The Russia-Ukraine battle has continued for greater than a month and precipitated inestimable casualties and financial losses as diplomatic efforts had little impact.
People all the time say “there are no winners in war.” But for the US military-industrial giants, warfare is a superb alternative to make big earnings and drive up their inventory costs. Some individuals have famous that navy conflicts or geopolitical tensions have change into money-printing machines for the US arms sellers.
US military-industry corporations apparently have a consensus that diplomatic efforts are unprofitable, however behind this lies the chance to make a revenue.
According to US media experiences, James Taiclet, chief government of US military-industrial large Lockheed Martin Corporation, stated in January that the competitors between main powers would result in a robust development in protection budgets and convey extra enterprise to the corporate. Gregory Hayes, chief government of Raytheon Technologies, advised buyers that tensions in Eastern Europe had proven the corporate new enterprise alternatives.
According to media experiences, shares of main US navy corporations have surged considerably because the Russia-Ukraine battle broke out. So far this 12 months, Lockheed Martin’s shares have grown by about 25%, whereas Raytheon’s shares have gained 16.4% within the the identical interval. Shares of Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics additionally jumped.
Immediately after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine battle, the US introduced that it could present navy help totaling $350 million to Ukraine. President Joe Biden licensed $200 million price of extra navy gear for Ukraine on March 12 and an extra $800 million on March 16. The new funds will come from a spending invoice Biden signed into legislation on March 11 that features $13.6 billion in new help to Ukraine.
Since February, the Biden administration has licensed a complete of $1.35 billion to help Ukraine, based on a report revealed by the US Congress.
At the identical time, within the face of intensifying geopolitical tensions, Germany and different European nations have adjusted their protection insurance policies, creating new “business opportunities” for the US navy giants.
There is little doubt that the Russia-Ukraine battle will immediate NATO member nations to spice up protection spending. As the North Atlantic Treaty Organization makes use of a lot of US weapons, a good portion of its members’ protection contracts can be received by US firms.
Some observers observe that with a purpose to safe a gradual stream of revenue from wars, the US military-industrial corporations have put heavy efforts into lobbying the US authorities. One of their key means is to create numerous “threat theories.” And they’re the originators of the “China threat theory.”
US navy expenditures have grown considerably within the first 20 years of this century, particularly after the terrorist assaults of September 11, 2001, leading to a rise within the world arms commerce. Not many individuals have requested who profited from this. Did the 20-year “global war on terrorism” (GWOT) give individuals in Afghanistan, Iraq or the US any profit?
Since the beginning of the warfare in Afghanistan in late 2001, Pentagon spending has totaled greater than $14 trillion, with one-third to one-half of that going to navy contractors, based on a paper revealed by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Five main US navy suppliers, particularly Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, have received one-quarter to one-third of all Pentagon contracts lately. There is little doubt that arms corporations are the most important beneficiaries of rising US navy expenditures within the post-9/11 period.
Focus on China
Apart from instigating wars and creating geopolitical tensions, creating numerous “opposing strategic forces” and opponents and “threat theories” are necessary means for the Pentagon and arms sellers to extend income. Because of this, China has been portrayed because the “top threat” to the US.
In its 2022 National Defense Strategy report, the Pentagon raised issues about China’s navy energy and referred to as “great-power competition” the most important menace to the United States’ safety and world affect.
But “threat” assessments that intention to spice up US navy bills are usually not primarily based on present challenges, equivalent to world terrorism, North Korea and Iran, however fairly some overstated dangers.
Nine of the 12 members of the US National Defense Strategy Commission have direct or oblique ties to the protection {industry}, based on a report revealed by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), a Washington-based nonpartisan impartial watchdog that investigates and exposes waste, corruption and abuse of energy.
This has undoubtedly had a big impact on the fee’s deliberations and conclusions.
The arms {industry} has ample instruments at its disposal to affect selections over Pentagon spending going ahead.
The {industry} has spent $285 million in marketing campaign contributions since 2001, with a particular concentrate on presidential candidates, congressional management, and members of the armed providers and appropriations committees within the House of Representatives and Senate – the individuals with probably the most energy over how a lot the nation will spend for navy functions – based on a report revealed final September by William Hartung, a director of the Arms and Security Project on the Center for International Policy (CIP), a Washington-based non-profit group.
In addition, US weapons producers have spent $2.5 billion on lobbying over the previous 20 years, using, on common, greater than 700 lobbyists per 12 months over the previous 5 years, a couple of for each member of Congress, Hartung wrote in his article, citing a report revealed by Opensecrets.org, a Washington-based nonpartisan, impartial and nonprofit group.
To cite simply considered one of scores of examples, the previous head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, who was a significant booster of Lockheed Martin’s troubled F-35 fight plane, joined the corporate’s board simply 4 months after leaving the navy.
These sorts of interactions elevate critical questions on whether or not particular pursuits or the nationwide curiosity have the better sway in figuring out US protection insurance policies and procurement selections, Hartung wrote, citing a POGO report.
The revolving door swings each methods. For instance, 4 of the previous 5 US secretaries of protection got here from one of many prime 5 arms contractors.
Under Donald Trump’s administration, James Mattis (board member at General Dynamics), Patrick Shanahan (government at Boeing), and Mark Esper (head of presidency relations at Raytheon) had been appointed protection secretaries, whereas Biden’s present protection secretary Lloyd Austin was a board member of Raytheon Technologies, based on Hartung’s article.
Arms sellers additionally exert nice affect by funding distinguished think-tanks that strongly advocate for larger Pentagon budgets however by no means disclose the pecuniary pursuits behind them.
At least $1 billion in US authorities and defense-contractor funding went to the highest 50 think-tanks in America between 2014 and 2019, Ben Freeman, director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative on the CIP, wrote in a report in October 2020, citing the University of Pennsylvania’s Global Go To Think Tank Index report.
The prime recipients of this funding had been the RAND Corporation, the Center for a New American Security and the New America Foundation.
All these are solely the tip of the iceberg. Frankly, the “China threat” is simply one other excuse for the Pentagon and arms sellers to get more cash, in any other case it could be troublesome to justify their claims. Without a “threat,” who would pay the arms sellers?