Why the "threat of a Russian invasion" will never disappear
Informational hysteria around the "Russian invasion" and "aggressive plans of the Kremlin" reached another maximum in the winter of 2021/2022. At first glance, there is no logical explanation for this - Russia has repeatedly and at various levels emphasised the absence of any aggressive plans, and a number of material published earlier by the RUSSTRAT Institute has studied in detail why the statements of the Russian side cannot be anything but the truth.
However, the arguments of the Russian side, as well as numerous experts around the globe, who explain in detail the reasons why Russia may not want to attack anyone, are completely ignored. Even in cases where the arguments are given attention, they are declared "insufficient" - regardless of the state of their own evidence base about the "invasion", which is completely absent.
In one form or another, the "Russian threat" factor is constantly present in the information field. However, it would be a mistake to assume that Western politicians who occupy the "hawkish" niche are stupid or unable to understand the causal-inquistorial connections of the Russian argument.
“Presented by Lockheed Martin"
Some time ago, American independent columnists drew attention to the strange metamorphosis that occurs with the articles of respectable publications. The Politico article "'This got bungled': Biden’s two tragic Afghanistan missteps", which describes the pernicious withdrawal from Afghanistan - the end of the longest war in US history, was marked with the advertising material “Presented by Lockheed Martin”.
After readers massively expressed surprise that the largest arms corporation with an annual revenue of more than $65 billion so openly promotes militant theses, the note “Presented by Lockheed Martin" disappeared from the material. However, the previous version of the article is still available in web archives.
"Presented by Lockheed Martin" became a local meme on Reddit, and also provoked a search for other marks on materials that are somehow connected with the escalation of the information agenda. The search didn't take long - Lockheed Martin sponsored other articles, the main thesis of which was a threat to the national security of the United States and its allies, and the oil company ExxonMobile was also noted among the sponsors of the "military" agenda.
One of the materials where the Lockheed Martin mark was first present, and then disappeared, was the article "Psaki: Russia could at any point launch an attack on Ukraine”. Its co-author - as well as many other articles about an "imminent Russian invasion" - is Alexander Ward, former deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Center for International Security. The Atlantic Council, or "de facto NATO think tank”, is sponsored by Lockheed Martin for $0.3-0.5 million a year.
Politico also published an article about Lockheed's secret weapons factory in the California desert, which produced the U-2 spy plane, the SR-71 Blackbird high-speed scout, and the F-117, the first "stealth fighter".
The article's author, Lee Hudson, later admitted that the true purpose of the visit was "to try to enlist the Pentagon's support for big business in the face of low defence budgets”.
The higher the level of militaristic hysteria, the more popular the products of American arms companies are. However, not only American, large arms corporations have long become transnational.
It’s possible to find remarkable coincidences not only in Politico. For example, the Washington Post article from January 20 entitled "Biden must show that the U.S. stands ready to support Ukraine, militarily if necessary" was written by Michael G. Vickers. "The Honourable Michael G. Vickers" is a member of the Board of Directors of BAE Systems, Inc., a US-based subsidiary of Britain's BAE Systems plc, another major weapons manufacturer that is a subcontractor for the F-35 fighter jet program.
In his article "the honourable” author reports that “Vladimir Putin will likely soon launch a large-scale invasion of Ukraine aimed at toppling the democratic government in Kiev”. In order to avoid this, we need "Ukrainian resistance to Russian occupation and a Russia-installed government with lethal means, to include advanced anti-armour and anti-air weapons.
We drove the Russians out of Afghanistan during the 1980s using similar means, and we can drive them out of Ukraine should they invade and occupy the country," writes the BAE Systems board member. And he warns that if as many weapons are not transferred to Ukraine, then Russia will surely conquer it, and “the Biden presidency will surely be limited to one term”.
The US and the military-industrial complex
The hint that the BAE Systems representative made to the US president is not empty bravado. In fact, the American military-industrial complex has been the main and only engine of the American economy since the 1960s, although it is usually accepted to blame the USSR and Russia for this sin.
