Hubbry Logo
Ministry of defenceMinistry of defenceMain
Open search
Ministry of defence
Community hub
Ministry of defence
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ministry of defence
Ministry of defence
Ministry of defence
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The building of the Ministry of Defense (Kazakhstan)

A ministry of defence or defense (see spelling differences), also known as a department of defence or defense, is the part of a government responsible for matters of defence and military forces, found in states where the government is divided into ministries or departments. Such a department usually includes all branches of the military, and is usually controlled by a defence minister or secretary of defense.

The role of a defence minister varies considerably from country to country; in some the minister is only in charge of general budget matters and procurement of equipment, while in others they are also an integral part of the operational military chain of command.

Historically, such departments were referred to as a ministry of war or department of war, although they generally had authority only over the army of a country, with a separate department governing other military branches. Prior to World War II, most "ministries of war" were army ministries, while the navy and the air force, if they existed as separate branches, had their own departments.[1] As late as 1953, for example, the Soviet Union had a "ministry of war" alongside a "ministry of the navy".

The tendency to consolidate and rename these departments, and to coordinate until then mostly separate components of defence (air, land, navy) arose after World War II.

Lists of current ministries of defence

[edit]

Historical

[edit]

Lists

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ministry of defence

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Ministry of Defense of the of is the central executive body responsible for implementing state policy on defense, providing military-political and military-economic management of the Armed Forces, and coordinating activities related to . Headquartered at Dostyk Avenue 14 in , the ministry oversees the Ground Forces, Air Defense Forces, Naval Forces, and other independent military formations, with a focus on maintaining and responding to regional threats. Established following Kazakhstan's independence from the in 1991, the ministry has prioritized modernization through multivector diplomacy, securing arms and training agreements with partners including , the , and to diversify equipment sources and enhance capabilities amid geopolitical shifts. Key achievements include legislative reforms for domestic defense industry development and participation in international exercises, though challenges persist in monitoring, as evidenced by recent responses to unauthorized drone incursions. Under Minister Dauren Zhumataevich Kosanov, the ministry emphasizes professionalization, including expanded roles for through education and career programs. Defining characteristics include its alignment with Kazakhstan's non-aligned foreign policy, balancing memberships in organizations like the while pursuing Western partnerships for technological upgrades.

Definition and Purpose

Core Mandate

The core mandate of a Ministry of Defence centers on safeguarding national , , and citizen through the organization, oversight, and deployment of forces. This involves formulating and implementing defense policies to deter , prevent conflict, and maintain readiness for warfighting when required, as articulated in the United Kingdom's Defence Purpose: "To protect the people of the , prevent conflict, and be ready to fight and win wars." Similar imperatives appear in other jurisdictions, such as Zambia's mandate to "preserve, protect and defend the sovereignty and of the ," reflecting a universal emphasis on state survival amid external threats. Primary functions under this mandate include directing the armed services—, , , and sometimes —in operations, , and , while integrating and cyber defense to counter evolving risks like state adversaries or non-state . The ministry coordinates , including budgeting for personnel, equipment , and , to ensure operational effectiveness; for instance, the UK's Ministry prioritizes protecting territories, countering threats via persistent engagement, and sustaining alliances like . execution extends to international , such as exercises and , but remains subordinate to civilian oversight to align military power with governmental objectives rather than autonomous agendas. In practice, the mandate demands balancing deterrence with fiscal constraints and diplomatic tools, prioritizing empirical assessments of threats over ideological priors; Latvia's Ministry, for example, focuses on policy coordination, spending planning, and National Armed Forces development to bolster collective defense under . This framework underscores causal links between military preparedness and national resilience, where failures in readiness—as seen historically in underfunded forces preceding conflicts—directly imperil , necessitating rigorous, data-driven over reactive postures.

Terminological Variations

In countries following British Westminster-style governance, the executive body responsible for defense is typically designated as the Ministry of Defence, as exemplified by the United Kingdom's established through the 1964 amalgamation of the Admiralty, , and . This nomenclature persists in numerous realms and former colonies, including and , emphasizing a ministerial structure integrated into cabinet responsibilities. The British spelling "defence" is retained in these contexts to denote protective military policy rather than offensive operations. Conversely, federal or presidential systems often favor "department" terminology; the designates its entity as the Department of Defense, renamed from the Department of War in 1949 under amendments to the to align with postwar emphases on unified national security and deterrence over explicit belligerence. Similarly, employs the Department of National Defence, a title formalized in 1922 to encompass both administrative and operational oversight of the Canadian Armed Forces. mirrors this with its Department of Defence, reflecting analogous federal departmental conventions. The American variant "defense" reflects orthographic divergence, while the addition of "national" in Canadian and some other usages underscores and . Non-English-speaking nations adapt equivalents that prioritize armed forces or security: France's Ministère des Armées (Ministry of the Armed Forces), rebranded from earlier defense-focused titles in 2017 to highlight operational readiness. Germany's Bundesministerium der Verteidigung translates to Federal Ministry of Defence, established in 1956 amid NATO integration. Russia's Ministry of Defence maintains a direct parallel but operates under centralized executive control. Historically, pre-World War II prevalence of "war ministries" or departments—such as the U.S. Department of War (1789–1947) or equivalents in Europe—shifted globally toward "defence" or neutral terms post-1945, driven by international norms favoring de-escalatory rhetoric amid nuclear deterrence and alliance structures like . This evolution prioritizes perceptual alignment with over unilateral aggression, though functional equivalence remains consistent across variants.

Historical Development

Ancient and Medieval Precursors

In ancient civilizations, centralized first appeared in empires with surplus resources enabling specialized bureaucracies. In , pharaohs maintained direct control over armies through viziers and scribes who managed , , and armories, as evidenced by records from onward, where military expeditions were coordinated via royal decrees and temple estates supplied provisions. This system integrated defense with royal authority, lacking separate ministries but foreshadowing dedicated oversight by handling warfare as a state prerogative distinct from routine . The and Empire advanced this toward more structured forms, establishing hierarchies for military affairs separate from civil administration. Consuls and later emperors commanded legions, while quaestors handled pay and supplies, praetors managed provincial garrisons, and the fabricae produced arms under imperial direction; by the 3rd century AD, the praefectus praetorio effectively supervised and across the empire's 30+ legions. These roles formed proto-departmental functions, emphasizing and fiscal separation for defense, influencing later European models despite the absence of a singular "ministry." In the medieval period, the Byzantine Empire's thema system, implemented from the mid-7th century amid Arab invasions, combined military command with provincial governance, with strategoi (general-governors) administering taxes, justice, and troop musters in districts like the Thema, which fielded up to 20,000 soldiers by the . This decentralized yet emperor-overseen structure, evolving from Roman precedents, prioritized defense sustainability through soldier-farmer settlements, serving as a direct antecedent to integrated state military bureaucracies. , by contrast, retained feudal fragmentation, with monarchs relying on councils rather than permanent defense organs until the .

