west and to the united states because it reduced production to increase the price of oil. so it's not an automatic sort of policy.

clearly there are situations where countries depend very much because we are in a state of war, in the case of russia depending very much on countries which would provide military support, in particular trying to get military support from russia . in that case, you could argue that russia has some leverage because china is trying to purchase weaponry -- russia is trying to purchase it from china to carry out its military operations in ukraine. in that particular situation, you have a lot more leverage. the same in our applies to the leverage western countries have over ukraine because ukraine is heavily dependent on support and purchases from nato member states and others. so to a great extent, it creates some leverage, especially if there is a military conflict and a military situation. if there is not military conflict or situation, countries have a lot more room for maneuver.

so i think the situation is a bit more complex. imran: in new delhi, general asthana, i wanted to ask you a question. you mentioned that one of the key partners for india is israel. israel is a very controversial partner when it comes to buying weapons from because of the battle testing it does with those weapons in, for example, that gaza strip every time there is a war. there is a political consideration here as well when you are buying weaponry, it is who we are buying those weapons from. is it simply a matter of, can we get them the best price possible and most effective? or is there a political consideration? guest: as far as india is concerned, in no uncertain terms, it is purely and squarely what meets our qualitative requirement of the weapon. we have a system of global tender. whoever gives the tender, irrespective of what everybody has to go through a trial -- we have a verity of terrain in the

country where the weaponry is to be employed. it may well happen that the usa generally does not qualify. and is rarely qualifies. it is purely done as per our qualitative requirement and not part of the politics. the politics can be covered by media. but as a professional, i conclude tell you in no uncertain terms, we don't compromise on quality. secondly, when it comes to our requirements, our requirements have to be not only operational requirements, terrain requirements, but also an area to become a -- line. we look for countries ready to transfer technology so that we

can keep buying weapons from outside forever. imran: sorry, general, we aren't running out of time now. when it comes to our other guests elisabeth, let me just , make that point to you. it is a business decision for india as to where it buys its weapons from. that is all it is, per general asthana. but there is a political decision-making process as well. you can't divorce the two. particularly within the west, there are too many people that will save many different things. but ultimately when you are selling or buying weapons, is it just about the business? guest: it's not just about the business aspect. this is what makes weapons different from -- military weaponry different from any other kind of product you could possibly sell as a company, because you are selling it to a government, and in a sense, if your -- if you are a

weapons manufacturer, you represent the country in which you are based. so, let's say you are an american weapons manufacturer, for better or worse, good and ill, you represent america. that is often an advantage because america's allies want to buy american weaponry. because then they have the same weaponry as the u.s. armed forces and that makes everything very easy, and they also buy themselves friendship in washington. 30 also have the disadvantage that you can sell to russia or china because the u.s. government will prevent that. so there are always political overtones. india is a special case, because it has always said it is free to buy weapons from whoever it likes. it has brought from russia and from many others. that is more the exception. most countries stick with friendly countries from whom they buy most of their weaponry. imran: domitilla, we are

running out of time, but, there is too much money involved with comes to the selling of arms were there to be no other consideration other than money. guest: yes, of course. there are strategic and geopolitical considerations. for example, if we consider the sale of russian military equipment, within the collective security treaty organization, russia was selling at lower prices than the market and these countries were benefiting from this relationship. russia was helping them benefit your armed forces. helping them with military training and so on. so certainly, there is a political security tied to many of these sales, as was explained by the other speakers. this is totally understandable, because you also want to have compatibility, interoperability.

the war in ukraine is clearly showing, that if you have a partner like ukraine which relies primarily on russian and former soviet equipment, and we in the west and nato, we don't have -- sometimes in the east we do have former soviet ammunition and equipment, others do not, we rely on western equipment and technology. so when you try to help this partner, you are trying to explore --globally find globally sources of ammunition that can help you know the whole machine. so that complicates matters and it clearly shows. you know how much easier it is when countries in a particular alliance share the similar set of technology, arms industries and compatibility of product. imran: i want to thank all our guests, elisabeth braw, major general s b asthana, and domitilla sagramoso. and i want to thank you, as well, for watching. now you can see the program again anytime by visiting our website, our website, aljazeera.com. and for further discussion go to our facebook page, that's facebook.com/ajinsidestory.

and you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is @ajinsidestory. from me, imran khan and the entire team here in doha, bye for now. ♪ ♪