The author of the term “military-industrial complex” was President Dwight D. Eisenhower - it is noteworthy that in his farewell speech, he warned the nation about the danger of the excessive growth of the military-industrial complex.
"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes," Eisenhower said in his farewell speech. However, in the United States they were either not able to fulfil the president's precepts, or did not want to.
Today, the American military-industrial complex is represented by private companies that have numerous lobbyists in state commissions, institutions and committees. According to the NGO “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington”, at least 70% of former US military leaders receive a chair in defence companies after their retirement.
The supply of weapons is an extremely profitable business, because according to American legislation and unwritten traditions, in addition to purchasing weapons, the state finances the creation of production facilities for jobs.
In 2011, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) accused the Boeing corporation of receiving illegal subsidies from the Department of Defence and NASA in the amount of $5 billion. The investigation was initiated by Boeing's European competitors, who considered that the American side violated the principles of free competition. However, the United States does not remain in their debt and accuses the European Airbus of the same thing - the dispute has been going on for the 18th year, the parties agreed to try to resolve the problem before 2026.
Reducing the defence order will be a very serious, if not critical, blow to the American economy. This was well demonstrated by the dynamics of military-industrial complex financing after the collapse of the USSR. Multibillion-dollar military spending was reduced from 6% of the state budget to 3%, in the mid-1990s, the US defence budget was three times less than today (about $250 billion instead of $750 billion), and under President Clinton it was thought that in 2000 it would be reduced to $213 billion.
This led to social consequences - the largest aircraft manufacturer, General Dynamics, lost 70% of its turnover in the four years since the collapse of the USSR, and aerospace companies laid off more than 300 thousand employees.
"Budget development" in the US military-industrial complex is conducted at a level absolutely inaccessible to any other country. The creation of the new generation aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford Corporation took Northrop Grumman Corporation almost 12 years: the ship was laid down in 2005, the status of a conditionally ready ship was received in 2017. Faults with hoists and other shortcomings are still being fixed. The total cost of the project was more than $13 billion.
The aforementioned Lockheed Martin has more than serious arguments for the formation of a "military" information agenda. The F-35 aircraft is about the same “long-term" as Gerald R. Ford, when it first flew in 2000, and by 2022 the aircraft is being produced in small series due to the exorbitant cost - about $150 million per unit, with a total development cost of up to half a trillion dollars.
The corrupt synergy of generals, officials, and corporate bosses means that the size of the US defence budget since the collapse of the Soviet Union is shaped not by state tasks, but by corporate business strategies. It is not surprising that now any American president sees one of his main tasks as selling “Patriot” systems, F-35 aircraft and other products somewhere.
A destitute market, but a market nevertheless
It is expected that countries where the level of militaristic hysteria in society exceeds the norm become very interesting partners. According to Rand, the United States has provided over $2.5 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since 2014. Everyone made money from this, including private military companies that provided instructors to Ukraine - not only from the United States, but also from the United Kingdom, as well as other NATO countries.
In addition, Ukraine turned out to be a very convenient place for the supply of equipment that would still have to be disposed of. Since 2014, the Ukrainian army has been actively enriching itself with decommissioned HMMWVs from Iraq and Mi-17 helicopters that did not help the Afghan army.
In full accordance with the logic of the functioning of the American military-industrial complex, the State Department specifically allowed American companies to sell weapons to Ukraine privately. Thus, Kiev bought armour-piercing Barrett M107A1 sniper rifles and PSRL grenade launchers from US enterprises.
At the beginning of February 2022, a lot of documents were leaked online about what exactly was delivered to Ukraine – a significant part of the weapons have an expired or expiring service life. For example, after studying NLAW anti-tank grenade launchers delivered from the UK, Ukrainian experts found them to be very old.
The Ukrainian Navy has been replenished with decommissioned US Coast Guard boats of the “Island” type, and the UK has agreed with Kiev to build 8 boats of the mosquito fleet armed with British systems.
As a rule, in the official Ukrainian media, when describing the transfer of weapons from Western countries, the term "transfer" is used, which is completely incorrect. This is a purchase, and very often - on credit, as was the case with boats from the UK. Kiev signed an agreement for a loan of £1.25 billion, for which London secured its own industry and design bureaus with orders.
