Written by Anton Khimiak, UCMC/HWAG analyst

On June 5, 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the Kremlin’s readiness to supply weapons to countries that are “enemies of the West.” This decision was allegedly prompted by the permission granted to Ukraine to use Western weapons against military facilities on Russian territory. This statement drew the curtain on a new round of escalation in the global confrontation between the Russian Federation and the West.

OSINT analysts, however, have told of the depletion of stocks of Russian armoured vehicles and barrel artillery in storage warehouses, making it rather doubtful that those weapons the Russian army currently has in short supply will be transferred to third countries. The Economist noted that as of the first half of July 2024, the Russian Federation had already lost more than 3,000 tanks and 5,000 armoured vehicles, significantly draining even the numerous Soviet reserves. Those left have increasingly become donors for repairing other damaged equipment.

At the same time, analytical centres, such as CSIS, deny the possibility of exhausting Russian missile reserves. It can be assumed that it is the missiles that the “generous Russian soul” will share with its allies in the dictatorial camp. However, the introduction of new sanctions, as well as the closure of bypasses, also limits Russian opportunities.

In the end, the central question of the discussion is where exactly Moscow can send the products of its military-industrial complex and what affect the appearance of Russian weapons in hot spots of the world will have. The primary purpose of this article is to analyse the potential recipients of Russian aid in the current geopolitical situation. We will consider the historical context of Russian military exports and new allied relations with countries that may threaten the West.

The reaction of the Russian media

Russian media reacted violently to Putin’s statement. The excitement was accompanied by the classic “victory obsession” for the Russian propaganda machine and an unshakable belief in the omnipotence of the domestic military industry. Calls for the urgent transfer of all possible weapons to all those willing to speak out against the West flooded the Russian segment of the Internet.

This enthusiasm for the idea of ​​escalation of military operations around the world is a continuation of the classic narrative for Moscow, which aims at banal intimidation of citizens of democratic regimes. Therefore, we can say that reducing the military potential of Western countries is not the main goal of this campaign.

At the same time, Russian officials and experts did not openly indicate where Moscow was ready to supply its equipment, creating a veil of uncertainty. For example, Putin’s press secretary, Dmitriy Peskov, limited himself to confirmation of Putin’s words in his comments for TASS.

At the same time, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation and former President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev, in his very classic manner supported the idea of ​​another escalation on the part of the Russian Federation: “And let the use of Russian weapons in the so-far unnamed “regions” be as destructive as possible for them and our opponents. And let the “sensitive objects of the states that supply weapons to Kyiv burn in hellish flames. They burn with those who control them. And we will rejoice at their successful strikes with our weapons against our common enemies!”

The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Maria Zakharova, told that the actions of the UK was the reason for the transfer of weapons. “Putin’s words are a response to what official London is doing now, which is <…> a crime against world stability and world security: supplying weapons in such quantities to the terrorist Kyiv regime.” In this way, the Kremlin wants to shift responsibility for the resolution of the war, which has become a crime against world stability.

One of the few Russian officials who pointed out the potential regions of arms supply was Senator Vladimir Dzhabarov, the first deputy chairman of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation. Jabarov stated that Moscow is interested in strengthening those sides of international conflicts that oppose the US: “There are many such situations: in Iraq, Syria, and during shipping in the Red Sea, in the Persian Gulf. I’m not talking about Latin America, where anti-American sentiment is growing. Therefore, it can come back and bite Americans themselves.”

However, all these statements are intended to assure the international community of the seriousness of Vladimir Putin’s remarks and to try to intimidate the inevitability of further escalation not only in the Russian-Ukrainian war but also in the whole world. In the information field, this marks the further formation and strengthening of relationships, the so-called “Axis of Evil”.

Very hot spots

According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia’s share in the arms export market was at most 11% from 2019 to 2023. At the same time, the British Ministry of Defense announced in March 2024 that between 2022 and 2023, Russian military exports fell by 52%. This section will consider where exactly Russia can direct its exports.

As part of the information campaign regarding the potential transfer of Russian weapons to countries and forces opposed to the West, the editors of the pro-Kremlin Telegram channel Readovka have prepared the corresponding infographic. This infographic was accompanied by a comment on Putin’s statement: “The Cold War is not just when you throw tank wedges into the English Channel or place missiles in Cuba. That’s even when you supply the Viet Cong with Kalashnikovs and the North Vietnamese army with tanks, after which they take Saigon.”

A similar map was also shown on Russian television in the show of propagandist Olga Skabeeva. However, it is essential to note that the map shows only the countries considered targets for significant expansion of cooperation. This list of states is formed based on the future readiness of regimes or other power structures to use these Russian weapons as a minimum to increase tension in the region.

Latin America

Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are the most likely recipients of Russian long-range missiles in Latin America due to historical, ideological and economic ties. Cuba has had close relations with Moscow since the Cold War, and Russia needs to maintain this alliance, given the island’s strategic location near the US coast. The supply of air defence systems, missile systems, and radio-electronic warfare can significantly increase tensions in a region close to the United States. Moreover, this is relevant in recent Russian military exercises near Cuba, actively covered in the Russian media.

