In February, a photograph showing Russian President Vladimir Putin sitting hunched down was taken. 13-foot tableThe world was abuzz about Macron’s meeting with French President. News about their lavish table and seven-course meal was reminiscent of Lewis Carroll stories. Their meeting was very serious. Macron arrived to discuss the escalating Ukraine crisis and threat of war. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was the topic of their talks. They produced a bizarre photograph instead.
The meeting was also surreal because of another reason. Macron, the EU’s leading peace negotiator and leader, has led a bold year. arms sales campaignFrench commerce is strengthened by exploiting tensions. The trade press even reported that he hoped to sell Rafale fighter jets to Ukraine, breaking into the “former bastion of Russian industry.”
Macron is not the only one. NATO contractors openly accept the crisis in Ukraine to be a sound business. In January, Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes cited “tensions in Europe” as an opportunity, saying, “I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit.” Likewise, CEO Jim Taiclet of Lockheed Martin highlighted the benefits of “great power competition” in Europe to shareholders.
On February 24, Russia invadedUkraine, which pounded cities with ordnance while sending troops across the border. As civilians fled the capital, the air was filled with the sound of fighter jets. And the stock valueThe number of arms producers soared.
The power of militarism, and the influence of defense contractors is evident in the conflict over Ukraine. A ruthless drive for markets — intertwined with imperialism — has propelled NATO expansion, while inflaming wars from Eastern Europe to Yemen.
NATO Selling
The Cold War triggered the current conflict between Russia and the United States. The decline in military spending has stifled the arms industry in the United States, and other NATO countries. 1993 saw a decline in military spending. Deputy Secretary of Defense William PerryA solemn meeting was held with executives. Insiders called it the “Last Supper.” In an atmosphere heavy with misapprehension, Perry informed his guests that impending blows to the U.S. military budget called for industry consolidation. After a flurry of mergers and takeovers, Lockheed, Northrop and Boeing acquired new muscle, while smaller firms were left in postwar scarcity.
Defense contractors raced to secure foreign markets even as domestic demand fell. They primarily focused their attention on the former Soviet bloc, considering Eastern Europe as a potential new frontier for accumulation. “Lockheed began looking at Poland right after the wall came down,” veteran salesman Dick Pawlowski recalled. “There were contractors flooding through all those countries.” Arms makers became the most aggressive lobbyists for NATO expansion. The security umbrella was not only a formidable alliance, but also a promising market.
However, lobbyists had to overcome a major obstacle. In 1990, Secretary of State James Baker had promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if he allowed a reunited Germany to join NATO, the organization would move “not one inch eastward.” Yet lobbyists remained hopeful. The Soviet Union had collapsed, Cold War triumphalism won, and vested interests pushed for more expansion. “Arms Makers See Bonanza In Selling NATO Expansion,” The New York TimesReported in 1997. The newspaper later noted that, “Expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — first to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and then possibly to more than a dozen other countries — would offer arms makers a new and hugely lucrative market.”
New alliance members would mean new clients. NATO would require them to purchase Western military equipment.
Lobbyists poured into Washington, D.C. fêting legislators in royal style. Vice President Bruce Jackson from Lockheed was elected the president of U.S. Committee to Expand NATO. Jackson recounted the extravagant meals that he hosted at the mansion of the Republican luminary Julie Finley, which boasted “an endless wine cellar.”
“Educating the Senate about NATO was our chief mission,” he informed journalist Andrew Cockburn. “We’d have four or five senators over every night, and we’d drink Julie’s wine.”
Lobby pressure was constant. “The most interested corporations are the defense corporations, because they have a direct interest in the issue,” Romanian Ambassador Mircea Geoană observed. Bell Helicopter, Lockheed Martin, and other firms even funded Romania’s lobbying machine during its bid for NATO membership.
In the end, Gorbachev’s promise to policymakers was broken, and NATO admitted Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1999. During the ceremony Secretary of State Madeleine Albright — who directly cooperated with the Jackson campaign — welcomed them with a hearty “Hallelujah.” Ominously, the intellectual architect of the Cold War, George Kennan, predicted disaster. “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion,” Kennan cautioned.
Few people listened. Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman described the mentality of policy makers: “The Russians are down, let’s give them another kick.” Relishing victory, Jackson was equally truculent: “‘Fuck Russia’ is a proud and long tradition in US foreign policy.” Later, he became chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which paved the way for the 2003 invasion, the biggest industry handout in recent history.
Within two decades 14 Central and Eastern European countriesNATO was joined. NATO was established in response to Soviet Union’s threat. Russian officials were concerned about its growth. In retrospect postwar expansion was a boon for arms makers by increasing their market. Stimulating conflict between Russia and the United States.
