[ NATO contractors openly embrace the crisis in Ukraine as 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.”] [[link removed]]

ARMS INDUSTRY SEES UKRAINE CONFLICT AS AN OPPORTUNITY, NOT A CRISIS
 
[[link removed]]


 

Jonathan Ng
March 2, 2022
Truthout
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ NATO contractors openly embrace the crisis in Ukraine as 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.” _

A member of Ukraine's Armed Forces stands in front of tanks from the
92nd separate mechanized brigade, parked at a base near
Kluhyno-Bashkyrivka village, in the Kharkiv region on January 31,
2022., Sergey Bobok / AFP // Truthout

 

In February, a photograph of Russian President Vladimir Putin sitting
hunched over a 13-foot table
[[link removed]] with
French President Emmanuel Macron circulated the globe. News about
their sprawling table and sumptuous seven-course dinner was
reminiscent of a Lewis Carroll story. But their meeting was deadly
serious. Macron arrived to discuss the escalating crisis in Ukraine
and threat of war. Ultimately, their talk foundered over expansion of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), yielding little more
than the bizarre photograph.

Yet the meeting was surreal for another reason. Over the past year,
Macron, the leading European Union (EU) peace negotiator, has led an
ambitious arms sales campaign
[[link removed]],
exploiting tensions to strengthen French commerce. The trade press
[[link removed]] even
reported that he hoped to sell Rafale fighter jets to Ukraine,
breaking into the “former bastion of Russian industry.”

Macron is not alone. NATO contractors openly embrace the crisis in
Ukraine as sound business. In January, Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes
[[link removed]] 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
[[link removed]] highlighted
the benefits of “great power competition” in Europe to
shareholders.

On February 24, Russia invaded
[[link removed]] Ukraine,
pounding cities with ordnance and dispatching troops across the
border. The sonic boom of fighter jets filled the air, as civilians
flooded the highways in Kyiv, attempting to flee the capital. And
the stock value
[[link removed]] of
arms makers soared.

The spiraling conflict over Ukraine dramatizes the power of militarism
and the influence of defense contractors. A ruthless drive for markets
— intertwined with imperialism — has propelled NATO expansion,
while inflaming wars from Eastern Europe to Yemen.

Selling NATO

The current conflict with Russia began in the wake of the Cold War.
Declining military spending throttled the arms industry in the United
States and other NATO countries. In 1993, Deputy Secretary of Defense
William Perry
[[link removed]] convened
a solemn meeting 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. A frantic wave of mergers and takeovers
followed, as Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing and Raytheon acquired new
muscle and smaller firms expired amid postwar scarcity.

While domestic demand shrunk, defense contractors rushed to secure new
foreign markets. In particular, they set their sights on the former
Soviet bloc, regarding Eastern Europe as a new frontier for
accumulation. “Lockheed began looking at Poland right after the wall
came down,” veteran salesman Dick Pawlowski
[[link removed]] recalled.
“There were contractors flooding through all those countries.”
Arms makers became the most aggressive lobbyists for NATO expansion.
The security umbrella was not simply a formidable alliance but also a
tantalizing market.

However, lobbyists faced a major obstacle. In 1990, Secretary of
State James Baker
[[link removed]] 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
since disintegrated, Cold War triumphalism prevailed, and vested
interests now pushed for expansion. “Arms Makers See Bonanza In
Selling NATO Expansion,” _The New York Times_
[[link removed]] reported
in 1997. The newspaper later noted
[[link removed]] 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 meant new clients. And NATO would literally
require them to buy Western military equipment.

Lobbyists poured into Washington, D.C. fêting legislators in royal
style. Vice President Bruce Jackson of Lockheed became the president
of the advocacy organization U.S. Committee to Expand NATO. Jackson
recounted [[link removed]] the
extravagant meals that he hosted at the mansion of the Republican
luminary Julie Finley, which boasted “an endless wine cellar.”

Postwar expansion benefited arms makers both by increasing their
market and stimulating conflict with Russia.

“Educating the Senate about NATO was our chief mission,” he
informed
[[link removed]] journalist
Andrew Cockburn. “We’d have four or five senators over every
night, and we’d drink Julie’s wine.”

Lobby pressure was relentless. “The most interested corporations are
the defense corporations, because they have a direct interest in the
issue,” Romanian Ambassador Mircea Geoană
[[link removed]] observed.
Bell Helicopter, Lockheed Martin, and other firms even funded
Romania’s lobbying machine during its bid for NATO membership.

Ultimately, policy makers reneged on their promise to Gorbachev,
admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO in 1999.
During the ceremony, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
[[link removed]] —
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
[[link removed]].