Modern Institutionalization

The modern institutionalization of ministries of defence emerged in the late , driven by the consolidation of sovereign nation-states following the (1648) and the expansion of permanent standing armies, which necessitated dedicated bureaucratic structures for , , , and strategic oversight separate from royal households or councils. This shift reflected causal pressures from frequent interstate conflicts, fiscal centralization, and the Enlightenment emphasis on rational administration, replacing feudal levies and mercenary systems with professionalized forces under civilian political control. In the United States, the Department of War was established on August 7, 1789, by act of Congress, as the first cabinet-level agency to manage continental defense, initially focusing on the army while coordinating rudimentary naval affairs until the Navy Department's creation in 1798. France followed with the Ministry of War in 1791, formalized during the Revolution to centralize command amid mass mobilization against internal and external threats, evolving from pre-revolutionary secretaries of state for war dating to the 16th century but gaining ministerial autonomy under the constitutional framework. Prussia exemplified continental European developments through reforms after the 1806 defeat at Jena-Auerstedt, establishing the War Ministry on December 25, 1808, to overhaul administration, implement universal conscription from 1814, and integrate technical bureaus for artillery and engineering, thereby enabling the rapid scalability seen in the 1870-1871 . Similar structures proliferated: Austria's War Ministry, reorganized in 1802 under Emperor Francis II, handled Habsburg forces across multi-ethnic domains; Russia's Ministry of War, instituted in 1802 by Alexander I, professionalized supply chains for campaigns against . The accelerated institutional growth via industrialization and total warfare doctrines, with ministries incorporating general staffs (e.g., Prussia's General Staff under Scharnhorst) for , railway coordination for troop movements, and ordnance factories for mass-produced weaponry, as evidenced by Britain's formalization in 1855 amid inefficiencies. By 1914, these bodies managed armies exceeding millions, with budgets rivaling civilian expenditures—France's 1913 defense outlay reached 20% of national spending—yet retained army-centric focus, treating navies and emerging air arms as adjuncts until interwar pressures foreshadowed unification. This era's innovations, grounded in empirical adaptations to firepower lethality and speed, laid the administrative foundation for 20th-century defense establishments, though vulnerabilities in inter-service coordination persisted, as exposed in stalemates.

Post-World War II Transformations

Following , numerous nations restructured their defense ministries to unify previously separate service branches—such as army, navy, and air force—under centralized civilian-led oversight, addressing inefficiencies and rivalries exposed during the global conflict. In the United States, the established the Department of Defense as a cabinet-level entity, consolidating the War and Navy Departments while creating an independent Air Force, with President Truman emphasizing the need to eliminate "crybabies" among service leaders resisting integration to enable unified amid emerging threats. Similarly, the formed a Ministry of Defence in 1947 to coordinate the Admiralty, , and , culminating in full statutory unification via the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act 1964, which dissolved the individual service ministries and placed all forces under a single to streamline administration and resource allocation during fiscal constraints. The onset of the prompted further transformations, with defense ministries adapting to bipolar confrontation by prioritizing nuclear deterrence, intelligence integration, and alliance over conventional . Western ministries, influenced by NATO's formation in , incorporated joint commands and standardized ; for instance, U.S. structures evolved to emphasize for advanced weaponry, with acquisition processes formalized to support rapid technological escalation against Soviet capabilities. In the , the Ministry of Defense maintained a hierarchical structure centered on the General Staff and Main Political Directorate, ensuring Communist Party control while expanding to oversee and mass conventional armies, reflecting doctrinal emphasis on offensive depth and ideological loyalty rather than Western-style civilian primacy. Decolonization and alliance dynamics accelerated these shifts globally, as newly independent states modeled ministries on former colonial powers or superpower patrons, often centralizing authority to build national armies from fragmented forces. European nations like established the Federal Ministry of Defence in 1956 to oversee rearmament under constraints, integrating democratic accountability with allied commitments post-occupation. Overall, post-WWII reforms elevated defense ministries from wartime expedients to permanent institutions focused on sustained readiness, with budgets in major powers rising sharply—U.S. defense outlays, for example, averaging 8-10% of GDP through the —to counter ideological and nuclear risks, though inter-service tensions persisted in implementation.

Organizational Framework

Internal Structure

The internal structure of a Ministry of Defence generally features a hierarchical -led framework, with the defence minister at the apex, supported by deputy ministers or undersecretaries, and subdivided into specialized directorates or departments that provide oversight, formulation, and administrative support to forces. This setup ensures control over operations while facilitating coordination across functions such as , , and personnel management. Variations exist by nation, but core elements include and units, financial and logistical branches, and legal affairs offices, often drawing from models established post-World War II to balance efficiency with accountability. Key departments typically encompass defence policy and strategy divisions, which develop doctrines and long-term planning; these are responsible for aligning capabilities with geopolitical threats. and armaments agencies handle acquisition of equipment, often integrating entities to innovate weaponry and technology. Personnel and sections manage , , and welfare for both and staff, including reserve forces integration. In many structures, such as those in and , dedicated bureaus oversee , sustainment, and operational readiness to ensure supply chain resilience during conflicts. Financial and budgetary units centralize , with oversight from and bodies to prevent mismanagement; for example, the 's Ministry of Defence incorporates directorates that execute annual budgets exceeding £50 billion as of 2022-23. Legal and international affairs departments address compliance with treaties, in warfare, and diplomatic engagements, while intelligence coordination roles—often linking to separate agencies—support threat assessment without direct operational command. services and crisis planning sections further enhance accountability, monitoring expenditures and preparing for contingencies like . This modular design allows adaptability, though challenges like inter-departmental silos can arise in larger ministries, as noted in analyses of unified command structures.

Leadership and Accountability

The leadership of a Ministry of Defence is typically vested in a minister, appointed by the or executive , to maintain democratic control over affairs. This minister holds ultimate responsibility for formulating defence , overseeing resource allocation, and ensuring alignment with objectives, as exemplified in structures where the minister chairs a top-level board focused on strategic direction. In many systems, the minister is supported by ministers or state secretaries handling specialized portfolios such as or personnel, alongside a or equivalent advisor who provides operational expertise but remains subordinate to . Accountability mechanisms emphasize ministerial responsibility to the , where the defence minister must answer for departmental actions, expenditures, and policy outcomes through mechanisms like parliamentary questions, hearings, and . For instance, in parliamentary systems, ministers are individually and collectively accountable for the exercise of their powers, including defence-related decisions, with failure to uphold standards potentially leading to or no-confidence votes. Oversight extends to independent s and risk assessments, often conducted by bodies like committees, to verify financial propriety and operational efficiency. In practice, effective requires robust parliamentary committees dedicated to defence, which review , , and deployments to prevent opacity or misuse of funds, particularly in high-expenditure areas like arms acquisition. These bodies coordinate with external auditors and agencies to enforce transparency, though challenges persist in translating technical data into actionable scrutiny without specialized expertise. Internal structures, such as defence councils or boards, further reinforce accountability by integrating civilian and input under ministerial , prioritizing strategic plans over day-to-day operations.