Ukraine: Target
Tensions escalated when the United States backed President Viktor Yanukovych’s removal from Ukraine. Yanukovych, a NATO member, was opposed and Russian officials feared Yanukovych’s removal would place Ukraine under its strategic umbrella. Instead of easing their fears, the Obama administration maneuvered in order to bring Ukraine into its sphere. Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State, coordinated regime change with brash confidence. Nuland openly distributed cookies to protesters, and later, capped a diplomatic exchange with “fuck the EU.” At the height of the uprising, Sen. John McCain also joined demonstrators. Flanked by leaders from the fascist Svoboda Party McCain advocated regime change, declaring that “America is with you.”
Newly minted NATO membersNearly $17 billion worth of American weapons had been purchased. These include military installations six NATO command postsEastern Europe was flooded with it. Russia annexed Crimea Peninsula and intervened into the Donbas region to stop further expansion. This fueled a vicious and interminable conflict.
NATO spokespeople claimed that the crisis justified NATO expansion. In reality, NATO expansion was a key factor in the crisis. The conflagration was a gift for the arms industry. In five years major weapons exportsThe United States saw an increase of 23 percent while French exports grew by 72 percent, their highest level since the Cold War. Meanwhile, European military expenditures hit record heights.
Tensions escalated Supreme Commander Philip Breedlove of NATO wildly inflated threats, calling Russia “a long-term existential threat to the United States.” Breedlove even falsified information about Russian troop movements over the first two years of the conflict, while brainstorming tactics with colleagues to “leverage, cajole, convince or coerce the U.S. to react.” A senior fellow at the Brookings Institution concluded that he aimed to “goad Europeans into jacking up defense spending.”
He succeeded. He succeeded. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute registered a significant leap in European military spending — even though Russian spending in 2016 equaled only one quarter of the European NATO budget. Breedlove resigned in that year and joined the Center for a New American Security. This think tank, which is hawkish, was awash with industry funds.
The arms race continues. After European negotiations became stalled, Russia recognised two separatist republics from the Donbas before entering Ukraine in February. Justification for the bloody operation Putin wrongly accusedUkrainian authorities accuse of genocide. His focus was geopolitical. “It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries,” he said. “In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.”
Retrospectively, three decades worth of industry lobbying has proven to be a deadly success. NATO engulfed most of Eastern Europe and provoked a war in Ukraine — yet another opportunity for accumulation. Allies have activated Article 4Organizing troops, considering retaliation, and moving closer to Armageddon.
Yet even as military budgets rise, European arms makers — like their American counterparts — have required foreign markets to overcome fiscal restraints and production costs. They need clients in order to finance their own military buildup. Foreign wars are needed to fund domestic defense.
Yemen Burning
Yemen was the perfect place for arms manufacturers to sell their products. Ali Abdullah Saleh had been in power for over two decades until he was overthrown by a popular revolt. After easily winning the election, his crony Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi became president the following year. only candidate. Mansour Hadi was thwarted by elite intrigue in 2015.
That year, Prince Salman became king of Saudi Arabia, but power concentrated into the hands of his son, Mohammed bin Salman, who feared that the uprising threatened to snatch Yemen from Saudi Arabia’s sphere of influence.
Months later, a Saudi coalition invaded the country, leaving a trail of destruction. “There Was no plan,” a U.S. intelligence official emphasized. “They just bombed anything and everything that looked like it might be a target.”
NATO contractors immediately backed the aggressors and attracted NATO contractors. They use the conflict as a way to increase industrial capacity, support weapons development, and make economies of scale. The Saudi-led coalition subsidises NATO’s military buildup while the West inflames Yemeni conflict.
Western statesmen are driven by perverse enthusiasm to sell their products. In May 2017, Donald TrumpFor his first foreign trip as president, he visited Saudi Arabia to discuss the details of a $110 Billion arms package. Jared Kushner was his son-in law and he arrived in Saudi Arabia to discuss the package. Kushner immediately called Lockheed Martin CEO to ask for a reduction when Saudi officials complained over the high price of the radar system. Mohammed bin Salman visited company headquarters on a quick tour of the United States in the following year. Defense contractors, Hollywood moguls and even Oprah Winfrey welcomedThe young prince.
The Americans were not the only ones. France and NATO members have the largest arms markets for France, with the Saudi-led alliance being the largest. As the French Ministry of the Armed Forces explains, exports are “necessary for the preservation and development of the French defense technological and industrial base.” In other words, NATO members such as France export war in order to retain their capacity to wage it.