Venezuela, with its vast oil reserves and long history of ideological confrontation with the US, is another crucial partner for Russia. Moscow can supply Venezuela with almost any range of weapons because the latter has long been the operator of Russian systems (wrote in the article about the potential aggression of the Maduro regime against democratic Guyana). The saturation of Caracas with Moscow’s weapons began back in 2006 with the sale of 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. The Kremlin is interested in conflicts, and the surplus of weapons can become one of the factors in the resolution of a full-scale invasion.

Nicaragua, under the leadership of President Daniel Ortega, remains another vital ally of Moscow in the region, partly due to it being one of the most vocal opponents of the United States in South America’s regional politics. Moreover, in the pro-Kremlin media, there was an opinion about the placement of Russian warships in the ports of Nicaragua.

Mexico, Colombia, or Ecuador are less likely, but still potential partners for Russia. Colombia, traditionally an ally of the US, may be involved in Russian military exports in the domestic political situation. Both the authorities of these countries and drug traffickers are interested in some Russian military technologies (such as UAVs). At the same time, there are precedents for supporting militants of various stripes in this region since the time of the USSR, when the latter sponsored the Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARK), which were eliminated only in 2017.

After all, in the context of the consequences, it is the instability created by the surplus of Russian weapons in the region that is the greatest threat to the democratic world, especially, in the case when the issues of the conflict are built on economic severe factors: whether it is the Guyanese oil field or control over the world drug traffic.

Africa

The Kremlin mostly projects its military presence in African countries through military formations such as the “Wagner” PMC, which supports Moscow’s advantageous forces in various countries. At the same time, Russian propaganda always tries to interpret its presence as support for the movement of states against the colonial policy of the West, primarily the USA and France.

The main target countries for the export of Russian weapons are Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger (in the context of the coming to power of the military), as well as Algeria, which has significantly improved relations with the Russian Federation. Potential buyers will also be found in Libya and Sudan, which continue to exist in a state of constant war. Therefore, each of these countries and parties to the conflicts have their own reasons for the interest in Russian weapons.

Somalia is an important target because of its geographical location. The country is in a state of permanent civil conflict. Weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups in Somalia, such as al-Shabaab, could open the way for attacks on Western military facilities or disruption of the security of sea lanes in the Indian Ocean. It would also allow Russia to increase its presence in a region where the West has significant military bases.

Burkina Faso and Niger are essential for the Russian Federation because of their strategic role in the sub-Saharan Sahel region. The supply of weapons to these countries can strengthen the position of pro-Russian governments or groups fighting against Western interests. Burkina Faso and Niger also have significant resources, including uranium, which could be helpful for the Russian economy. Due to a recent military coup, Sudan is also interested in increasing its military power.

Libya and Sudan are essential buyers. Libya, since the fall of the Gaddafi regime, remains divided between various factions, and the supply of arms could help the pro-Russian group establish its influence in this critical country with large oil reserves. The topic of the settlement of the Libyan situation was reviewed by analytical centres in the context of the confrontation there with the influence of Turkey and the Russian Federation, which may also affect the potential supply of Kremlin weapons.

However, one shouldn’t forget that China has a significant presence in Africa and has invested heavily in infrastructure and business projects. Instability incited by the Russian Federation may cause moments of conflict with the interests of Beijing, which in turn may put additional pressure on Moscow to stop the supply of weapons.

Middle East

Iran – a dangerous player, armed with its considerable nomenclature of weapons that it can supply to its proxy groups. A potential full-scale war by Iran, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Palestinian Hamas, and the Yemeni Houthis against Israel and the West could significantly influence future support for Ukraine. However, supplying most types of Russian weapons to this region is controversial.

The most likely option is the exchange of technologies between Russia and Iran, as well as the local military training, as is already underway in Syria. The regimes of the Ayatollah in Iran and Assad in Syria are interested in developing their cooperation with Russia. Still, their willingness to actively use Russian weapons to strike at Western presence in the region remains questionable. Moreover, Russian weapons can be actively used for terrorist activities against the freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, which the Yemeni Houthis hinder.

Egypt, a few years ago, was one of the leading buyers of Russian weapons, but now the situation has somewhat changed. This is down to the strong influence of the United States and Cairo’s status as a “Major non-NATO ally” play a role here.

Asia

Russia could supply weapons to North Korea and Myanmar to strengthen the military development of these regimes. North Korea, with its aggressive rhetoric and constant military provocations, is an ideal partner for Russia in this context. The supply of modern weapons, such as missile systems and anti-aircraft missile complexes, can significantly strengthen the military capabilities of the DPRK, especially in the context of the recently signed agreement between the states.

Myanmar, where the junta has been in power for a long time, can also become an essential partner for Russia. Genocide in Myanmar severely undermined the regime’s relations with the outside world, but it is interested in weapons delivered from any and all providers to maintain stability inside the country.

---

It could be fair to assume that all the above mentioned countries will in the near future receive additional supplies of Russian weapons and the training expertise and cooperation that comes with it. Still, the question of limiting Russian stocks, especially their depletion due to the war against Ukraine, remains open. It is advisable to consider specialised deliveries of small weapons that can be used against the West in these regions. At the same time, the main goal will not be to cause real lasting damage but to create an informational picture that will serve Russian propaganda on the international stage.

Since the Kremlin portrays its actions as a “response to the actions of the West”, this should strengthen anti-Western sentiments in the world and, simultaneously, destabilise the governments of “states unfriendly to the Russian Federation”. The latter can play into the hands of the “peaceful movements” that, after the parliamentary elections, in some European countries, gained political weight to influence the agenda.