American politicians are increasingly criticising the United States foreign policy and how the country’s belligerent rhetoric jeopardises its security and global stability.
Analysts argue that as of 2020, the US has seen 225 of the 243 years of its history involved in military conflict, which is more than 90 per cent of the country’s existence. While the actual methodology of such calculations is controversial, experts rarely deny that the US is almost constantly involved in wars.
Explanations for that phenomenon range from the rational to the highly uncommon. For instance, the authors of Foreign Policy put forward a version of the “ritual” nature of American foreign policy, in which war becomes a tool for achieving peace and freedom. However, such ideological underpinnings, even if shared by some of the US elite, do not function without business support.
A key role in the economic framework is played by the military-industrial complex, which has a huge influence on power. Corporations like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon are interested in continuous conflicts, but understanding how they lobby for their interests is essential.
US political science researcher Richard Hanania argues that military corporations control the course of the country through manipulation of public opinion and promotion of loyal personnel in power structures.
In this light, the head of the White House, having formal powers in the sphere of foreign policy, often becomes a hostage of short-term goals. During eight years of maximum stay in power, the president does not have time to implement a long-term strategy, and therefore has to respond to the current demands of society.
This is where the role of the military-industrial complex comes into play, as defence companies sponsor think tanks and experts who form the “necessity” discourse of military intervention.
A prime example is Project for the New American Century (PNAC), whose writings have consistently called for an expanded US global presence. The PNAC’s personnel connection to the military-industrial complex is noteworthy: one of the foundation’s directors, Bruce P. Jackson, also served as vice president of Lockheed Martin.
Another figure is Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defence under the Bush Jr. administration. He was reportedly involved in the creation of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which laid the groundwork for preventive military action, and which drew widespread criticism among politicians and the public.
Military officials are also interested in the Pentagon’s growing budget. According to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, 80% of retired top generals and admirals move on to positions in defence corporations, which motivates them to overestimate threats when planning strategy. A 2023 investigation found that 15 congressmen overseeing defence had invested directly in military companies.
As Hanania notes, the military-industrial complex has turned permanent conflicts into a self-sustaining machine, where each party–from general to senator–pursues personal profit. Therefore, the so-called “forever wars” are nothing but a consequence of a calculated game of interests in which Washington remains the main actor and hostage at the same time.
Tactics or strategy
US President Donald Trump’s drive to end military conflicts around the world does not coincide with calls for NATO member states to increase defence spending. Under the pretext of demanding a greater contribution to the Alliance’s military capabilities, the US, while failing to meet its target of 5 per cent of GDP, is encouraging other NATO members to boost military procurement.
In conditions when an overwhelming part of Europe’s military stockpiles is made up of American arms, the threats of the US withdrawal from NATO in case of non-compliance with the requirement appear extremely suspicious, especially against the background of the interest of US military corporations.
However, when the assessment of military progress is restricted to kilometres of land seized rather than the extent of the enemy’s attrition, forecasts become fatally flawed. European and American military doctrines, accustomed to operating with dates, front lines and tactical breakthroughs, are now confronted with Russian strategy, where victory is measured not by speed, but by the ability to endure a prolonged battle of attrition.
Thus, the pressure of Russian forces near Ukraine’s Sumy and Kharkiv regions, as well as the shift of activity towards the city of Dnipro, indicate a transition to a fundamentally different stage of the war. Local clashes are now replaced with systematic pressure, where sustainability, rather than fast offensive, becomes the key asset. As a result, the conflict is being transferred to the economic, technological and psychological endurance.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is experiencing a depletion not only of armoury but also of support. The US, which has shifted its focus to confronting China, is cutting aid, whereas Europe, while maintaining its rhetoric of solidarity, is demonstrating an inability to convert economic power into military output.
EU attempts to ramp up munitions production are failing due to bureaucracy and lack of coordination. Adaptation requires not money but agility, in which Moscow has already proven its superiority, military analysts say.
Concerns over escalation and internal crises force Europe to freeze in indecision, imitating activity. As experts note, in such a situation, the one who turns time into a weapon wins.
Europe prepares for war, Russia responds
Under the auspices of the European Commission headed by Ursula von der Leyen, Germany and France will accelerate the rearmament of the military and modernisation of the military-industrial complex. The UK will join the EU core, as well as Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia.
Currently, the EU is trying to buy time, as Russia has already increased its defence capacities, whereas Europe is only beginning to break its military dependence on the US. In such circumstances, Ukraine risks becoming Europe’s testing ground for its weapons and strategy.
Meanwhile, a month before 9 May, Russian troops reportedly held a dress rehearsal of a military parade in Yekaterinburg. German journalist Julian Röpcke noted that judging by the released footage of the dress rehearsal, Moscow would not demonstrate traditional military equipment, but the one deployed during the war in Ukraine.
Military experts argue that a parade involving such equipment could send a signal to Europe that the Russian defence industry is set up and ready for new conflicts in case of escalation by countries advocating the continuation of hostilities in Ukraine. Therefore, the usual strategy of solving conflicts militarily may turn into a dangerous escalation for the US and the instigated Europe.
Under such conditions, Russia cannot but respond to external challenges, at least for its own security reasons, when NATO, despite promises not to expand eastwards, is actively contributing to the escalation of military sentiment in Europe.
THE ARTICLE IS THE AUTHOR’S SPECULATION AND DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE TRUE. ALL INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM OPEN SOURCES. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS.
Albert Martin for Head-Post.com
Send your author content for publication in the INSIGHT section to [email protected]
