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.
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
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)
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).
These are good points.
And the quotes are useful, thanks.