Few listened. Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman
[[link removed]] described the
mentality of policy makers: “The Russians are down, let’s give
them another kick.” Relishing victory, Jackson was equally
truculent [[link removed]]:
“‘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 countries
[[link removed]] joined
NATO. The organization originally existed to contain the Soviet Union,
and Russian officials monitored its advance with alarm. In retrospect,
postwar expansion benefited arms makers both by increasing their
market _and_ stimulating conflict with Russia.

Targeting Ukraine

Tensions reached a new phase in 2014 when the United States backed the
removal of President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. Yanukovych had
opposed NATO membership, and Russian officials feared his ouster would
bring the country under its strategic umbrella. Rather than assuage
their concerns, the Obama administration maneuvered to slip Ukraine
into its sphere of influence. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland coordinated regime change with brash confidence. Nuland openly
[[link removed]] 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 of the fascist Svoboda
Party, McCain advocated
[[link removed]] regime
change, declaring that “America is with you.”

By then, newly minted NATO members
[[link removed]] had bought
nearly $17 billion in American weapons. Military installations,
including six NATO command posts
[[link removed]],
ballooned across Eastern Europe. Fearing further expansion, Russia
annexed the Crimean Peninsula and intervened in the Donbas region,
fueling a ferocious and interminable war.

In essence, the Saudi-led coalition subsidizes the NATO military
buildup, while the West inflames the war in Yemen.

NATO spokespeople argued that the crisis justified expansion. In
reality, NATO expansion was a key inciter of the crisis. And the
conflagration was a gift to the arms industry. In five years, major
weapons exports
[[link removed]] from
the United States increased 23 percent, while French exports alone
registered a 72-percent leap, reaching their highest levels since the
Cold War. Meanwhile, European military spending hit record heights
[[link removed]].

As tensions escalated, Supreme Commander Philip Breedlove of NATO
[[link removed]] 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
[[link removed]] concluded that
he aimed to “goad Europeans into jacking up defense spending.”

And he succeeded. The Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute
[[link removed]] registered
a significant leap in European military spending — even though
Russian spending in 2016 equaled only one quarter of the European NATO
budget. That year, Breedlove resigned from his post before joining the
Center for a New American Security, a hawkish think tank awash in
industry funds.

The arms race continues. After European negotiations gridlocked,
Russia recognized two separatist republics in the Donbas region before
invading Ukraine this February. Justifying the bloody
operation, Putin wrongly accused
[[link removed]] Ukrainian
authorities of genocide. Yet 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.”

In retrospect, three decades of industry lobbying has proved deadly
effective. NATO engulfed most of Eastern Europe and provoked a war in
Ukraine — yet another opportunity for accumulation. Alliance members
have activated Article 4
[[link removed]],
mobilizing troops, contemplating retaliation and moving further toward
the brink of 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 to finance
their own military buildup: foreign wars to fund domestic defense.

Yemen Burning

Arms makers found the perfect sales opportunity in Yemen. In 2011, a
popular revolution toppled Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had monopolized
power for two decades. His crony, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, became
president the next year after easily winning the election: He was
the only candidate
[[link removed]].
Thwarted by elite intrigue, another uprising ejected Mansour Hadi 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-led coalition invaded, leaving a massive trail
of carnage. “There _was_ no plan,” a U.S. intelligence official
[[link removed]] emphasized.
“They just bombed anything and everything that looked like it might
be a target.”

The war immediately attracted NATO contractors, which backed the
aggressors. They exploit the conflict to sustain industrial capacity,
fund weapons development and achieve economies of scale. In essence,
the Saudi-led coalition subsidizes the NATO military buildup, while
the West inflames the war in Yemen.

The revolving door is not simply a metaphor but an institution,
converting private profit into public policy.

Western statesmen pursue sales with perverse enthusiasm. In May
2017, Donald Trump
[[link removed]] visited
Saudi Arabia for his first trip abroad as president, in order to flesh
out the details of a $110 billion arms bundle. His son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, arrived beforehand to discuss the package. When Saudi
officials complained about the price of a radar system, Kushner
immediately called the CEO of Lockheed Martin to ask for a discount.
The following year, Mohammed bin Salman visited company headquarters
during a whirlwind tour of the United States. Defense contractors,
Hollywood moguls and even Oprah Winfrey welcomed
[[link removed]] the
young prince.

Yet the Americans were not alone. The Saudi-led coalition is also the
largest arms market for France and other NATO members. And as
the French Ministry of the Armed Forces
[[link removed]] 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. But
the statistics are suggestive. Between 2015 and 2019, France awarded
[[link removed]] €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
[[link removed]] 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. Indeed,
Amnesty International reports that his administration has
systematically lied about its export policy. Privately, officials
have compiled
[[link removed]] a
“very precise list of French materiél deployed in the context of
the conflict, including ammunition.”