Primary Functions

Defense Policy and Strategy

The Ministry of Defense is responsible for developing and overseeing a nation's , which articulates the overarching framework for protecting , deterring aggression, and responding to threats through military means. This policy integrates geopolitical assessments, resource prioritization, and doctrinal guidelines to align armed forces with objectives. For instance, , the 2022 National Defense Strategy emphasizes integrated deterrence, campaigning, and building enduring advantages to counter pacing challenges from adversaries like . Defense , as a , translates policy into operational plans, specifying force structures, modernization efforts, and readiness postures. Core elements typically encompass identification—such as state-based rivals, non-state , or —and risk management through scenario-based planning. This includes defining priorities like homeland defense, alliance commitments, and capabilities, often formalized in documents that guide budgeting and . Strategies must balance deterrence (e.g., maintaining credible nuclear postures) with warfighting readiness, incorporating trade-offs in force size versus technological edge. In practice, ministries coordinate with civilian to ensure reflects broader national priorities, such as economic resilience or , while adapting to evolving domains like cyber and . Effective employ mission-based to address specific contingencies, mitigating risks from resource constraints or gaps. Challenges arise in , where political influences can distort objective assessments, underscoring the need for empirical over ideological preconceptions in .

Military Administration and Procurement

Ministries of defense typically oversee through centralized bureaucracies responsible for personnel management, including , , promotions, disciplinary procedures, and welfare services for active-duty and reserve forces. This administrative framework ensures operational readiness by coordinating , systems, and compliance with national labor standards adapted for military hierarchies. For instance, administrative units handle the lifecycle of service members, from enlistment to retirement benefits, often integrating data systems for tracking qualifications and deployments. Logistics administration falls under the ministry's purview, encompassing for sustainment items such as fuel, food, medical supplies, and spare parts, which supports global force projection and of equipment . In practice, this involves agencies dedicated to end-to-end , procuring commodities through standardized catalogs and distribution networks to minimize disruptions during peacetime or conflict. The scale of these operations demands rigorous controls and models to balance holding costs against demand variability. Procurement functions within ministries of defense focus on acquiring capital goods, weapons systems, and to meet strategic requirements, governed by processes that emphasize competitive selection, cost-effectiveness, and classifications. These typically include , solicitation of bids from defense contractors, contract negotiation, and oversight of production milestones, often under full funding policies where or parliaments allocate complete costs upfront for major programs. Specialized divisions or agencies handle technical evaluations, risk assessments, and compliance with controls, prioritizing domestic industry where possible to bolster . Challenges in arise from lengthy approval cycles and integration of emerging technologies, prompting reforms for streamlined acquisition pathways, such as modular contracting or other transactional authorities to accelerate delivery. Audits and transparency measures, including independent reviews, aim to mitigate risks of overruns or inefficiencies, though systemic persist due to the complexity of certifying systems for combat reliability.

Intelligence and International Engagement

The Ministry of Defense of coordinates military efforts primarily through operational support for the armed forces and bilateral protocols with partner states, rather than maintaining a fully independent agency separate from the National Security Committee. In August 2022, it approved a protocol to expand military cooperation with Türkiye, enabling enhanced information sharing and joint activities focused on regional security threats. Similar arrangements underpin agreements with , covering military alongside air defense and technical cooperation, as part of broader Central Asian stability initiatives. These engagements emphasize practical exchanges over expansive domestic , with the ministry integrating emerging technologies like AI for in defense operations, as established in a dedicated AI unit in August 2025 to digitize armed forces processes including threat assessment. International engagement forms a core function of the ministry, aligning with Kazakhstan's multivector foreign policy to diversify modernization and avoid over-reliance on any single partner. This involves joint exercises, training exchanges, and co-production of equipment with nations across and beyond, as evidenced by a July 2025 analysis of collaborations enhancing through strategic partnerships. In January 2025, the ministry signed a cooperation plan with Türkiye for the year, targeting , , and medical support, building on prior intelligence-sharing pacts. Analogous agreements were concluded with the for 2025–2026, emphasizing delegation exchanges and , and with in March 2025, prioritizing cybersecurity and . These initiatives extend to longstanding U.S. partnerships, which have professionalized Kazakh forces through non-NATO programs since the , including staff and institutional reforms. Recent expansions include Vietnam's May 2025 commitments to delegation visits and technical exchanges, reflecting Kazakhstan's outreach to for balanced capabilities. Multilateral efforts, such as participation in maneuvers and frameworks, further integrate the ministry's engagements, with over a dozen bilateral plans active as of mid-2025 to address hybrid threats like border incursions and technological gaps. This approach has yielded tangible outcomes, including upgraded equipment and personnel skilled in NATO-standard procedures, without compromising .

Global Variations and Comparisons

In Democratic Nations

In democratic nations, ministries of defence serve as the primary institutions responsible for overseeing armed forces, ensuring alignment with elected governments' policies while maintaining professional autonomy in operational matters. These ministries are typically led by ministers appointed by the or president, who exercise hierarchical control over hierarchies to prevent undue political influence on the armed forces. This structure embodies of supremacy, where defense formulation, budgeting, and fall under executive authority subject to legislative scrutiny, as seen in frameworks established post-World War II to consolidate fragmented commands under unified direction. Legislative bodies, such as parliaments or congresses, enforce through budget approvals, inquiries, and confirmation of senior appointments, fostering transparency and deterring of politics. Structural variations reflect constitutional differences between parliamentary and presidential systems. In parliamentary democracies like the United Kingdom and Germany, the ministry operates as a centralized executive department with the defense minister as a cabinet member directly answerable to parliament; for instance, the UK Ministry of Defence integrates policy, administration, and procurement under the Secretary of State, who briefs Parliament on operations via quarterly statements and faces select committee oversight. In the United States, a presidential system, the Department of Defense functions as a massive executive agency led by a civilian Secretary confirmed by the Senate, with significant congressional influence through the Armed Services Committees and annual National Defense Authorization Acts that dictate funding and reforms, such as the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act enhancing joint operations under civilian-led unified commands. These models prioritize bureaucratic insulation of military advice from political interference, though empirical analyses indicate that effective oversight depends on robust parliamentary committees and independent audits to counter risks like procurement inefficiencies or contractor dependencies. Despite these safeguards, implementation varies by national context and historical experience. In consolidated democracies like and , ministries emphasize alliance integration—such as with or —while subjecting expenditures to rigorous public audits; 's Department of Defence, for example, reported AUD 52.6 billion in 2023-2024 spending, with parliamentary joint committees reviewing major acquisitions like submarines. Challenges persist, including budgetary pressures amid rising threats, where ministries must balance deterrence investments with fiscal constraints; Germany's Federal Ministry of Defence, reformed under the 2022 Zeitenwende policy, committed €100 billion in special funds to modernize forces previously underfunded at 1.3% of GDP pre-2022. Academic assessments highlight that while democratic ministries generally uphold non-partisan , lapses in oversight—such as delayed responses to hybrid threats—underscore the need for adaptive expertise to maintain efficacy without eroding professional norms.

