doi: 10.56294/sctconf2024.765

ORIGINAL

Assessment and comparison of defense sufficiency levels of some countries of the world

Evaluación y comparación de los niveles de suficiencia defensiva de algunos países del mundo

Oleh Semenenko¹ *, Polina Tolok² *, Serhii Ostrovskyi³ *, Volodymyr Tkachenko⁴ *, Artem Remez⁵ *

¹Central Research Institute of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Department of Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Kyiv, Ukraine.

²The National Defense University of Ukraine named after Ivan Cherniakhovskyi. Kyiv, Ukraine.

³Central Research Institute of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Mathematical Modeling Center. Kyiv, Ukraine.

⁴Central Research Institute of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Research Department for the Use of Troops (Forces). Kyiv, Ukraine.

⁵The National Defense University of Ukraine named after Ivan Cherniakhovskyi, Department of Operational Art. Kyiv, Ukraine.

Cite as: Semenenko O, Tolok P, Ostrovskyi S, Tkachenko V, Remez A. Assessment and comparison of defense sufficiency levels of some countries of the world. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias. 2024; 3:.765. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2024.765

Submitted: 29-12-2023          Revised: 10-05-2024          Accepted: 03-09-2024         Published: 04-09-2024

Editor: Dr. William Castillo-González

Corresponding Author: Oleh Semenenko *

ABSTRACT

The article explores the evolving concept of security and defense, emphasizing recent EU initiatives that address a wide range of threats and aim to enhance national and European security through integrated and innovative approaches. The purpose of the study is to calculate and evaluate the defense capability levels of individual countries, explain them using the proposed approach, assess them within permissible limits, and compare various national economic sectors affecting the needs of the security and defense sector (SDS). The main research methods are empirical methods (analysis and synthesis), deduction, and graphic analysis. The article provides a schematic algorithm for assessing defense capability levels, introduces the use of a “need coefficient” for SDS calculations, and includes sector-specific data (using US indicators) on material and non-material values. It also suggests using an efficiency ratio to compare current and optimal defense capabilities. The level of defense capability of the countries was assessed according to the scales defined by the authors. Using a system of indicators, rather than a single complex indicator, provides a comprehensive view of defense sufficiency and allows for a detailed evaluation of its components. Thus, an approach is provided not only to determine the current and optimal levels of the country’s defense capability, but also to assess the nature of the influence of individual branches of the national economy on ensuring the defense and security needs of the state (by area).

Keywords: Military Security; Optimal And Current Level; Range Of Values; Defense Sector; National Economy.

RESUMEN

El objetivo del estudio es calcular los resultados de los niveles de capacidad de defensa de los distintos países, explicarlos según el enfoque propuesto en este documento, evaluarlos teniendo en cuenta los límites permisibles y comparar los sectores de la economía nacional, áreas de un conjunto de valores, algunos de los cuales afectan a la satisfacción de las necesidades del sector de seguridad y defensa (SDS) de los países. Los principales métodos de investigación son los métodos empíricos (análisis y síntesis), la deducción y el análisis gráfico. Se ofrece una representación esquemática del algoritmo de evaluación de los niveles de capacidad de defensa; se propone la utilización del “coeficiente de necesidad” de los resultados de los cálculos por componentes del SDS; dentro de los sectores (utilizando como ejemplo los indicadores estadounidenses) de utilización de los valores materiales, no materiales de los sectores productivos y no productivos, se dan los volúmenes relacionados con la satisfacción de las necesidades del SDS; se propone utilizar el coeficiente deeficacia para comparar los niveles actual y óptimo de la capacidad de defensa del país. El nivel de capacidad de defensa de los países se evaluó según las escalas definidas por los autores. De este modo, se proporciona un enfoque no sólo para determinar los niveles actual y óptimo de la capacidad de defensa del país, sino también para evaluar la naturaleza de la influencia de las distintas ramas de la economía nacional a la hora de garantizar las necesidades de defensa y seguridad del Estado (por áreas).

Palabras clave: Seguridad Militar; Nivel Óptimo y Actual; Gama de Valores; Sector de la Defensa; Economía Nacional.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of security comes from the Latin word “secures”, which means “free from danger, fear, and threats” and includes traditional and non-traditional approaches to its provision.^(1,2,3,4) Defense is defined as the main tool of a country for creating national security. This includes the use of force to repel an attack or an imminent threat of an attack directed against oneself, other persons or legally protected interests. In international law, self-defense means the inalienable right of a state to use force in response to an armed attack. However, it cannot be said that if the state is ready for appropriate self-defense, then the principle of defense sufficiency should also be ensured on its territory.^(5,6,7,8,9)

Nowadays, the European Union (EU) is putting forward a number of initiatives in areas critical to their defense and security. Among them is the “Commission unveils significant actions to contribute to European Defense, boost innovation and address strategic dependencies”,⁽¹⁰⁾ which covers the entire range of challenges, from the conventional defense industry and equipment on land, at sea and in the air, to cybernetic, hybrid, and space threats, military mobility, the relevance of climate change; as well as a roadmap–on critical security and defense technologies.^{(11,12,13,14,15,16,17)} These new initiatives are concrete steps towards a more integrated and competitive European defense, in particular, by strengthening cooperation within the EU, which helps increase the scale of tasks, reduce costs, and improve operational efficiency.