Recently, Macron became
[[link removed]] one
of the first heads of state to meet Mohammed bin Salman following the
assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Like Trump’s trip,
Macron’s diplomatic junket was a sales mission. Eventually, Macron
clinched a deal with the United Arab Emirates for 80 Rafale fighters.
The CEO of Dassault Aviation
[[link removed]] called
the contract “the most important ever obtained by French military
aerospace,” guaranteeing six years of work for a pillar of its
industrial base.

French policy is typical of NATO involvement in Yemen. While
denouncing the war, every Western producer
[[link removed]] has
outfitted those carrying it out. Spanish authorities
[[link removed]] massage
official documents to conceal the export of lethal hardware. Great
Britain
[[link removed]..] has
repeatedly violated its own arms embargo. And the United States
[[link removed]] has
not respected export freezes with any consistency.

Even NATO countries in Eastern Europe exploit the war. While these
alliance members absorb Western arms, they dump some of their old
Soviet hardware into the Middle East. Between 2012 and July
2016 Eastern Europe
[[link removed]] awarded
at least €1.2 billion in military equipment to the region.

Ironically, a leading Eastern European arms exporter is Ukraine. While
the West rushes to arm Kyiv, its ruling class has sold weapons on the
black market. A parliamentary inquiry concluded that between 1992 and
1998 alone, Ukraine lost
[[link removed]] a
staggering $32 billion in military assets, as oligarchs pillaged their
own army. Over the past three decades, they have outfitted Iraq, the
Taliban and extremist groups across the Middle East. Even former
President Leonid Kuchma
[[link removed]], who has led
peace talks in the Donbas region, illegally sold weapons while in
office. More recently, French authorities investigated Dmytro
Peregudov
[[link removed]],
the former director of the state defense conglomerate, for pocketing
$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 and Peregudov are hardly exceptional. Corruption is endemic
[[link removed]] in
an industry that relies on the proverbial revolving door. The
revolving door is not simply a metaphor but an institution, converting
private profit into public policy. Its perpetual motion signifies the
social reproduction of an elite that resides at the commanding heights
of a global military-industrial complex. Leading power brokers ranging
from the Mitterrands and Chiracs
[[link removed]] in
France, to the Thatchers
[[link removed]] and Blairs
in Britain
[[link removed]],
and the Gonzálezes
[[link removed]] and Bourbons
in Spain
[[link removed]] have
personally profited from the arms trade.

In the United States, the industry employs around 700 lobbyists
[[link removed]].
Nearly three-fourths previously worked for the federal government
— the highest percentage
[[link removed]] for
any industry. The lobby spent $108 million
[[link removed]] in
2020 alone, and its ranks continue to swell. Over the past 30 years,
about 530 congressional staffers
[[link removed]] on
military-related committees left office for defense contractors.
Industry veterans dominate the Biden administration, including
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin from Raytheon.

The revolving door reinforces the class composition of the state,
while undermining its moral legitimacy. As an elite rotates office,
members insulate policymaking from democratic input, taint the
government with corruption and mistake corporate profit with national
interest. By 2005, 80 percent
[[link removed]] of
army generals with three stars or more retired to arms makers despite
existing regulations. (The National Defense Authorization Act
prohibits top officers from lobbying the government for two years
after leaving office or leveraging personal contacts to secure
contracts. But compliance is notoriously poor.) More recently, the
U.S. Navy initiated investigations against dozens of officers for
corrupt ties to the defense contractor Leonard Francis
[[link removed]],
who clinched contracts with massive bribes, lavish meals and sex
parties.

Steeped in this corrosive culture, NATO intellectuals now openly talk
about the prospect of “infinite war.” Gen. Mike Holmes
[[link removed]] 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 at
least 14,000 people
[[link removed]] have
died in the Russo-Ukrainian War since 2014, and over 377,000
[[link removed]] have
perished in Yemen.

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. As a self-selecting elite propounds NATO
expansion, military buildup and imperialism, we must embrace what the
warlords most fear: the threat of peace.

_The author would like to thank Sarah Priscilla Lee of the Learning
Sciences Program at Northwestern University for reviewing this
article._

_[JONATHAN NG received his Ph.D. in history at Northwestern University
researching U.S. interventionism in Latin America. In the summer of
2019, he conducted archival work at the Chilean Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. Currently, Ng works as a postdoctoral fellow at the
University of Tulsa and can be reached
at [email protected].]_

_Copyright, Truthout [[link removed]]. Reprinted with
permission. May not be reprinted without permission. _

_Truthout publishes a variety of hard-hitting news stories and
critical analysis pieces every day. To keep up-to-date, sign up for
our newsletter by clicking here
[[link removed]]!_

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]