I was thinking about that point that people bring up about military spending with the US and Im getting suspicious that the actual money spent on the US military is a mirage suggesting a capability that far far surpasses the capabilities of the next 10 near peers of the USA.
Something just doesnt add up.
The US has spent trillions on its military yet NATO and the US is having a tough time making the fight against Russia trivial.
If the money spent is any indication of capability; then it follows that besting Russia in Ukraine should be trivial. But that is not the case.
You see… I can understand designing weapons in order to kill and win wars which Im sure that is the principles of Russian and Chinese philosophy in warfare.
But what if the US is doing that… But also allowing the profit motive to have a say? Im starting to think that the USA is blowing money on overvalued systems that are AT BEST, MAYBE a tiny bit more effective than the oppositions’ weapons.
It aint like Ukraine was short of capable fighters with covert NATO training and backing.
For all the trillions spent on NATO; Ukraine should have settled this conflict months ago. Ukraine should have defeated the Donbas rebellion before it could even find its footing.
For real though. What the fuck? Is the west genuinely a paper tiger in the most real sense?
Consider also colonial projects like Isntreal. With all their backing from the US; they havent managed to just bulldoze Palestine into the phantom realm. They STILL have to put in effort.
It’s just very strange… The realities don’t match up with the money or the talk.
The only way it makes sense is if the west develops weapons for profit first and foremost, which doesnt always mean the highest quality.
You’re 100% correct. The military isn’t free from neoliberal attacks and privatization efforts any more than other government institutions. Rumsfeld in a speech on 10th September 2001 explicitly announced this push to privatize it, to attack its “bureaucracy with its 5 year central plans”, etc. This new doctrine directly led to the most famous of the privateers profiting from this - Halliburton and Blackwater. Combined with a private MIC this creates the same bloat we see everywhere today.
Despite this the military still remains one of the core functions of the modern US state that isn’t quite privatized (as opposed to eg healthcare), meaning whoever supplies that military necessarily controls the largest remaining function of the state. Thus the MIC has an inbuilt control over the state as it ensures one of its core functions. And the state has a vested interest in keeping that MIC going.
The “defence industry” having this control and contractors with their mono-/oligopol position do what they always do - rack up prizes. Combined with high production costs in Western countries you get absurd costs.
Examples are the mentioned F35 project, but even HIMARS, the M777, US drones. Compare the prices of these to those of comparable capabilities produced elsewhere. Iranian drones or even Bayraktars cost a fraction. Russian artillery also likely costs a fraction of the extremely overteched US stuff. Germany eg has similar problems. Its defence budget is one of the largest in the world, it has one of the largest arms industries and yet the Bundeswehr is barely able to function at all. Not exaggerating either. They have almost no functional tanks, helicopters or aircraft. The government has had multiple debacles procuring arms contracts. From the G36, its successor, transport planes, the Eurohawk, modernization of the navy’s officer training ship, etc. All of them financial disasters.
Same with the current conflict. That’s why all of NATO combined can’t even supply a proxy properly for a year, they’re just too depleted.
That said, for the US specifically it doesn’t mean it’s a papertiger. Its budget is so high because it is used that much. As @Drstrange2love said, sending a soldier abroad for even a day is incredibly expensive and the US has hundreds of bases, constantly deployed aircraft carriers groups, etc. Just compare the size of the US airforce and its navy, especially its carrier fleet, to that of any country in the world. The difference is staggering and that is real stuff. I still doubt it could sustain a prolonged conventional war for long.
This is my guess as well. Im not or hopefully not insinuating that the US is incapable of spectacular warfare damage. And you are correct. Deployment and movement is expensive. But once again, it does call into question its capability overall compared to its peer rivals.
Right now… It’s hard for me to say that the US could defeat China on a total war if nukes were absolutely off the table. Something tells me the US war machine would run out of gas pretty quickly. 🤔