The update of the 2020 New Industrial Strategy “Updating the 2020 New Industrial Strategy: Building a Stronger Single Market for Europe’s Recovery”⁽¹⁸⁾ in May 2021 confirmed that technological leadership remains an important driver of EU competitiveness and innovation, especially in the field of critical technologies. The EU action plan for synergy between the civil, defense, and space sectors of February 2021 recognised the growing importance of breakthrough and enabling technologies originating from the civilian sector for the future security and defense of Europe, including the need to promote mutual enrichment and synergy between civil and defense technologies. However, the events after February 2022 made it clear that the priority development of one part of the branches (sectors) of the EU national economies over others does not ensure the implementation of the principle of defense sufficiency in general, both for the EU and for each state separately.^{(19,20,21,22,23)}

Semenenko O et al.⁽²⁴⁾ and Egorov SN et al.⁽²⁵⁾ were engaged in the study of a logical and linguistic model for assessing the state of military and economic security of the state. They created their own approach to the organisation of military and economic security, which consists in developing an algorithm for an integral assessment function of the level of defense capability of the country without considering quantitative indicators that reveal the components of this structure. In turn, Lysiuk VS⁽²⁶⁾ and also Andriychuk et al.⁽²⁷⁾ analysed various approaches in the scientific doctrine regarding the definition of the concept of “defense sufficiency of the country”. As a result, they came to the conclusion that it should be understood as the country’s ability to effectively protect its own territorial integrity, sovereignty, national security, and citizens from external negative influences, in particular, aggression, terrorist acts, and aggressive foreign policy. In addition, they attributed the state’s defense capability to its ability to withstand threats to internal security, such as armed conflicts within the country. Unlike previous researchers, Dzhuraieva O⁽²⁸⁾ investigated the functions of ensuring the national security of the modern state. She concluded that the main goal of developing a high-quality system of state security is to prevent the appearance and destruction of threats of various types, for example, violation of constitutional rights and freedoms or the harmony of the natural and anthropogenic environment. Thus, the researcher noted that there is no exhaustive list of functions for ensuring national security, and therefore, it is only possible to outline its main vectors, considering the dynamic development of society.

Based on the above, the purpose of the study is to reveal the main approaches and tools for ensuring the defense capability of different countries in modern conditions. The following tasks were outlined: to define the essence of security; to characterise the levels of defense ability in areas; to create a scale of levels of performance ratio.

METHOD

Based on the results of the analysis of initial data on some areas of the national economy that have an impact on meeting the needs of the security and defense sector (SDS), the authors of this study used the method of deduction (the process of obtaining a conclusion from available information). Such considerations allow covering all available information and, with this approach, researchers usually confirm existing theories or test hypotheses used to reach conclusions that are considered to be true. With this logical approach, research is conducted from general ideas to specific conclusions: a hypothesis is formed, and then the evidence is collected to support it. Using this method, a schematic representation of the assessment of the levels of defense sufficiency of countries was developed and an understanding of the approach to combining indicators according to the corresponding ranges of values in accordance with the areas of meeting the needs of the SDS of Ukraine was obtained.⁽²⁹⁾

In addition, the paper presents the results of research using graphical analysis (the optimal and current levels of US defense sufficiency are presented in a schematic and graphical representation). It is particularly useful for helping the reader process large amounts of data in an easy-to-understand format in the shortest possible time. Using such empirical methods as analysis and synthesis, the results of calculations of the levels of defense sufficiency of some countries (by area) were presented and their comparison was carried out, which allowed the authors to make their hierarchical systematisation. The last decade has shown not only to the EU countries, but also to the world, that their prosperity and development are cyclical, from ascents: in the absence of conflicts of any nature, to recessions: in the worst-case scenario – the conduct of military operations. World leaders not only understood the importance of ensuring the defense security of their own countries, but also the fragility of the bloc (allied) system and identified new problems both in ensuring military security and defense sufficiency. The lack of opportunities to compare the defense sufficiency of each country, ways to maintain and restore it, causes confusion in the solution of individual issues, even in long-term planning.

