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.

  • @redtea
    23•2 years ago

    Something to tease out from the other comments and the OP, and to make explicit…

    There is an assumption that militaries are designed to ‘win’ and that wars are fought to ‘be won’.

    A lot of war stories, especially those about medieval wars and those concerning WWI and WWII give this impression.

    But what does it mean to ‘win’ a modern war? What would that look like in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Palestine, Vietnam, Korea, Ukraine, etc?

    In medieval England, things might seem a bit clearer. Like, Alfred the Great defeating the Danes. Or Ceaser conquering gaul. Or Alexander the Great slaughtering everyone between Greece and India. Or the Greeks burning Troy. These are relatively clear cut – at least in the popular way that we learn about these wars.

    But in modern times? When the reasons for war are so murky and the people conducting them hide behind logos and smokescreens? When the people conducting the wars lie about or simply never admit to being involved?

    The destruction is the point. The longer the war, the more weapons sold. Or, rather, the more opportunities to sell weapons that don’t even need to make it to the front lines. The more destructive the war, the more contracts available afterwards to rebuild what was destroyed.

    And beyond these obvious financial benefits that come from just blowing shit up, the simple fact of an ongoing war comes with a lot of other types of moneymaking:

    • selling war movies, series, games, and books
    • making journalistic careers
    • selling papers
    • having a sensational narrative to keep the news cycle interesting
    • justification for hiking the price of gas
    • justification for hiking other prices
    • distraction from the domestic problems in other countries (sorry, we can’t fix this or that problem, don’t you know there’s a war on?)
    • making people thankful for a large military budget
    • etc

    It seems to me that even if the US spent $1tr on its military at cost, it would still not try to finish it’s wars quickly. There’s too much money to be made in the process.

    • @KommandoGZD
      15•2 years ago

      Great point and definitely needs to be pointed out much more. People are still so confused how the US couldn’t ‘win’ in Afghanistan in 20 years, despite the trillions spent. It isn’t despite the trillions, it fought because of those trillions spent. In that sense it did ‘win’. Additionally Keeping the domestic population shocked and distracted in a permanent state of war makes neoliberal reforms there easier too.

      But what does it mean to ‘win’ a modern war?

      Weirdly imo in Ukraine US’ goals are much more clear than in previous wars and also clearer than Russia’s. For the US I can make out a win condition, for Russia I really can’t.

    • @afellowkid
      8•2 years ago

      In addition to the profitability first in the destruction phase and then in the rebuilding phase (if it ever comes), there is also the benefit of keeping territory too unstable for anyone else to profit from (“If I can’t have it no one can”), and a dual benefit of (1) causing your “ally” to become more and more destroyed so they become more and more dependent on you financially and lose their sovereignty, and if you ever rebuild they will become a fountain of wealth for you, and (2) tying up your enemy’s resources in the battle siege-style, also using sanctions, to create economic problems in your enemy’s country which can escalate into political problems there (which you can exploit for color revolution if you have penetration there, whether it’s via media or covert agents).

      Going by the internally discussed doctrines of the US, the main thing the US wants to avoid is a hot war on their own soil that uses up or kills too much of their own population and resources. Everything else is basically worth it for them whenever they can get away with it. That is to say, in the eyes of the US ruling class, it is pretty much always worth it to fuck up another country that isn’t in a position to retaliate, it’s mainly a matter of degree of how much benefit they can get out of it; the question of whether they will benefit is almost always a “yes”, so the only real questions are “who specifically will benefit?” and “What kind of benefit will it be?” (e.g. it may be raw immediate profits for certain companies/industries, it may be a geostrategic general benefit to their overall hegemony, it may be all of the above)

      Intended effect on the big enemy the US is battling through siege and proxy wars

      The thrust of American foreign policy, therefore, should be to inflict a series of defeats, however minor, on the Soviets. This is the significance of our support, or lack thereof, of liberation movements in Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and wherever else they emerge. The success of such rebellions would bring into question the basic assumption of all Leninist parties as to their “historic mission”, and their inevitable victory. Only in this way can the possibility of “liberalization” become a reality. (–Neoconservative journalist Irving Kristol)

      Afghanistan represented the clearest example that the Reagan Doctrine is aimed both at Third World nations and at the USSR. The United States spent at least $625 million to finance the Afghan insurgency against the Soviet-allied Afghan government. This money assisted in tying down Soviet troops in Afghanistan, thereby creating both an economic drain and a major internal political problem for the Soviets. … The Reagan Doctrine is also looking for specific successes in rolling back particular Third World nations. Its goal of international counterrevolution faithfully articulates the recommendations contained within the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership II that call for developing a coordinated “low intensity warfare” policy to deal with “Soviet and Soviet proxy involvement in the developing world.” (–the book “Rollback”)

      Intended effect on the country thrown into the line of fire (doesn't matter if they are an "ally" or not, when destruction and opening the country for the US to profit is the point, and/or trying to make the country a no-go zone for anyone and/or use it to drain a different country's resources in defending or fighting it)

      Americans go to Nicaragua, they’re welcome there, they go by the dozens of thousands to witness, to document these things. Eight thousand people killed, all civilians, killed. Mostly women and children. And this is a deliberate technique of the CIA, it’s part of crippling a country, it’s part of forcing it, traumatizing it, paralyzing it, until it grinds to a halt, until you’ve broken it completely, and then, as Reagan would dream, you can put in the marines eventually, and people will welcome the marines as they hand out care packages from their trucks because they’re so crushed and so desperate that anything would make them feel better. … They’re trying to create conditions in Nicaragua, they have in northern Nicaragua for five years, where the farmer can’t get his produce to market, where children can’t go to school, where the government administration of the country grinds to a halt, where hospitals are treating wounded people instead of sick people where international capital is is scared off, as John was saying so very very well. The techniques are raw terrorism. (–former CIA officer John Stockwell)

      Sorry these quotes are from the 80s, I’m doing some research on that period rn so that’s what I have on hand.

      I may be off with my analysis here, this is just how I think of it. Roughly, I think of whether a country is completely greenlit for US profit and domination, whether it’s at a yellow light (US is working on opening it up or using it as cannon fodder, all kind of chaos ensues here and profits are slowed, prospective, or unstable except for in things like the arms industry or drug trafficking), or whether its a red light (closed to US profit and therefore on the list of countries to destroy and pry open by any means possible).

      • @redtea
        3•2 years ago

        These are good points.

        And the quotes are useful, thanks.