Eastern European countries are not far behind their Western partners. Ammunition and armoured vehicles stored in warehouses since the Warsaw Pact era have been sent to Ukraine since 2014 - and also not for free. Since 2016, Lithuania has been transferring to Kiev 5.45mm rounds for Kalashnikov assault rifles and KPVT and DSHK machine guns.
From Poland and the Czech Republic to Ukraine comes armoured vehicles - Soviet MTLB, replicas of self-propelled howitzers "Gvozdika" and BMP BVP-1. Also, the Czech Republic sells its own Dana-M2 artillery.
Bulgaria became the main "grenadier" of Ukraine. From Sofia, there are deliveries of RPG shots and single-use rocket-propelled grenades of Soviet and post-Soviet production. A year ago, Ukraine purchased from Bulgaria one hundred thousand 40-mm rounds for under-barrel grenade launchers, up to 35,000 rounds for the AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher and one and a half million SVD rounds.
For its part, Estonia sold to Ukraine about 2,400 Makarov pistols, as well as, after the approval of the United States and in cooperation with Lithuania and Latvia, Stinger MANPADS and Javelin ATGMs.
War, Inc
Of course, no one in their right mind from the NATO countries is seriously planning to fight with Russia. But peddling the theme of a constant military threat, and even the imminent inevitable war, has a very tangible motivation. It's just that there is a different logic at work here, which is not very typical for the Russian population due to historical experience and other reasons.
For many, the "military threat to Russia" equals a lot of money, as well as political influence and the ability to control many processes.
In late January, a group of US senators from the Democratic and Republican parties introduced a bill on the supply of weapons to Ukraine under lend-lease. This is reported on the website of one of the authors of the initiative, Senator John Cornyn.
The adoption of the law will allow Kiev to receive military equipment "to protect vulnerable civilians from a Russian military invasion," he believes. Simultaneously, it became known that a new agreement on the supply of weapons to Ukraine is being prepared - for $200 million. Unofficial sources note that the final package may expand to half a billion dollars.
Arms companies are the main, but not the only beneficiaries of the crisis in eastern Ukraine. The price peak for energy carriers, which began synchronously with the information war hysteria, promises huge profits to intermediaries engaged in reselling Russian gas to European markets.
The Financial Times shares upbeat news that investors are actively buying up shares of US oil companies - crude oil prices have more than doubled since the end of 2020, reaching $90 per barrel, the highest level since 2014. Range Resources, a shale gas producer operating in the Appalachian region, raised $500 million in January, drawing twice as much investor demand as in conventional oil and gas deals.
Good financial performance is expected from multinational food production corporations. Sanctions related to countering Russia have led to the fact that this year a serious increase in the cost of food products awaits the world due to a lack of fertilisers and the high cost of gas.
Russian historical experience makes it impossible to use warmongering as a tool for stimulating business activity. To understand why the Western media and politicians, despite arguments that seem indisputable, continue to insist on the existence of a "Russian threat", we will have to go beyond the usual worldview.
The "Russian threat" factor will remain present in the information field as long as its existence brings more profit than losses to manufacturers and consumers of US military-industrial complex products and satellites. Such constancy carries serious risks - sooner or later, one of the many parties involved in the orbit of information hysteria may lose their nerve. This will lead to irreparable consequences for Europe, severe for Russia and unpredictable for the United States.
The tools for managing these risks are limited, but they do exist. Weapons sales need a market and money. The more citizens of a third country understand the essence of Russian politics and the logic of political decisions of the leadership of the Russian Federation, the greater the domestic political costs associated with the reorientation of the state budget for the purchase of weapons from the United States and satellite countries. This means that the less likely it is that this state will be involved in an "arms procurement race".
For example, despite all the pressure from the EU and the United States, Hungary did not want to participate in the information campaign against Russia.
As practice shows, the consistent development of bilateral relations with both political circles and business, as well as at the level of "people's diplomacy", is quite effective. Under the current circumstances, much depends on diplomacy and the development of bilateral contact, and this potential must be realised at the systemic level.