In Authoritarian States

In authoritarian states, ministries of defense typically prioritize regime preservation and leader loyalty over transparent , often subordinating to political control mechanisms that prevent coups or internal challenges. Command structures frequently bypass ministerial , vesting operational power in parallel bodies like party-led commissions or personal directorates under the , enabling direct suppression of alongside external defense. This arrangement fosters information distortions, as subordinates withhold negative assessments to avoid , undermining strategic despite substantial resource commitments. In the , the Ministry of National Defense conducts administrative coordination, policy formulation for development, and international defense , but operational command over the resides exclusively with the Central Military Commission, chaired by the general secretary who also serves as state president. Established under the 1982 constitution, the commission directs strategy, personnel, and logistics, ensuring party supremacy over the armed forces with over 2 million active personnel as of 2024. This dual structure, where the ministry's role remains largely representational, reflects causal priorities of ideological control, as evidenced by the commission's dominance in budgeting and reforms like the 2015-2016 reorganization that centralized authority under . Russia's Ministry of Defence, responsible for implementing federal defense policy, equipment , and troop , operates under the president's role as supreme , with exerting personal oversight through frequent board meetings and directives. Appointed in May 2024, Minister Andrei Belousov, an economist without prior military experience, signals a shift toward integrating defense with wartime , amid expenditures exceeding 6% of GDP in 2023 for the conflict. Historical patterns include purges and leadership rotations, such as the 2024 replacement of long-serving , to align the ministry with regime longevity rather than independent accountability, contributing to documented inefficiencies like logistical failures reported in operational theaters. In , control integrates seamlessly with the Kim family's dynastic rule via the "military-first" () policy adopted in the late 1990s, where the —numbering approximately 1.3 million active personnel—prioritizes regime defense, resource extraction, and internal repression over conventional warfighting readiness. The National Defence Commission, effectively superseded by the State Affairs Commission under Kim Jong-un since 2016, exercises unified command, with no independent ministry insulating the from dictates; this structure enforces personal loyalty through purges, , and dual-use deployments for labor and . Empirical assessments indicate over 70% of state spending funnels to programs, sustaining nuclear and advancements while hollowing civilian sectors, as verified by defector testimonies and of force dispositions. Across these cases, defense ministries in authoritarian contexts exhibit reduced transparency and external oversight, with often opaque and intertwined with elites, fostering risks quantified in Russia's case at billions in unaccounted funds during mobilizations. While Western analyses from bodies like the U.S. Department of Defense highlight these as systemic weaknesses—contrasting with democratic civilian-military balances—-aligned sources portray them as strengths for rapid , though outcomes in conflicts like suggest otherwise.

In Developing Economies

In developing economies, ministries of defence typically oversee limited resources, prioritizing internal security and counter-insurgency operations over large-scale capabilities due to fiscal constraints and prevalent asymmetric threats. These ministries often integrate functions such as , personnel management, and , but suffer from underdeveloped institutional frameworks that hinder efficient resource allocation. For instance, in , defence establishments struggle to balance national defence with regional stability without provoking neighborly conflicts, compounded by weak oversight mechanisms. Military expenditure in these nations, while representing a higher of GDP compared to many developed countries—often 2-4%—translates to low absolute figures, limiting modernization efforts. According to SIPRI data for , global military spending reached $2718 billion, with developing economies contributing disproportionately in relative terms but facing inefficiencies and reliance on foreign suppliers. In countries like and , defence ministries facilitate bilateral cooperation for equipment development, yet persistent budgetary shortfalls restrict indigenous production scales. Corruption poses a , with assessing 62% of countries as facing high to critical vulnerabilities in defence sectors as of 2021, a trend persisting into recent analyses. Common issues include misuse of opaque budgets, single-sourcing favoring insiders, and favoritism in promotions, which divert resources and undermine operational readiness. In , for example, defence cooperation initiatives with partners like and aim to bolster capabilities, but domestic graft erodes gains by fueling arms diversion to and insurgents. Underdeveloped defence ministries exacerbate and insecurity by enabling overreach into , as seen in recurrent coups and inefficient spending that prioritizes patronage over capability building. RAND analyses highlight how such establishments perpetuate conflict cycles, with weak anti-corruption controls in leading to and . Efforts to , such as structured dialogues for , remain nascent amid political .

Contemporary Reforms and Challenges

Technological and doctrinal adaptations

In response to evolving threats from peer competitors, ministries of defence worldwide have shifted military doctrines toward multi-domain operations (MDO), emphasizing synchronized effects across land, maritime, air, space, and domains to counter integrated adversary systems. The formalized this in Field Manual 3-0, published on October 10, 2022, which prioritizes penetrating and exploiting enemy defenses through cross-domain convergence rather than sequential engagements, marking a departure from post-9/11 focus. has similarly integrated MDO concepts into alliance planning, as outlined in 2023 guidance, to orchestrate joint activities below and above conflict thresholds, driven by observations of Russian hybrid tactics in and Chinese anti-access strategies in the . Doctrinal adaptations often involve restructuring command hierarchies; for instance, the U.S. Department of Defense established the (JADC2) initiative in 2019, evolving into policy directives by 2023 to enable real-time data sharing across services, addressing gaps exposed in exercises simulating high-intensity conflicts. In Europe, the UK's Ministry of Defence incorporated MDO elements into its 2021 refresh, emphasizing resilient command structures against cyber-disrupted environments, while Australia's 2023 Defence Strategic Review advocated for distributed lethality doctrines inspired by U.S. models to deter regional . These changes reflect causal recognition that siloed domain thinking cedes initiative to adversaries wielding low-cost disruptors like drones and electronic warfare. Technologically, ministries are prioritizing (AI) for and autonomous systems, with the UK's 2022 Defence AI Strategy committing to "AI-ready" forces by scaling adoption in , targeting, and , backed by partnerships such as the September 2025 Google Cloud deal for secure AI infrastructure. Cyber integration has accelerated, as seen in NATO's emphasis on AI-enhanced defenses against state-sponsored intrusions, with doctrines now treating as a warfighting domain equivalent to kinetic ones; the U.S. Cyber Command's 2023 posture statement highlighted AI for , reducing response times from hours to seconds in simulated attacks. Adaptations extend to hypersonic weapons and unmanned systems, where Spain's Defence Technology and Innovation Strategy (ETID) allocated resources for dual-use R&D in and sensors to maintain with allies, countering proliferation by and documented in 2022 intelligence assessments. Challenges persist in ethical AI deployment and vulnerabilities, prompting ministries like Israel's to diversify production amid global chip shortages, as evidenced by 2023 export data showing growth in indigenous cyber-AI platforms despite market shifts. reforms, such as the U.S. DoD's emphasis on via frontline innovators, aim to bridge with hardware, ensuring adaptations yield verifiable multipliers rather than unintegrated capabilities.

Budgetary and efficiency reforms

Ministries of worldwide have pursued budgetary and efficiency reforms to address escalating costs, inefficiencies, and gaps, often driven by fiscal pressures and geopolitical demands. These efforts typically involve streamlining acquisition processes, enhancing financial oversight, and reallocating resources to prioritize high-impact capabilities, though varies by national and has yielded mixed results. In the United States, the Department of Defense (DoD) has prioritized audit remediation under the Financial Improvement and Audit Remediation (FIAR) framework, mandated by the 1990 Chief Financial Officers Act, yet it remains the only major federal agency without a clean opinion after seven consecutive failures as of 2024, unable to fully account for its $824 billion budget. Reforms include shifting from cost-plus to fixed-price contracts to incentivize contractor efficiency and curb overruns, alongside directives to leverage in-house expertise before external pursuits, as outlined in emphasizing speed and execution in acquisitions. DoD leadership has targeted a passing by 2028 through system modernizations and progress tracking, but persistent material weaknesses in areas like property valuation and inventory highlight entrenched bureaucratic challenges. The United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence (MoD) has implemented efficiency programs tied to its Strategic Defence Review, aiming for £6 billion in savings by 2029 through changes, organizational , and a forthcoming Defence and Efficiency Plan to integrate jointness and reduce redundancies. These initiatives build on prior frameworks like the Efficiency Framework, focusing on value-for-money assessments and export-driven industrial growth to offset budget constraints amid commitments to . NATO allies have incorporated efficiency into spending pledges, requiring at least 20% of defence expenditures on major equipment since 2014 to enhance capability delivery, alongside updated commitments for 5% of GDP on core defence by 2025 to balance burden-sharing with output effectiveness. However, these targets emphasize expenditure volume over granular efficiencies, prompting calls for and force structure alignments in member states to avoid wasteful duplication. In , the Defence Ministry's 2025 reform agenda includes nine points for jointness, integration, and financial viability via to estimate needs accurately and eliminate legacy inefficiencies, reflecting broader efforts in developing economies to modernize amid rising threats without proportional hikes. Russia's Defence Ministry established a Department for Efficiency Improvement in 2025 to restructure processes, though outcomes remain opaque due to limited transparency. Such reforms underscore a global tension: while intended to yield savings—potentially billions through restraint-oriented strategies—persistent shortfalls and delays often undermine fiscal discipline, necessitating sustained political will.