Graphical methods are useful auxiliary tools for presenting formal results. According to the authors of this study, their insignificant use is underestimated and reduces the percentage of perception of materials of significant numerical volumes. The optimal level of national security is impossible without maintaining its functioning at the planned level. This allows the processes, in which the national economy as a whole is involved, to work with high efficiency, which is often economically and defensively feasible. Thus, the question of finding methods, approaches, and assessing the current level of defense sufficiency of countries, as well as the search for new ways and opportunities to achieve their optimal level, is now relevant and lacks a clear scientific basis. When analysing the situation and developing an approach to assessing the state of defense sufficiency after the invasion of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine in February 2022, statistical data from the SDSs of the following countries were used: USA, Germany, France, China, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Sweden, and Ukraine.⁽³⁰⁾

To solve the problem of comparison, the authors decided to outline the ranges of values of variations in the sets of components of the national economy that have an impact on meeting the needs of the SDS and make a comparison. In this case, the following aggregates are placed on the planes of the x (cost), y (amount), and z (result) coordinate axes: ∆1∆2∆4 – range of volumes and financial capabilities of material, non-material sectors for the needs of the SDS; ∆1∆3∆4 – range of volumes and financial capabilities of material, non-production sector for the needs of the SDS; ∆2∆3∆4 – range of volumes and financial capabilities of non-material, non-production sector for the needs of the SDS. In accordance with the initial data, a three-axis coordinate plane on the data sets of material, non-material production and non-production sectors that intersect and graphically have the form of a pyramid was obtained. The total volume of the figure is the current or optimal (depending on the requirements) defense sufficiency level of the country (figure 1).

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the assessment of defense sufficiency levels of countries

When determining the optimal defense sufficiency level, the need coefficient (kneed) in this area was used, which was calculated in accordance with the data of the state request.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the results of calculations of the demand coefficient for components of SDS.

Table 1. Results of calculating the need coefficient for components of SDS (kneed)
	Main components of SDS	k^need (material production – MP)	k^need (non-material production – NP)	k^need (non-production sector – NPS)	Total by sectors of the national economy
1	Ministry of Defense of Ukraine	0,15539	0,14122	0,14521	0,44182
2	State Transport Special Service	0,03942	0,02988	0,02365	0,09296
3	Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine	0,05937	0,07885	0,08653	0,22476
4	National Guard of Ukraine	0,08727	0,14122	0,10865	0,33714
5	National Police of Ukraine	0,08869	0,07708	0,07896	0,24474
6	State Border Guard Service	0,12053	0,14122	0,10632	0,36807
7	State Migration Service of Ukraine	0,03728	0,01521	0,02366	0,07615
8	State Emergency Service of Ukraine	0,0395	0,04218	0,07563	0,15731
9	Security Service of Ukraine	0,08943	0,14122	0,05565	0,2863
10	State Security Administration of Ukraine	0,05394	0,04122	0,05633	0,15148
11	State Special Communications Service of Ukraine	0,06088	0,01218	0,07653	0,14959
12	Office of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine	0,07544	0,0455	0,05633	0,17726
13	Intelligence agencies of Ukraine	0,09285	0,09303	0,10654	0,29242

Thus, after determining the volume of use of material (∆1) and non-material (∆2) production, non-production sector (∆3) relating to a part of the SDS (∆4), the results obtained can be displayed on the data planes,⁽³¹⁾ namely, the coordinates of the figure were obtained.⁽³²⁾ For example, data on determining the current level of US defense sufficiency are taken: ∆1 (2,1153; 0,8814; 0), ∆2 (2,6590; 4,4317; 0), ∆3 (1,0834; 3,9726; 0), ∆4 (0; 0; 6,4298).

Where: xi, yi, zi – coordinates of the point ∆i; xj, yj, zj – coordinates of the point ∆j.

Therefore, ∆1∆2 (0,5437; 3,5503; 0); ∆1∆3 (-1,0319; 3,0912; 0); ∆1∆4 (-2,1153; -0,8814; 6,4298); ∆2∆3 (-1,5756; -0,4591; 0); ∆2∆4 (-2,659; -4,4317; 6,4298); ∆3∆4 (-1,0834; -3,9726; 6,4298). To determine the area of the face of the figure, it is necessary to find the values of the modules of vectors:

To determine the size of the range of values ∆1∆2∆4:

To determine the areas of the faces, it is necessary to find the coordinates of vectors:

Including the volume of the pyramid built on vectors: ∆1 (X1; Y1; Z1), ∆2 (X2; Y2; Z2) and ∆3 (X3; Y3; Z3):

According to the algorithm of the above calculations, it is possible to determine the size of each range of values, which is the object of research, and obtain the cost volumes (an integral indicator containing both the material and financial base) and the needs of the components of defense sufficiency in the relevant areas (table 2).

