::llli:t., in recipient countries rose steadily rising rhroughour the I9?Os.uemonstrable evi.dence of this i6 the hardeat to provide but, as an indication oftrends' it has b€en suggested that, in roughry tro out of three cases of all majorneaPons transfers, suppller involvenent in an actual confLict has been a factor inIts eventuaL outcotl*. 22-/ Eev najor conflict..have yielded outcones which nere notresented bry one or theJtner adveisary and the .ggi i'"""d-r""rpi"rl'"""rirv n""either stepPed up its weaPons inports frorn the same supplier or turned to differentone, both to gain better and additronal egurpnent and nore favourable terms oftransfer. rn several cases, concessionary artnE deals have been concruded wi.thtbose reclpient countries that nere strategically lrnportant to the supprler eitheras a source of ninerar-s and raw trEteriars, or aa a chokel0int in the-ilanning ormllitary operations, or as a potential and infornal junior partner in a nalormll itary . all iance system, or as a conbination of one or nore of these factors. rtlechanges in the nature and vorume of arms transfers to the Middre East, south AEiaand the Far East betvreen 1975 and r9B0 indlicate this feature arr too clearly.
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the relationship between arms suppliers and recipient countries, focusing on the impact of conflicts and strategic considerations on the nature and volume of arms transfers. The language and content suggest a macro-level analysis of international relations, military strategy, and economic interests.

**Category**
International trade, Industry