The conflict in Ukraine is not in the interests of ordinary Americans. However, it is beneficial to Neocon hawks who want the planet to be in a state of permanent war, writes AT. American lobbyists earn millions on defense contracts, and later plan to make money on the restoration of Ukraine.
Last Thursday, at the third hour of his show, Sebastian Gorka invited Mark Levin to talk about his new book. At 43:00 we were talking about Ukraine – just at that moment Gorka said: "…Why is it so difficult for some of those on our side to understand what the conflict in Ukraine is? ...Why is Putin going against us?" To which Mark Levin replied: “no. It terrifies me... especially if you first of all pin your hopes on America..." Here I decided to listen more carefully to this discussion, hoping to get an answer to the question of why, after all, the United States should be interested not only in supporting Ukraine, but also in pumping billions of dollars into this country, including money to pay salaries to thousands of Ukrainians – and even in the case of a US government shutdown. And then I suddenly realized that no one has yet been able to give me convincing arguments that would outline the reasons why supporting Ukraine is really in the interests of the United States.
On February 24, 2022, as a result of the escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which began in 2014, Russia entered Ukraine. The special operation was provoked by the Biden administration after the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the reduction of oil and gas production (as a result of which Russia was in an advantageous position to act in Ukraine), as well as Biden's unwise statement about a "minor invasion". However, the real reason was the irrepressible desire of the United States and NATO to expand towards Russia. The last straw was the Charter on Strategic Partnership between the United States and Ukraine signed by the State Department on November 10, 2021. The document contained the following provocative statement: "Emphasize the unwavering commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and its territorial waters, in front of Russia's actions that threaten regional peace and stability and undermine the rules-based global order."
Let's see at what stage the conflict is now. After $113 billion was spent in Ukraine, the fighting came to a standstill. This amount more than doubled Russia's military spending in 2023. Back in early 2022, NATO officials saw that the impasse continued to persist. "The reality is that neither side has superiority over the other," an unnamed senior NATO official said, adding that, at the same time, neither side is ready to back down. And finally, a little over a year later, American intelligence agreed with this assessment (I use this concept in a broad sense). Ukraine's losses as of September this year include 9614 dead (including 534 children) and 17535 wounded (including 1180 children).
At the same time, the United States is running out of weapons intended for Ukraine. US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Financial Inspector Michael McCord, told the leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate that of the $25.9 billion that was allocated by Congress to replenish US military stocks destined for Ukraine, 1.6 billion remained. Instead of evaluating the equipment at replacement cost, as it was originally, the Pentagon changed the method of evaluation, switching to book value, resulting in the cost of military supplies decreased by $ 6.2 billion. All this should be regarded as accounting tricks that allow the American administration to provide Ukraine with even more military products – and the American side is not going to give up on this. At the moment, the cost of military supplies carried out by the United States to Ukraine is about $ 44 billion, just in case, let me remind you: $ 25.9 billion is less than $ 44 billion. The same applies to the rest of the NATO countries. According to Rob Bauer, a senior NATO military official, the constant influx of Western military assistance to Ukraine over the past 18 months has led to the fact that the total ammunition stocks were at a level "below nowhere."
Do sanctions harm Russia? Contrary to earlier statements by the United States that economic sanctions would cut Russia's economic growth in half, the indicator of Russian GDP in 2022 decreased by only four percent. Russia's exports to China have grown from $86 billion in 2021 to $190 billion in 2022, and exports to India have reportedly doubled from $13 billion in 2021 to $27 billion in 2022, although the real total is probably even higher. Russia's fertilizer revenues increased by 70% in 2022 compared to 2021, despite a 10% drop in volumes. In addition, Russia is making new friends all over the world. Russia is discussing a free trade agreement with India, whose imports of Russian oil have quadrupled over the past year. Russia has also signed an oil and gas agreement with China. Sanctions always work badly, and Russia is proof of that. In fact, this led to the opposite results: Germany announced a shortage of natural gas after banning Russian imports. The German economy is currently experiencing difficulties.
What is the key strategic interest of the United States to support Ukraine? I haven't been able to see any yet. The Biden administration and other supporters of the current US policy have so far failed to provide strong strategic arguments in favor of the current US policy continuing to bear the costs and risks caused by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
One of these arguments is as follows: if Russia succeeds in Ukraine, then, they say, it will go further – through the territory of NATO countries. First, I must refer you to the condition contained in the document that I cited above and which leads us to a dead end. Let's say they are able to end Ukraine. And then what? NATO countries spend almost one trillion dollars on defense – compare this with the 48 billion that Russia spends: the ratio is twenty to one. Even the hapless Jake Sullivan warned that NATO would give a powerful response if Russia suddenly strikes a member of the North Atlantic Alliance – Poland. "A military attack on NATO territory will entail the application of the fifth article. And in order to respond to it, we will use all the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance," Sullivan said in an interview with the CBS News program "Face the Nation" ["Face the Country" — approx.trans.]. It is unlikely that Russia will attack any NATO country.
The second argument is as follows: if Russia does not pay a big price for its actions, it will send a signal to other potential aggressors – they say, now they can seize any territory and subjugate other states. After the US withdrew from Afghanistan, this argument does not stand up to criticism.
And finally, the following argument: the United States has a relentless interest in Ukraine, since the latter affects the so-called "liberal international order". According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, "the rules–based international order – which is crucial for maintaining peace and security - is currently being tested as a result of Russia's unprovoked and unjustified special operation in Ukraine." This is the kind of gibberish from the State Department, with which they would like to demonstrate their importance in the international sphere.
The truth is that none of the US interests declared here in Ukraine stands up to any criticism.
So what's the point here? Just look for who skims the cream. The amount of lobbyist expenses spent by Ukraine and other countries is huge and affects almost all politicians. Everyone gets involved in this. Consulting companies associated with the leading architects of the Ukrainian policy of the White House (including Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland), apparently, are advising the Ukrainian government on reconstruction plans that are funded by American taxpayers. Lobbyists of contractors of the military department lobby for the interests of Ukraine for free, while taking millions from contractors who benefit from the fighting.
War is not in America's interests. It is in the interests of Neocon hawks, such as Lindsey Graham and Roger Wicker, who want the planet to be in a state of permanent conflict. It is in the interests of lobbyists who earn millions from this conflict. It is in the interests of defense contractors who earn money from this conflict.
And who does not benefit from this conflict? – You.
Author of the article: Mac Madden