Responses to emerging threats

Ministries of defense have increasingly prioritized non-kinetic domains in response to threats like cyber intrusions, space-based disruptions, and advanced weaponry that bypass traditional defenses. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense outlined a emphasizing four lines of effort: defending the nation from cyber attacks, disrupting malicious cyber activity, strengthening alliances, and building capabilities to compete in . Similarly, the established the Cyber & Specialist Operations Command in September 2025 to counter daily cyber threats and integrate with specialist operations across defense networks. These adaptations reflect empirical assessments of escalating attacks, with the UK reporting over six million cyber incidents on networks in recent years. In the space domain, responses focus on enhancing domain awareness and resilience against anti-satellite weapons and orbital threats posed by adversaries like and . The U.S. Space Force's Orbital Watch initiative, launched by 2025, facilitates real-time threat dissemination among government and commercial partners to detect and track space-based risks. The 2020 U.S. Defense Space Strategy, updated through ongoing implementations, calls for integrating space power into joint operations while building resilient architectures to counter jamming, lasers, and kinetic attacks. By 2024, assessments identified over 100 Chinese and Russian counter-space capabilities, prompting investments in proliferated constellations and layered defenses to maintain strategic advantages. Hypersonic weapons, traveling beyond Mach 5 with maneuverability, challenge defenses, leading to doctrinal shifts toward AI-enhanced detection and interception. U.S. adaptations by 2025 include mobile launchers for hypersonic systems and AI-driven guidance for real-time trajectory prediction and evasion countermeasures. Task forces advocate prioritizing hypersonic defenses, noting shortened response windows that render legacy systems obsolete against unpredictable paths. Malaysia's Defence Ministry, in September 2025, incorporated hypersonic countermeasures into a broader strategy encompassing AI, unmanned systems, and smart sensors for multi-domain threats. Artificial intelligence integration addresses for threat forecasting across domains, with the U.S. accelerating AI adoption for hypersonic and by 2025. Global threat assessments, such as the U.S. Community's 2025 report, underscore state actors' use of AI to amplify cyber and hypersonic capabilities, necessitating resilient supply chains and allied to mitigate vulnerabilities. These reforms, driven by causal links between technological proliferation and deterrence erosion, emphasize empirical testing over unverified projections, though budgetary constraints limit full-scale deployments.

Controversies and Criticisms

Transparency and oversight failures

Defence ministries worldwide frequently invoke national security exemptions to limit public disclosure of budgets, decisions, and operational expenditures, resulting in systemic opacity that hampers effective parliamentary and civilian oversight. This "defence exceptionalism" often conceals inefficiencies, such as misuse of classified budgets and non-competitive single-sourcing in , which identifies as top risks across sectors. In the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) exemplifies chronic transparency shortfalls, with military transparency reaching a five-year low as of February 2025, according to data obtained by from freedom of information responses. The MoD has repeatedly failed to produce auditable accounts, with the National Audit Office qualifying its for over 30 years due to persistent inventory management errors and outdated systems, posing risks to front-line forces. In 2024, basic accounting mistakes led to £74 million in wasted funds from mismatched aircraft procurement plans, while broader procurement system breakdowns have squandered billions in taxpayer money, as reported by the . Oversight is further undermined by the MoD's blocking of National Audit Office reports and provision of incomplete spending plans to , prompting the to express "extreme disappointment" in June 2025 over obstructed scrutiny. Internationally, similar patterns persist; for instance, many governments disclose defence budgets only under broad headings, obscuring detailed allocations and enabling unaccounted expenditures. A 2025 procurement agency scandal involving staff in drone acquisitions highlighted vulnerabilities from inadequate transparency in arms deals amid heightened defence spending. These failures not only erode but also impair for , as noted in Transparency International's analyses, where obstructs access to essential data on and influence. Despite occasional reforms, such as quarterly reporting in select nations, overarching institutional resistance to disclosure perpetuates gaps.

Entanglement with industry and lobbying

Defense ministries worldwide exhibit significant interconnections with the defense industry, often manifesting through personnel mobility, financial , and influence over decisions, which can prioritize corporate interests over fiscal efficiency or strategic necessity. The phenomenon, commonly termed the , involves former high-ranking officials transitioning to lucrative positions in industry, leveraging insider to shape and contracts in favor of their new employers. This entanglement raises concerns about , where government oversight is compromised by personal financial incentives. In the United States, the Department of Defense exemplifies this dynamic, with top contractors employing hundreds of former government personnel. A 2023 investigation by Senator documented 672 instances as of 2021 where ex-officials from the DoD and related agencies joined the 20 largest defense firms, predominantly as lobbyists, facilitating access to decision-makers and influencing billions in contracts. Similarly, the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Fellows program has placed military officers in roles at major corporations like and for up to a year, ostensibly for policy insights, but enabling corporate perspectives to permeate departmental recommendations upon return. The defense sector's lobbying expenditures have exceeded $100 million annually since 2002, with firms like and leading efforts to secure favorable outcomes, often amid documented cost overruns exceeding 50% on major programs. Internationally, analogous patterns persist. In Canada, since 2008, over 300 former Department of National Defence employees have registered as lobbyists for military contractors, amplifying industry sway over federal acquisitions. Transparency International highlights the defense industry's use of lobbying and offsets—promises of local economic benefits tied to purchases—to embed influence in procurement processes across NATO members and beyond, correlating with elevated corruption risks in opaque contracts. These ties contribute to procurement inefficiencies, as evidenced by fraud probes like the 2024 Thales bribery investigation in multiple countries, underscoring how lobbying can distort competitive bidding and inflate taxpayer costs. Despite purported benefits of industry expertise informing policy, empirical analyses indicate that such entanglements systematically favor incumbent contractors, reducing innovation and accountability in ministry operations.