President Macron denies that the coalition — an imposing alliance that includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Sudan and Senegal — uses French weapons. However, the statistics are encouraging. Between 2015 and 2019, France awarded €14 billion in arms export licenses to Saudi Arabia and €20 billion in licenses to the United Arab Emirates. CEO Stéphane Mayer of Nexter Systems praised the performance of Leclerc tanks in Yemen, boasting that they “have highly impressed the military leaders of the region.” In short, while Macron denies that the coalition wields French hardware in Yemen, local industrialists cite their use as a selling point. Amnesty International says that Macron’s government has systematically lied to the public about its export policy. Privately, officials have compiled a “very precise list of French materiél deployed in the context of the conflict, including ammunition.”
Recently, Macron becameAfter the assassination journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Macron was one of the first heads to meet Mohammed bin Salman. Like Trump’s trip, Macron’s diplomatic junket was a sales mission. Macron finally reached a deal with the United Arab Emirates to purchase 80 Rafale fighters. The CEO of Dassault Aviation called the contract “the most important ever obtained by French military aerospace,” guaranteeing six years of work for a pillar of its industrial base.
NATO involvement in Yemen is typified by French policy. While condemning the war, every Western producerIt outfitted those who carried it out. Spanish authoritiesTo conceal the exportation of lethal hardware, it is best to modify official documents. Great Britaina number of times violated its arms embargo. And the United StatesExport freezes are not being respected with any consistency by the government.
Even NATO countries in Eastern Europe profit from the war. While these alliance members absorb Western weapons, some of their Soviet-era hardware is sent to the Middle East. Between 2012 and July 2016, Eastern Europe awarded at least €1.2 billion in military equipment to the region.
Ironically, Ukraine is the largest exporter of arms to Eastern Europe. While the West rushes towards arming Kyiv, its ruling classes have sold weapons on black markets. A parliamentary inquiry found that only between 1992 and 1998, there were a total of 58 sales of weapons on the black market. Ukraine lostOligarchs stole their army and spent $32 billion on military assets. They have outfitted the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other extremist groups throughout the Middle East over the last three decades. Even former President Leonid KuchmaWhile in office, he illegally sold weapons to the Donbass region peace talks leader, Yuri Polgar. French authorities were also investigating. Dmytro PeregudovThe former director of the state defense conglomerate was responsible for taking $24 million in sales commissions. Peregudov resided in a château with rolling wine fields, while managing the extensive properties that he acquired after his years in public service.
The Warlords
Kuchma, Peregudov and others are not uncommon. Corruption is endemicIn an industry that is dependent on the revolving doors. The revolving doors are more than a metaphor. They are an institution that converts private profit into public policy. Its constant motion is a sign of the social reproduction of an elite who resides at the top of a global military/industrial complex. The most powerful power brokers, ranging from the Mitterrands and ChiracsFrance is home to the Thatchers Blairs in Britain, the Gonzálezes Bourbons in SpainI have personally profited directly from the arms trade.
The US industry employs approximately 22,000 people. 700 lobbyists. Nearly three-fourths previously worked for the federal government — the highest percentageFor any industry. The lobby is spent $108 millionIts ranks will grow further in 2020, and it is only the beginning. Over the past 30 year, around 530 congressional staffersOn military-related committees, defense contractors were elected to office. The Biden administration is dominated largely by industry veterans, Raytheon Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and other Raytheon employees.
The revolving doors strengthen the state’s class composition, but undermine its moral legitimacy. Members of the elite rotate office and protect policymaking from democratic input. They also taint government with corruption and confuse corporate profit with national interests. 2005: 80 percentDespite existing regulations, there have been three stars or more awarded to army generals. The National Defense Authorization Act forbids top officers from lobbying government for two years after they leave office, or using personal contacts to secure contracts. However, compliance is not uncommon. The U.S. Navy launched investigations against dozens more officers in recent years for corrupt ties to the defense contractor Leonard FrancisThese were the people who secured contracts by paying huge bribes, lavish meals, and hosting sex parties.
Steeped in this corrosive culture, NATO intellectuals now openly talk about the prospect of “infinite war.” Gen. Mike Holmes insists that it is “not losing. It’s staying in the game and getting a new plan and keeping pursuing your objectives.” Yet those immersed in its brutal reality surely disagree. The United Nations reports that there are at most 14,000 peopleSince 2014, have been killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War. over 377,000Yemen has claimed the lives of many.
In truth, the doctrine of infinite war is not so much a strategy as it is a confession — acknowledging the violent metabolism of a system that requires conflict. We must embrace what warlords fear most: the threat to peace.
The author would like Sarah Priscilla Lee from the Learning Sciences Program at Northwestern University to thank for reviewing this article.
