Sergei Guriev takes Russian military budget under scrutiny and comes to the conclusion that it is "indefensible," even though the May 9 Victory Day parade had been impressive. The defence ministry showed off its new battle tank, the T14- Armata, saying it were highly flexible and would evolve into a fully robotic vehicle, with its chassis adaptable as a platform for other weapons systems.

Indeed Russia has been devoting larger share - some 3% - of its GDP on military than US for first time since 2003. While Western countries cut their defence spending, Russia increases its - surpassing China's over 2% and Pentagon's 3.5%. This has prompted fear in the West of Russia's resurgent military ambition, amid tensions in Eastern Ukraine.

It's true that "the Kremlin’s goal was extremely ambitious, both by Russian and global standards." Unless tensions in Eastern Ukraine escalate signifcantly, it is quite unlikely that many NATO countries want to meet the target of 2% of their GDP on defence spending - for the first time since before World War II. Guriev says, the current economic climate - "rock-bottom oil prices, Western sanctions, and economic recession" - does not allow Russia to "sustain the allocation of such a large share of its budget to defence spending."

Under Russia's state armaments plan, much of the country's military hardware would have to be replaced. Modernisation of the armed forces has been a major priority since 2011 under the presidency of Dmitri Medvedev, with the aim of rearming the military with new equipment. Yet "its defence industry lacks the capacity to produce modern equipment as quickly as the plan anticipated."

Despite devoting ever more resources to defence, Russia still trails far behind the US in absolute terms. Russia and NATO members in the Baltic have agreed dramatic increases in their military budgets - quite a contrast to countries that are further west and away from potential conflict zones. Guriev speculates "the Kremlin might even be preparing a major offensive for the coming months." In the absence of a "strategy," any "high military spending" would also mean "higher-than-expected costs of the conflict."