Table 2. Levels of US defense sufficiency by areas
Level	∆1∆2∆4	∆1∆3∆4	∆2∆3∆4	V
Current	12,07	11,119	6,011	5,727
Optimal	12,202	11,283	6,276	5,913
Performance ratio	0,989	0,985	0,957	0,968

The coordinate plane shows the results of calculating the areas of these sectors of the national economy, that part of it, the volume of which affects the US SDS, and also determines the total aggregate level of defense sufficiency by the volume of the resulting figure (pyramid) (figure 2).

Figure 2. Optimal and current volumes of US defense sufficiency

According to the threshold values of the defense sufficiency assessment scale, the following result is obtained: ∆1∆2∆4>0,7, ∆1∆3∆4>0,7, ∆2∆3∆4>0,7, and V>0,9, which indicates a high level of defense sufficiency and the possibility of reaching the optimal level in 2023 (table 3).

Table 3. Defense sufficiency levels
Limit	Brief description of the defense sufficiency level
0,01-0,4	Low
0,41-0,65	Critical
0,651-0,75	Normal
0,751-0,999	High

Results of calculation of ∆1∆2∆4, ∆1∆3∆4, ∆2∆3∆4, and V for countries such as: China, France, Germany, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Finland, Finland, Hungary, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Sweden, and Ukraine are shown in table 4.

Table 4. Defense sufficiency levels by area
Country	Level	∆1∆2∆4	∆1∆3∆4	∆2∆3∆4	V
Germany	Current	13,033	3,991	10,372	3,494
	Optimal	13,285	4,433	12,432	3,779
	Performance ratio	0,981	0,9	0,834	0,924
France	Current	11,039	6,126	9,502	5,666
	Optimal	12,023	6,254	10,342	5,865
	Performance ratio	0,918	0,98	0,919	0,966
China	Current	3,87	4,638	1,696	1,208
	Optimal	4,02	4,863	1,98	1,464
	Performance ratio	0,963	0,954	0,857	0,825
Turkey	Current	7,301	4,098	1,454	2,042
	Optimal	8,583	4,383	1,645	2,635
	Performance ratio	0,851	0,935	0,884	0,774
Poland	Current	5,635	3,047	1,486	1,695
	Optimal	5,82	3,263	1,628	1,785
	Performance ratio	0,968	0,934	0,913	0,95
Romania	Current	4,22	2,876	0,678	1,296
	Optimal	4,732	3,251	1,182	1,528
	Performance ratio	0,892	0,885	0,574	0,848
Hungary	Current	8,945	4,984	1,784	2,619
	Optimal	9,234	5.112	1,999	2,724
	Performance ratio	0,969	0,975	0,892	0,961
Russia	Current	10,876	4,034	1,204	2,686
	Optimal	14,263	6,723	2,874	3,977
	Performance ratio	0,763	0,6	0,419	0,675
Lithuania	Current	2,938	0,546	0,182	0,611
	Optimal	3,764	0,999	0,439	0,867
	Performance ratio	0,706	0,675	0,574	0,689
Finland	Current	7,845	4,934	1,753	2,422
	Optimal	8,222	5,634	2,753	2,768
	Performance ratio	0,954	0,876	0,637	0,875
Kazakhstan	Current	3,954	2,222	0,444	1,103
	Optimal	4,555	2,846	1,023	1,404
	Performance ratio	0,868	0,781	0,434	0,786
Georgia	Current	4,384	3,153	1,034	1,745
	Optimal	5,983	4,023	1,643	2,942
	Performance ratio	0,732	0,783	0,629	0,593
Moldova	Current	3,874	2,156	0,376	1,334
	Optimal	5,645	3,027	0,667	2,557
	Performance ratio	0,685	0,712	0,564	0,527
Bulgaria	Current	7,956	3,859	1,109	2,154
	Optimal	8,231	4,065	1,367	2,277
	Performance ratio	0,967	0,949	0,811	0,946
Sweden	Current	9,283	4,837	4,834	3,159
	Optimal	9,876	5,876	5,765	3,586
	Performance ratio	0,94	0,823	0,839	0,881
Ukraine	Current	5,867	2,859	0,601	1,555
	Optimal	9,756	5,987	2,307	3,008

The value of the performance ratio is numerical evidence of the achievement by a certain country of its main goal – the optimal level of defense sufficiency in the corresponding sectors of the national economy. Acceptable value limits are shown in table 5.

Table 5. Scale of performance ratio levels
Limit	Brief description of defense sufficiency level
below 0,33	Absent
0,331-0,55	Critical
0,551-0,66	Low
0,661-0,71	Insufficient
0,711-0,81	Sufficient
0,811-0,999	High

The results obtained, which are not shown in tables 1-5, allow comparing:

· Current and optimal levels (including performance ratio) of material and non-material production sectors, which were used to meet the needs of the SDS of countries (as components of defense sufficiency).

· Current and optimal levels (including performance ratio) of material production and non-production sectors, which were used to meet the needs of the SDS of countries (as components of defense sufficiency).