Impacts on civil liberties and ethics

Defense ministries frequently oversee intelligence operations that enable , leading to documented infringements on civilian rights. In the United States, the (NSA), operating under the Department of Defense, engaged in warrantless collection of Americans' internet communications via the program, which a 2018 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruling found violated the Fourth Amendment by querying U.S. persons' data without proper safeguards. Similar programs have persisted, with Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizing incidental collection of domestic data during foreign targeting, resulting in millions of unwarranted queries on U.S. citizens' information annually as of 2023. These practices prioritize over individual protections, eroding expectations of in digital communications without sufficient judicial oversight. Conscription mandates administered by defense ministries compel involuntary service, curtailing personal autonomy and freedom of choice in career and life decisions. Such policies, implemented in various nations during conflicts or as standing requirements, have been critiqued as infringing on negative liberties by forcing individuals into high-risk roles , akin to compelled labor that disregards opportunity costs to private pursuits. For example, extended drafts reduce economic productivity and expose conscripts to unnecessary hazards while limiting mobility, with empirical analyses showing net societal costs exceeding voluntary enlistment benefits in peacetime. Even in democracies, exemptions often favor elites, exacerbating inequities in liberty burdens. The domestic deployment of military forces under defense ministry authority poses risks to by substituting trained police with personnel oriented toward , potentially escalating confrontations and bypassing civilian protocols. In the U.S., the of 1878 restricts federal troops from direct to safeguard against martial overreach, yet exceptions via the Insurrection Act have enabled interventions like the response, where military involvement drew criticism for disproportionate force and eroded public trust. Loopholes, including equipment transfers to local police under programs like , further blur lines, facilitating militarized policing that amplifies risks to assembly and rights. Ethical lapses in defense , including and , compromise integrity and divert resources from legitimate needs. U.S. Government Accountability Office () audits from 2005 onward identified persistent vulnerabilities in Department of Defense contracting, such as inadequate safeguards against conflicts of interest and influence peddling, leading to billions in potential losses. Globally, opaque offset agreements in arms deals foster by enabling hidden kickbacks, as evidenced by Transparency International's assessments of defense sectors where policy manipulation conceals elite gains at taxpayer expense. These practices not only undermine fiscal but also erode ethical standards, prioritizing profit over mission efficacy.

Achievements and Strategic Impacts

Deterrence and conflict prevention

Ministries of defence achieve deterrence by maintaining combat-credible forces that impose unacceptable costs on potential aggressors, thereby preventing armed conflicts through the credible threat of retaliation. This rests on demonstrating resolve, capability, and the ability to deny an aggressor's objectives, often integrating conventional, nuclear, and non-military elements to shape adversary calculations. Empirical analyses indicate that such postures have historically reduced the incidence of interstate wars, particularly in regions with forward-deployed forces, where U.S. overseas basing correlated with fewer attacks on allies between 1950 and 2001. In practice, defence ministries oversee the development of integrated deterrence frameworks that combine military readiness with diplomatic signaling and economic pressures to forestall aggression. For instance, NATO's collective defence commitments, coordinated through member ministries, have deterred direct attacks on alliance territory since 1949 by ensuring collective response mechanisms, as evidenced by the absence of Article 5 invocations prior to 2001 despite Cold War tensions. Studies attribute this success to the perceived high costs of escalation, including rapid reinforcement capabilities and nuclear guarantees, which managed Soviet expansion without major conventional war in Europe. Modern adaptations emphasize campaigning below the threshold of war to prevent escalation, such as persistent presence operations that signal commitment without provoking conflict. U.S. Department of Defense analyses highlight how integrated approaches, including cyber and space domains, have deterred gray-zone activities by adversaries like in the , where freedom-of-navigation operations from 2015 onward reduced coercive incidents without kinetic engagement. Quantitatively, RAND research shows that larger, permanent force deployments enhance deterrence efficacy by 20-30% against territorial aggression, based on post-World War II data across multiple regions. Effectiveness, however, depends on credibility; over-posturing can provoke rather than deter, as seen in cases where excessive threats led to arms races without prevention. Defence ministries mitigate this by aligning force structures with specific threats, such as 's enhanced forward presence battlegroups in since 2017, which correlated with Russia's restraint from further incursions post-Crimea annexation. Overall, these efforts have contributed to a decline in great-power conflicts since 1945, with deterrence credited for preserving stability amid ideological rivalries.

Innovation and technological leadership

The Ministry of Defence of has prioritized integration into military operations, establishing a specialized AI unit on August 18, 2025, tasked with of the armed forces, including development of AI tools for , automated , and mission support. This unit focuses on intelligent systems for large-scale and personnel training in AI applications, marking a shift toward technology-driven defense capabilities amid regional geopolitical tensions. Efforts in digitalization extend to broader military modernization, with automated command systems and digital services introduced since 2020 to enhance operational efficiency. In July 2025, the ministry showcased advancements in Armed Forces digitalization, including unified platforms for real-time decision-making. These initiatives align with a national push for self-reliance, supported by a April 2025 legislative framework regulating the defense industry and a dedicated defense fund for domestic production of artillery ammunition, weapons systems, and other hardware. Technological leadership is bolstered by investments in through entities like the R&D Center of Kazakhstan Engineering, which advances science in the military-industrial complex, focusing on high-tech weaponry and equipment innovation. allocated 120 billion tenge (approximately $250 million USD) in 2025 for defense sector expansion, including joint ventures and co-production with international partners from , , and others to localize of armored vehicles, naval vessels, and precision munitions. This includes plans for a major defense hub at the Tank Repair Plant, Central Asia's sole facility for heavy armor maintenance, to foster indigenous capabilities and reduce import dependency. Through multivector diplomacy, the ministry has pursued technology transfers via joint exercises and collaborations, enhancing capabilities in drones, cyber defense, and electronic warfare while maintaining Kazakhstan's position as Central Asia's leading military power, ranked 57th globally in 2025. These developments reflect a strategic emphasis on to support national , though domestic production remains nascent compared to established powers, relying on foreign expertise for complex systems.

Contributions to national sovereignty

The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of contributes to national by directing the armed forces to protect territorial integrity, deter aggression, and uphold state , as mandated by the Law on Defense and Armed Forces of 2005, which emphasizes respect for and the inviolability of borders. This role has been central since in 1991, with the tasked under the to preserve amid regional geopolitical pressures. Kazakhstan's 2022 military doctrine reinforces these objectives by prioritizing and through a multi-vector policy that balances relations with , , and Western states, avoiding exclusive alliances that could compromise autonomy. Reforms since 2022, including increased military expenditures and the creation of a defense fund for domestic production of , weapons systems, and , aim to build self-reliant capabilities and reduce dependence on foreign suppliers. In 2025, legislative measures such as the introduction of reserve and territorial defense units enhanced rapid-response forces, enabling better protection against hybrid threats and internal instability that could undermine . These efforts align with 2024 priorities for personnel readiness in combat missions to defend , as outlined by the Ministry. International engagements, including participation in UN with over 750 personnel deployed by May 2025, further project Kazakhstan's sovereign commitment to global stability without subordinating national interests.

