Much has been said and is being said regarding the proxy war between the US and Russia.
Those of us in the West rely primarily on news reports. Virtually all news that we see in the media was created by one of three agencies – Associated Press, Reuters and, to a lesser degree, AFP.
All three companies are owned by the same parent companies, who, in turn, own most of the Western corporatist structure and, not surprisingly, the reports that they distribute to the media are boiler-plate.
As such, the TV news tends to be uniform and whenever a new catch-phrase pops us, such as “extreme right activists,” or “January sixth insurrection,” it tends to appear in all major media, on the very same day and is then used ubiquitously. We therefore receive only one “truth” and we’re left to either accept it or comb the internet for alternate possibilities.
In no case is this truer than the present proxy war between the US and Russia, in Ukraine. The news we receive is quite consistent and yet quite false.
And so, the average person can be forgiven if he’s struggling to figure out how this will all play out. Who would actually win such a war?
For eighteen months, the viewer has been assured that Mister Putin is incompetent and is hated by his people; that the Russian military is disorganized and about to quit and, on any given day, Ukraine is making progress in beating back Russia and will soon win.
If this is all true, victory would seem to be a slam-dunk. All that’s necessary is yet another tranche of, say, twenty billion dollars.
Yet, if we do our homework, we find that Russia is not only not failing, it’s expanding its might rapidly. Its troops are better-armed, better-equipped, better-trained, better-supplied, better-commanded, and their munitions are more advanced than the Western counterparts.
But how is this possible? How can so little have been achieved, when American money is being thrown at the problem at a level that exceeds that of a World War?
Well, the answer to that question may also be the answer to the question of the war’s outcome. But first, let’s step back and run through a brief history of the US Military Industrial Complex (MIC).
After World War Two, the MIC complained to the US government that it was dramatically downsizing production (and therefore revenue) due to a troubling lack of warfare.
It argued that as the world’s new military leader, the US must maintain warfare in order to maintain its new hegemony. The administration agreed, especially as MIC lobbyists were quite prepared to kick back a generous portion of profits to both political parties if they played ball.
The Korean War created the template for the new relationship and, after it was over, the MIC and US government were already looking for the next conflict, in order to keep production ongoing. In doing so, the concept of a perma-war became more important than any actual political need for war.
Eventually, the US got the hang of it with the Middle East wars – always open a new theatre before closing an existing one.
Along the way, the MIC expanded to supply not only bombs, rifles, helmets, etc., but toothbrushes, socks and rations. Once they’d taken on any and all products related to an army, they began to supply the army itself – soldiers on contract. Falling recruitment was no longer a problem, as the numbers could be made up by taking on more contract soldiers.
(As a side issue, the reader may wish to recall what happened to ancient Rome, when they went the route of an army of mercenaries.)
To further revenue, the MIC also created a policy to take on retiring senior military staff as “advisors.” These advisors can be seen on the evening news with regularity. Whenever a retired general is being asked what his opinion of a given US military adventure is, he can be counted on to assure that what’s needed is greater military expenditure.
Along the way, in 1993, the Pentagon urged the existing 51 defense contractors to consolidate into just five, essentially eliminating competition. Although MIC prices were already exorbitant, that one move sent prices off the charts, as the five companies then had a monopoly.
As an example, Raytheon, the sole supplier of Stinger missiles, was charging the US government $25,000 per missile – a whopping price – but today, the price for one such missile is $400,000.
Not surprising then, that with such markups on all goods provided by the MIC, the US spends more on “defense” than the next ten countries combined. Therefore, the cost of fighting the same war costs the US many times what it would cost the enemy.
This leads us to a principle that I have regarding war: "In warfare, the loser is likely to be the country that goes broke first."
And here we come to the critical point of variance with regard to war with Russia.
For decades, the US has been fighting “sport wars” - mini wars against small countries that the US has been certain to win, and the game has gone well. The wars don’t achieve much and, in fact, they have no end object – no actual conquest - only the continuation of warfare itself and the flow of revenue to the MIC.
But what happens when the US goes up against another world power – one that has military providers that compete for business, providing more up-to-date armaments and supplying them for a fraction of the cost; one that’s set up to manufacture them at a far more quickly than the US MIC?
US war-promoters such as Victoria Nuland or John Bolton have never experienced a world war; they’ve only experienced sport wars, in which the US controlled the entire show. By their own words, they clearly assume that a war with a major power is simply bigger – more exciting.
What they fail to understand is that the major power is not limited as to funding, as a small country would be. Further, the opponent is paying far less for materiel than the US.
Throughout history, empires have failed due to the fact that nothing costs more than warfare.
And in addition, the US is, for all practical purposes, broke. It’s now the most deeply indebted country in the world and is only able to continue trade until the rest of the world ceases to accept further US debt. The petro dollar has reached its end, and the reserve currency status is soon to follow.
Considering all of the above, what’s the outcome of a war with Russia likely to be? Well, for any Westerner who’s diligent about planning his personal future, a factor for his consideration might be what his world will look like if Russia emerges victorious.