· Current and optimal levels (including performance ratio) of non-material production and non-production sectors that were used to meet the needs of the SDS of countries (as components of defense sufficiency).

· Current and optimal levels (as well as performance ratio) of defense sufficiency of countries (pyramid volume – V).

By considering each area (∆1∆2∆4, ∆1∆3∆4, ∆2∆3∆4), it became possible to compare not only the overall level of defense sufficiency of countries (V), but also the constituent segments that make it up – this creates an opportunity for a more detailed analysis of the essence of defense sufficiency (table 6).

Table 6. Hierarchy of countries by corresponding parameters in areas, from “max” to “min”
S(∆1∆2∆4)	S(∆1∆3∆4)	S(∆2∆3∆4)	V	kresult	Defense sufficiency level
USA	USA	USA	USA	High	High
Germany	France	France	Germany	High	Normal
Hungary	Hungary	Poland	France	Sufficient	Normal
Poland	Georgia	Hungary	China	High	High
Bulgaria	China	Turkey	Turkey	Sufficient	Normal
China	Bulgaria	China	Poland	High	High
Finland	Turkey	Sweden	Romania	High	High
Sweden	Poland	Germany	Hungary	High	High
France	Moldova	Bulgaria	Russia	Insufficient	Normal
Georgia	Germany	Georgia	Lithuania	Insufficient	Low
Romania	Romania	Finland	Latvia	Insufficient	Normal
Kazakhstan	Finland	Romania	Finland	High	Normal
Moldova	Sweden	Latvia	Kazakhstan	Sufficient	Low
Turkey	Kazakhstan	Moldova	Georgia	Low	Normal
Lithuania	Latvia	Kazakhstan	Moldova	Critical	Normal
Russia	Russia	Russia	Bulgaria	High	Critical
Latvia	Ukraine	Lithuania	Sweden	High	Normal
Ukraine	Lithuania	Ukraine	Ukraine	Critical	Critical

The following conclusions can be drawn after analysing the data shown in table 6. Currently, countries such as the United States, France, and China have the highest performance ratio (V), while Ukraine, Sweden, and Bulgaria have the lowest. Since, in this case, the level of defense sufficiency is expressed in terms of the performance ratio of the components of the population, therefore, for a more detailed understanding of the results, it is advisable to consider the deviation of current from the optimal values of the volumes of material and non-material production, and non-production sectors, which meet the physical and financial needs of the SDS of countries. The smallest deviation between the areas of values of material and non-material production that were used to meet the needs of the SDS of countries is present in the following countries: USA, Hungary, and Poland; and the largest – Russia, Latvia, and Ukraine. Thus, despite the fact that France has a higher efficiency ratio, Hungary is closer to achieving results that are optimal for the range of values. According to these values, France is in the 9th place.

The only country that not only ranks first in all the studied ranges of values, but also occupies the entire horizontal line in table 6 is the United States. This indicates a very high level of cooperation between the private and public sectors of the economy, competent state planning, and a high level of control. Before starting the calculations (table 6), one of the tasks set was to compare data from two competing countries, the United States and China, but the results obtained were rather unexpected. Not only is China the only country with ∆1∆3∆4>∆1∆2∆4, but its components of defense sufficiency are not balanced in achieving their optimal values, which is the evidence of problems between the functioning of the national economy and the withdrawal of material and financial resources from it to meet the needs of the SDS. Countries like Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine face significant issues with territorial integrity. Ukraine ranks nearly last, highlighting the need for an early end to hostilities and economic recovery. Russia, while 9th overall in defense sufficiency, shows signs of deterioration in key components, ranking 16th in specific elements. This suggests a gradual decline in defense capabilities by the end of 2023.

DISCUSSION

The issue of ensuring national security and defense of the state often arises is often raised in scientific papers. This is conditioned by various factors, both external and internal, that affect the technological and ideological foundations of the country’s defense sufficiency. Thus, digitalisation, the appearance of new types of public relations, and the reform of the international market lead to changes in the state’s defense policy.^(33,34) There is a change in the level of defense sufficiency of society to ensure its proper protection and counteract potential threats. In particular, Horowitz D⁽³⁵⁾ and Grzebalska W⁽³⁶⁾ investigated international experience in the context of approaches to the organisation and use of defense resources. Horowitz D⁽³⁵⁾ pointed to the defense principles of Israel, where the highest decision-making body is the Cabinet of Ministers of Israel. He outlined the main vectors of defense policy and strategic planning of this country.