References

  1. https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/mod?lang=en
  2. https://egov.kz/cms/en/information/state_agencies/ministries_committees
  3. https://jamestown.org/program/kazakhstan-aims-to-modernize-military-through-multivector-diplomacy/
  4. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/kazakhstan-says-it-is-tightening-control-airspace-after-drone-explodes-over-its-2025-10-23/
  5. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f6a2232e90e073fd9f7f466/20200922-How_Defence_Works_V6.0_Sep_2020.pdf
  6. https://mod.gov.zm/
  7. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence/about
  8. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b51dd44e5274a7315640a1c/Ministry-of-Defence-SAMP-Executive-Summary-v4.pdf
  9. https://www.mod.gov.lv/en/about-us/responsibilities-ministry-defence
  10. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a799eb0e5274a684690ae08/history_of_mod.pdf
  11. https://www.history.com/articles/department-of-war-defense-name-changes
  12. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence.html
  13. http://www.defense.gouv.fr/
  14. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo.htm
  15. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougmelville/2025/09/05/renaming-the-department-of-defense-to-the-department-of-war-power-play-or-subtle-messaging/
  16. https://patimes.org/public-administration-how-it-all-started-in-egypt-china-and-rome/
  17. https://warhistory.org/%40msw/article/military-administration-7th-century-byzantine
  18. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004307704/BP000014.pdf
  19. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/imperial-security-state/military-revolution-of-the-nineteenth-century/38B559350A6AC2D881C81AE28DED747C
  20. https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/andre-corvisier/
  21. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/The-establishment-of-the-Department-of-War/
  22. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_War_%28France%29
  23. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/prussian-war-ministry/
  24. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/history-of-the-ministry-of-defence
  25. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/online-collections/military-unification
  26. https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/military-history/2025/09/17/why-truman-changed-the-war-department-to-the-department-of-defense/
  27. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/acquisition_pub/OSDHO-Acquisition-Series-Vol1.pdf
  28. https://edocs.nps.edu/2014/March/SovietMilPower1984.pdf
  29. https://www.bmvg.de/en/history
  30. https://www.cfr.org/report/trends-us-military-spending
  31. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ministry-of-defence-departmental-overview-2022-23.pdf
  32. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/17/2003629840/-1/-1/1/OFFICE-OF-THE-SECRETARY-OF-DEFENSE-ORGANIZATIONAL-STRUCTURE.PDF
  33. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/mnd.htm
  34. https://mod.gov.in/en/organization_chart
  35. https://www.gov.si/assets/organigrami/ministrstva/Organisation-chart-of-the-Ministry-of-Defence.pdf
  36. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/military-organization
  37. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence/about/our-governance
  38. http://mod.gov.in/en/about--ministry
  39. https://www.bmvg.de/en/organisation
  40. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/transition-materials/transition-assoc-dm/accountabilities.html
  41. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/backgrounders/2015/11/27/open-and-accountable-government
  42. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/open-gov-guide/defense-and-security-defense-spending/
  43. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09662839.2021.1886087
  44. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.pdf
  45. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/3202438/dod-releases-national-defense-strategy-missile-defense-nuclear-posture-reviews/
  46. https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/4217911/the-next-national-defense-strategy-mission-based-force-planning/
  47. https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia-article/strategic-guidance
  48. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/NMS%25202022%2520_%2520Signed.pdf
  49. https://connections-qj.org/article/formulating-defense-policy-main-considerations-and-evaluation-criteria
  50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep22899.4
  51. https://www.difesa.it/eng/sgd-dna/functions/55586.html
  52. https://www.dla.mil/About-DLA/
  53. https://www.army.mil/article/162197/transforming_military_support_processes_from_logistics_to_supply_chain_management
  54. https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201952E
  55. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2011/09/defence-procurement_g17a25f1/5js4vmntfz0p-en.pdf
  56. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10599
  57. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition-policy/2025/06/how-the-defense-department-is-approaching-procurement-reform/
  58. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/modernizing-defense-acquisitions-and-spurring-innovation-in-the-defense-industrial-base/
  59. https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/kazakhstan-approves-military-intelligence-protocol-with-turkiye-2022-8-11-21/
  60. https://astanatimes.com/2025/04/strengthening-central-asia-kazakh-uzbek-military-cooperation-grows/
  61. https://thedefensepost.com/2025/08/20/kazakhstan-military-ai-unit/
  62. https://astanatimes.com/2025/01/kazakhstan-turkiye-sign-military-cooperation-plan-for-2025-in-ankara/
  63. https://en.orda.kz/kazakhstan-and-uk-sign-military-cooperation-plan-for-20252026-6780/
  64. https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/occasional-papers/cooperation-between-kazakhstan-and-united-states-military-professionalization-programs-0
  65. https://en.qdnd.vn/military/intl-relations-and-cooperation/vietnam-kazakhstan-boost-defense-cooperation-578767
  66. https://timesca.com/kazakhstan-and-italy-to-strengthen-military-cooperation/
  67. https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/cp023e.pdf
  68. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2022.2127094
  69. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36735508.pdf
  70. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/55845/17_bg_dem_control_armed_forces.pdf
  71. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3178010/dod-policy-official-says-authoritarian-regimes-like-russia-at-distinct-disadvan/
  72. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-origins-of-military-supremacy-in-dictatorships/
  73. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF
  74. https://sandpipercomms.com/Portal_to_China/state-and-party/ministry-of-national-defense/
  75. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-appoints-economist-as-defense-minister-as-russia-plans-for-long-war/
  76. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75887
  77. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/05/putins-shake-up-of-russian-military-leadership.html
  78. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/north-koreas-power-structure
  79. https://www.dia.mil/Portals/110/Documents/News/North_Korea_Military_Power.pdf
  80. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/04/the-hollowing-out-of-kim-jong-uns-north-korea?lang=en
  81. https://agora-parl.org/sites/default/files/agora-documents/challenges%2520for%2520management%2520in%2520Africa.pdf
  82. https://gsdrc.org/document-library/defence-transformation-a-short-guide-to-the-issues/
  83. https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex
  84. https://www.sipri.org/publications/2025/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-world-military-expenditure-2024
  85. https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/air/india-brazil-pursue-defence-equipment-collaboration
  86. https://www.transparency.org/en/press/62-per-cent-countries-at-high-risk-of-defence-and-security-corruption
  87. https://ti-defence.org/publications/under_the_radar_publication/
  88. https://curbingcorruption.com/sector/defence-and-military/
  89. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9040.html
  90. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA396868.pdf
  91. https://defence.gov.ng/2025/08/27/minister-of-defence-engages-brazilian-counterpart-to-strengthen-bilateral-defence-cooperation/
  92. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/10/10/us-army-adopts-new-multidomain-operations-doctrine/
  93. https://www.act.nato.int/article/mdo-in-nato-explained/
  94. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11409
  95. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a7543ee90e070396c9f7d2/Defence_Artificial_Intelligence_Strategy.pdf
  96. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cyber-specialist-operations-command_ai-digital-defence-activity-7372223902191607808-jN3J
  97. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/4/pdf/190422-ST_Tech_Trends_Report_2020-2040.pdf
  98. https://publicaciones.defensa.gob.es/media/downloadable/files/links/e/t/etid_2020_ingles.pdf