These include the adoption of the latest and most advanced types of military equipment; continuous improvement of the military resource management system; and ensuring a continuous mobilisation mechanism. At the same time, he noted that special attention in Israel is paid to the highest level of training of personnel, both main and reserve. The study involves using Israeli-developed automated control and communication systems, emphasizing the need to assess foreign weapons for maintenance and repair compatibility to avoid operational issues. Grzebalska W⁽³⁶⁾ highlights Poland's practice of fully automating monitoring processes for military equipment during combat, providing timely and visual information on unit conditions and resource needs. Both studies align in their focus on analyzing foreign practices and prioritizing electronic control for effective defense resource management.

Special attention should be paid to the studies by Reis J et al.⁽³⁷⁾ and D. Rusdiana et al.⁽³⁸⁾ which considered the significance and features of the defense industry. Reis J et al.⁽³⁷⁾ proved that the essence of this type of industry is not only the development and improvement of weapons, military and special equipment, but also its adaptation to modern constantly changing conditions. The comprehensive state policy in this area also allows creating and distributing competitive products for civil purposes ⁽³⁹⁾. Based on this, the researchers emphasise that the defense industry should not be limited to an exhaustive list of areas, in particular, exclusively the production of defense products, but should also contribute to the technological renewal of the economy as a whole.

This approach is explained by the fact that the types of products developed May differ significantly and, accordingly, have a dual purpose. The researchers point out that the main task of such enterprises is to diversify them in order to preserve the sectoral approach in the defense sector. Rusdiana D et al.⁽³⁸⁾ focus on transforming the military-industrial complex to address security risks and enhance national defense. They propose integrating defense enterprises into the international arms market to attract new technologies and investment, improving both defense capabilities and financial support. Their findings align with this study’s emphasis on the role of the defense industry and the need for strategies that encompass defense, civilian, economic, and space sectors.

Unlike previous researchers, Odehnal J and Neubauer J⁽⁴⁰⁾ and also Paul Dunne J and Smith RP⁽⁴¹⁾ analysed the structure and elements of the scale for assessing the degree of military and economic security of countries. In this case, Odehnal J and Neubauer J⁽⁴⁰⁾ pointed out that it depends on various factors and conditions of state security, which are formed from partial indicators. For the correct estimation of the level of military and economic security, it is necessary to consider such components as: the degree of security of military resources and units; the level of security of the corresponding resource skills during the selected period and special conditions; data on security by properties of the level is lower by a degree from the current one. The researchers argue that all these indicators should be combined into a single whole, and therefore be normative. Thus, it will be possible to determine the specific degree of security of the state’s resource capabilities in the field of national security defense. The authorized person responsible for consolidating military and economic security indicators must accurately define and analyze these metrics over time. Dunne and Smith recommend using a fuzzy-set mathematical model to evaluate data stability and sensitivity to changes in input parameters. This model helps assess the effectiveness of military capabilities and resources, considering external factors. They conclude that a methodological approach based on fuzzy-set models is essential for evaluating military and economic security, highlighting the importance of analyzing various indicators to understand overall security levels.

Based on the above, it should be pointed out that the scientific literature contains different approaches to the analysis of the issue of defense and protection of the national security of the state. Thus, some researchers reveal the theoretical foundations of this issue, while others investigate its problematic aspects. The general idea is to continuously improve the country’s defense sector based on various methods, for example, attracting international experience, using advanced technologies, and conducting high-quality monitoring of military resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of the performance of a part of the national security spheres that have an impact on meeting the needs of the SDS has many advantages: it opens up more opportunities for the activities of planning bodies, implements an integrated assessment system (audit, monitoring, control), and allows tracing the causal relationships between the elements under study. Conceptually important in determining and evaluating defense sufficiency, according to the authors, are the following points: the use of a system of indicators, rather than a single complex indicator, to characterise the essence of the population. This allows using a fairly wide range of characteristics, indicators or indicators of “state parameters”, elements that best reflect their work, and in a certain way improve the result, since not only the general level of defense sufficiency is evaluated, but also its components (in the form of ranges of values); attention is drawn to whether the results achieved correspond to current and optimal goals (which is a very important stage in the audit of the state); not only the achieved, but also the future (optimal values) can be considered as potential competencies that can be used in defense and state planning. This allows considering the trends of further development of the situation in a certain way; estimation of the performance ratio, in this case, is a mathematical representation of the actual (current) values to the planned (optimal) ones, which allows providing a verbal assessment of the level of defense sufficiency in accordance with the scale proposed by the authors.

Thus, it is proposed to use this approach not only during the current performance audit (optimal level) of defense sufficiency and their comparison between countries, but also to improve the standards of defense and state planning and forecasting, which can increase the level of national security of the country in the long term. The subject of further research should focus on improving the approach given by the authors in the following areas: expanding the list of components of the SDS; defining a new method for presenting a graphical representation of optimal and current volumes of defense sufficiency considering each area – not aggregate range of values; developing recommendations on ways to increase defense sufficiency in accordance with the results obtained.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

1. Zedner L. The concept of security: An agenda for comparative analysis. Leg Stud. [Internet] 2003 [cited:25/May/2024]; 23(1):153-175.