  99. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3892427/defense-leaders-combine-top-down-guidance-with-frontline-expertise-to-develop-c/
  100. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/cost-savings-and-reform-the-department-defense
  101. https://quincyinst.org/research/keys-to-developing-a-more-efficient-effective-defense-at-lower-cost/
  102. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107427
  103. https://econofact.org/factbrief/has-the-pentagon-failed-its-7th-audit-in-a-row
  104. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4221071/dod-will-pass-audit-by-2028-comptroller-confirms/
  105. https://www.csis.org/analysis/fixing-dods-audit-problem
  106. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp92mp4enldo
  107. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad
  108. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/strategic-defence-review-does-it-pass-its-tests
  109. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-government-efficiency-framework/the-government-efficiency-framework
  110. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
  111. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_222589.htm
  112. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm
  113. https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/defence-ministry-has-a-bold-vision-for-2025-what-the-year-of-reforms-will-bring-for-the-indian-armed-forces/articleshow/116850858.cms
  114. https://www.csconversations.in/defence-reforms-need-both-budget-and-political-will-to-succeed/
  115. https://www.idsa.in/publisher/comments/budgetary-reforms-the-forgotten-agenda
  116. https://www.facebook.com/MoscowTimes/posts/the-defense-ministry-also-created-the-department-for-efficiency-improvement-to-r/1274149804752912/
  117. https://www.dmi-ida.org/knowledge-base-detail/Defense-Dollars-Saved-Through-Reforms-Can-Boost-the-Militarys-Lethality-and-Capacity
  118. https://media.defense.gov/2023/Sep/12/2003299076/-1/-1/1/2023_DOD_Cyber_Strategy_Summary.pdf
  119. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cyber-specialist-operations-command-established-to-tackle-the-threats-of-today-and-tomorrow
  120. https://www.cm-alliance.com/cybersecurity-blog/uk-armed-forces-data-exposed-mod-cyber-attack-timeline
  121. https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/institute/defending-space-from-emerging-threats-is-a-team-sport-says-head-of-ussf-space-rapid-capabilities-office/
  122. https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2223539/department-of-defense-releases-defense-space-strategy/
  123. https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Display/Article/4297159/space-threat-fact-sheet/
  124. https://www.csis.org/analysis/future-space-domain-awareness-needs-national-security-space
  125. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-military-takes-steps-adapt-101922046.html
  126. https://news.arizona.edu/news/engineer-awarded-45m-develop-ai-powered-hypersonic-guidance-and-navigation-systems
  127. https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/task-force-pushes-for-increased-pentagon-focus-on-hypersonics/
  128. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/09/11/defence-ministry-outlines-new-strategy-to-address-modern-threats
  129. https://www.cfr.org/report/accelerating-defense-departments-ai-adoption
  130. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf
  131. https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025_dia_statement_for_the_record.pdf
  132. https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2016/transparency-and-accountability-military-spending
  133. https://www.declassifieduk.org/military-transparency-hits-five-year-low/
  134. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/199435/significant-risks-for-frontline-armed-forces-caused-by-mod-inventory-failures/
  135. https://www.accountancydaily.co/mod-wastes-%25C2%25A374m-through-basic-accounting-errors
  136. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/03/mod-wasting-billions-with-broken-procurement-system-mps-warn
  137. https://bylinetimes.com/2024/11/26/ministry-of-defence-national-audit-office-report-blocked/
  138. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/207897/defence-scrutiny-obstructed-pac-extremely-disappointed-at-lack-of-public-spending-plan/
  139. https://www.dw.com/en/nato-corruption-drones-defense-arms-procurement-ukraine-eu/a-72562793
  140. https://aoav.org.uk/2025/the-fog-of-secrecy-how-the-ministry-of-defences-transparency-failings-undermine-accountability/
  141. https://ti-defence.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Unlocking-Access-Balancing-National-Security-and-Transparency-in-Defence.pdf
  142. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/the-pentagons-revolving-door-keeps-spinning-2021-in-review
  143. https://www.theregreview.org/2022/01/20/tunney-regulating-defense-industry-revolving-door/
  144. https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/reports/new-report-from-senator-warren-uncovers-defense-industrys-abuse-of-revolving-door-hiring-practices
  145. https://jacobin.com/2024/04/pentagon-fellows-program-sdef-defense-contractors
  146. https://www.taxpayer.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Oct-2024-Political-Footprint-of-the-Military-Industry.pdf
  147. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying?ind=D
  148. https://theijf.org/national-defence-is-the-biggest-source-of-lobbyists-to-the-private-sector-data
  149. https://ti-defence.org/lobbying-revolving-door-conflicts-of-interest-time-to-close-the-door-to-defence-industry-influence/
  150. https://ti-defence.org/global-defence-industry-at-a-critical-juncture-strengthening-governance-and-managing-risks-amidst-soaring-military-spending/
  151. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-revolving-door/
  152. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/nsa-continues-violate-americans-internet-privacy
  153. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/five-things-to-know-about-nsa-mass-surveillance-and-the-coming-fight-in-congress
  154. https://www.hoover.org/research/forced-national-service-worse-draft
  155. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16544951.2025.2506911
  156. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained
  157. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/domestic-policing-deployment-and-public-trust-in-the-military
  158. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/09/stop-military-surveillance-drones-coming-home
  159. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-05-341
  160. https://ti-defence.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1004_corruption_risk_offsets.pdf
  161. https://media.defense.gov/2020/May/18/2002302061/-1/-1/1/2018-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-SUMMARY.PDF
  162. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE295.html
  163. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2533.html
  164. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm
  165. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE200/PE295/RAND_PE295.pdf
  166. https://www.csis.org/analysis/dilemmas-deterrence-united-states-smart-new-strategy-has-six-daunting-trade-offs
  167. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2451.html
  168. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA2200/PEA2263-1/RAND_PEA2263-1.pdf
  169. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-deterrence-and-what-is-its-role-in-u-s-national-defense/
  170. https://en.tengrinews.kz/kazakhstan_news/new-unit-established-in-the-armed-forces-of-kazakhstan-269057/
  171. https://icsd.kz/tpost/rb20lhdtk1-new-unit-established-in-kazakhstans-arme
  172. https://central.asia-news.com/en_GB/articles/cnmi_ca/features/2020/06/17/feature-01
  173. https://x.com/modgovkz/status/1948293761903006034
  174. https://ke.kz/en/press-center/news/5392/
  175. https://ke.kz/en/press-center/news/5342/
  176. https://qazinform.com/news/120-bln-tenge-to-be-allocated-for-defense-development-in-kazakhstan-cae36c
  177. https://timesca.com/kazakhstan-to-establish-major-defense-industry-hub-at-semey-tank-repair-plant/
  178. https://qazinform.com/news/foreign-media-on-kazakhstan-kazakhstan-leads-central-asia-in-military-strength-ai-powered-prisons-kazakhstan-setting-a-new-standard-for-safety-and-efficiency-d8df79
  179. https://top-center.org/en/analytics/3747/kazakhstans-evolving-military-strategy-peacekeeping-and-autonomy-as-pillars-of-a-middle-power
  180. https://zakon.uchet.kz/eng/docs/Z050000029_
  181. https://astanatimes.com/2017/05/kazakh-military-is-strong-regionally-integrated-and-dedicated-to-peace/
  182. https://thediplomat.com/2022/10/new-military-doctrine-strengthens-kazakhstans-multi-vector-posture/
  183. https://www.specialeurasia.com/2025/04/17/kazakhstan-military-expenditure/
  184. https://timesca.com/kazakhstan-introduces-new-reserve-military-service/
  185. https://eurasianet.org/kazakhstan-bolsters-rapid-response-capabilities-to-potential-security-threats/
  186. https://eurasia-policy.com/en/security/216-the-ministry-of-defense-of-kazakhstan-has-identified-the-main-tasks-for-2024.html
  187. https://astanatimes.com/2025/05/more-than-750-kazakh-military-personnel-participate-in-un-peacekeeping-missions/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.