2. Saputro GE, Tarigan H, Rajab DDA. The role of defense economic in economic growth. J Pertah. [Internet] 2021 [cited:25/May/2024]; 7(2):330-341.

3. Karyonov M. Best security practices in azure cloud: discussion on how to build and maintain a secure environment within azure, including access controls and monitoring. J Balk Tribol Assoc. 2023;29(6):928-944.

4. Kakeshov BD, Kanybekova BK, Seidakmatov NA, Zheenalieva AO, Kokoeva AM. Political and Legal Aspects of Criminal and Administrative Responsibility for Information Security Offences in the Context of National Security of the Kyrgyz Republic. Econ Aff (New Delh). 2023;68:987–993.

5. Ghiasi M, Niknam T, Wang Z, Mehrandezh M, Dehghani M, Ghadimi N. A comprehensive review of cyber-attacks and defense mechanisms for improving security in smart grid energy systems: Past, present and future. Electr Pow Syst Res. [Internet] 2023 [cited:25/May/2024]; 215(Part A):108975.

6. Dashkovska А. National security and defense council of Ukraine: Administrative and legal status. Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs. 2023;13(1):53-62. https://doi.org/10.56215/naia-chasopis/1.2023.53.

7. Hysi A, Avdulaj J, Shahini E, Goga I, Shahini E. Role of legal regulation in the establishment and development of the public administration system with local self-government aspects. Social and Legal Studios. 2024;7(1):27–36. https://doi.org/10.32518/sals1.2024.27

8. Svitak VV. Methodicalapproach to performance assessment level of individual training of military specialists in educational centers of the armed forces of Ukraine. Scientia et Societus. 2023;1(3):82-91. https://doi.org/10.31470/2786-6327/2023/3/82-91

9. Romaniuk M, Bandura I, Hrytsiuk Y, Volynets V, Komenda N. Determinants of energy efficiency and energy supply of post-communist economies in the Baltic region. J Balk Tribol Assoc. 2023;29(6):1047-1065

10. Commission unveils significant actions to contribute to European Defense, boost innovation and address strategic dependencies; 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_924

11. Singh C, Chauhan D. Review on security vulnerabilities and defense mechanism in drone technology. In: Autonomous Vehicles Volume 1: Using Machine Intelligence. (Beverly: Scrivener Publishing; 2022. p. 113-132.

12. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; 2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0061

13. Amici F. Properties Located in Area of Military Interest and Restrictions on Non-EU Citizens Owning. JUS Riv Sci Giurid. 2024;2024(1):78-96.

14. Dikhtiievskyi P, Pashinskyi V, Zadyraka N, Сhupryna L, Kryvenko O. Military and administrative law: development trends in the context of Russian military aggression challenges and threats. JUS Riv Sci Giurid. 2023;2023(3):277-298.

15. Koropatnik I, Karelin V, Boikov A, Shopina I, Khrystynchenko N. Activities of the ministry of defense in ukraine and military administration during the special period. J Leg Ethic Regul Iss. 2020;23(1):1–6.

16. Shopina I, Khrystynchenko N, Koropatnik I, Khomiakov D, Zaitsev M. Development of Integrity and Intolerance to Corruption in the System of Preparation for Military Service. J Curric Teach. 2022;11(3):112–120. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v11n3p112

17. Shahini E, Fedorchuk M, Hruban V, Fedorchuk V, Sadovoy O. Renewable energy opportunities in Ukraine in the context of blackouts. Int J Environ Stud. 2024;81(1):125–133.

18. Communication “Updating the 2020 New Industrial Strategy: Building a stronger Single Market for Europe’s recovery”; 2021. https://commission.europa.eu/document/9ab0244c-6ca3-4b11-bef9-422c7eb34f39_en

19. Pompò M. The weight of the Health War on economic growth. In: Handbook of Research on Complexities, Management, and Governance in Healthcare. Hershey: IGI Global; 2023. p. 107-114.

20. Abdullayev K, Aliyeva A, Ibrahimova K, Badalova S, Hajizada S. Current trends in digital transformation and their impact on the national economy. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University. Series “Economics”. 2024;11(1):9-18. https://doi.org/10.52566/msu-econ1.2024.09

21. Ketners K. Developing potential budget reform for Latvia: Shifting from conventional to contemporary budgeting. Social and Legal Studios. 2024;7(2):55–63. https://doi.org/10.32518/sals2.2024.55

22. Karamyshev DV. Global development index as indicator of global governance: Integrated assessment of OECD member countries development. Publ Policy Adm. 2019;18(4):377–394.

23. Skarbøvik E, Shumka S, Mukaetov D, Nagothu US. Harmonised monitoring of Lake Macro Prespa as a basis for integrated water resources management. Irrig Drain Syst. 2010;24(3-4):223238.

24. Semenenko O, Chernyshova I, Dobrovolska L, Kharitonov K, Motrunych I. Logical-linguistic model of condition assessment military and economic security of the state. J Sci Paper “Soc Dev Secur”. [Internet] 2020 [cited:25/May/2024]; 10(5):28-37.

25. Egorov SN, Semenenko OM, Tarasov OV. Basic principles, tasks and priorities of ensuring the military-economic security of Ukraine. Sci Eur. [Internet] 2021 [cited:25/May/2024]; 81(1):21-27.

26. Lysiuk VS. Ukraine’s defense industry is a driver of building a qualitatively new Ukrainian economy. Grail Sci. [Internet] 2023 [cited:25/May/2024]; 27:39-41.

27. Andriychuk OV, Nebava MI. Interconnection of defense funding and sustainable development of the national economy. In: Materials of the VI International Scientific and Practical Conference “Modern Trends in the Development of Financial and Innovation-Investment Processes in Ukraine”. Vinnytsia: Vinnytsia National Technical University; 2023. p. 25-27.

28. Dzhuraieva O. Theoretical and legal aspect of the function of ensuring the national security of the modern state. Sci Bull Int Human Univ Ser Jurisp. [Internet] 2021 [cited:25/May/2024]; 53:8-11.

29. Greer B. European economic security. In: Securing Europe’s Future. London: Routledge; 2021. p. 221-241.

30. Jeon HJ, Lee MG. Real-time military security index calculation model using big data analytics: The case of South Korea. Soc Sci. [Internet] 2022 [cited:25/May/2024]; 11(12):572.

31. Skyba OP, Balaban SM, Pik AI. Construction of intersecting lines of surfaces. Ternopil: Ternopil Ivan Puluj National Technical University; 2019.

32. Dashkevych AO, Ohotska OV. A generalised method of spatial processing of point sets on the plane. Mod Probl Model. [Internet] 2021 [cited:25/May/2024]; 23:65-72.

33. Hubeladze I. Community identity in the conditions of interstate military-political confrontation: Conceptualization of the concept. Scientific Studios on Social and Political Psychology. 2023;51(54):4-10. https://doi.org/10.61727/sssppj/1.2023.04

34. Chumachenko S, Popel V. A systematic approach to the automation of the processes of ensuring personnel competence at critical infrastructure facilities of the defense forces of Ukraine. Bulletin of Cherkasy State Technological University. 2023;(3):141–155. https://doi.org/10.24025/2306-4412.3.2023.288836

35. Horowitz D. The Israel defense forces: A civilianized military in a partially militarized society. In: Soldiers, Peasants, and Bureaucrats. London: Routledge; 2021. p. 77-106.

36. Grzebalska W. Regendering defense through a national-conservative platform? The case of Polish paramilitary organizing. Crit Milit Stud. 2023 Sep;9(2):259-278.

37. Reis J, Rosado DP, Ribeiro DF, Melão N. Quintuple Helix Innovation Model for the European Union defense industry An empirical research. Sustain. [Internet] 2022 [cited:25/May/2024]; 14(24):16499.

38. Rusdiana D, Ali Y, Thamrin S, Sarjito A. Defense industry cycle: Development of highly competitive national defense industry technology. J Surv Fisher Sci. [Internet] 2023 [cited:25/May/2024]; 10(4S):3465-3472.

39. Buil R, Piera MA, Gusev M, Ginters E, Aizstrauts A. Mas simulation for decision making in urban policy design: Bicycle infrastructure. In: International Conference on Harbour, Maritime and Multimodal Logistics Modelling and Simulation. Bergeggi: I3M Conference; 2015. p. 95–102.

40. Odehnal J, Neubauer J. Economic, security, and political determinants of military spending in NATO countries. Defenc Peac Econ. [Internet] 2020 [cited:25/May/2024]; 31(5):517-531.

41. Paul Dunne J, Smith RP. Military expenditure, investment and growth. Defenc Peac Econ. [Internet] 2020 [cited:25/May/2024]; 31(6):601-614.

FINANCING

No financing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Oleh Semenenko, Volodymyr Tkachenko.

Data curation: Serhii Ostrovskyi.

Formal analysis: Artem Remez.

Acquisition of funds: Polina Tolok.

Research: Artem Remez.

Methodology: Volodymyr Tkachenko.

Project management: Oleh Semenenko.

Resources: Serhii Ostrovskyi.

Software: Artem Remez.

Supervision: Oleh Semenenko.

Validation: Artem Remez, Serhii Ostrovskyi.

Display: Polina Tolok.

Drafting - original draft: Polina Tolok, Serhii Ostrovskyi, Volodymyr Tkachenko, Artem Remez.

Writing - proofreading and editing: Oleh Semenenko.