Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power

Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power

16.05.2016 | OPINION

Source: Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power

The monstrous US military budget is a classic illustration of the proverb about not seeing the wood for the trees. It is such an overwhelming outgrowth, all too often it is misperceived.

In recent years, Washington’s military expenditure averages around $600 billion a year. That’s over half of the total discretionary spending by the US government, exceeding budgets for education, health and social security. It’s well over a third of the total world military annual spend of $1.7 trillion.

The incipient military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his farewell speech in 1961 has indeed become a central, defining feature of American society and economy. To talk of «American free-market capitalism» is a staggering oxymoron when so much of the country’s economy is wholly dependent on government-funded militarism.

Or put it another way: if the US military budget were somehow drastically reduced in line with other nations, the all-powerful military-industrial complex and the American state as we know it would collapse. No doubt something better would evolve in time, but the impact on established power interests would be calamitous and therefore is trenchantly resisted.

This is the context for the escalation in Cold War tensions with Russia this week, with the deployment of the US missile system in Romania. The $800 million so-called missile shield is set to expand to Poland over the next two years and eventually will cover all of Europe from Greenland to southern Spain.

Washington and NATO officials maintain that the Aegis anti-missile network is not targeted at Russia. Unconvincingly, the US-led military alliance claims that the system is to defend against Iranian ballistic missiles or from other unspecified «rogue states». Given that Europe is well beyond the range of any Iranian ballistic capability and in light of the international nuclear accord signed last year between Tehran and the P5+1 powers, the rationale of «defense against Iranian rockets» beggars belief.

The Russian government is not buying American and NATO denials that the new missile system is not directed at Russia. The Kremlin reproached the latest deployment as a threat to its security, adding that it would be taking appropriate counter-measures to restore the strategic nuclear balance. That’s because the US Aegis system can be reasonably construed as giving NATO forces a «first-strike option» against Russia.

A couple of things need to be clarified before addressing the main point here. First, European states are chasing Iranian business investments and markets following the breakthrough P5+1 accord signed last July. Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Austria are among the Europeans who have been vying to tap Iran’s huge economic potential. The notion that Iran is harboring a military threat to such prospective partners is ludicrous, as Russian officials have pointed out.

Secondly, the US protestations of innocent intentions towards Russia are a contemptible insult to common sense. They contradict countless statements by Washington, including President Obama and his Pentagon top brass, which have nominated Russia as an aggressive threat to Europe. Washington is quadrupling its military spending in Europe, increasing its troops, tanks, fighter jets, warships and war exercises on Russia’s borders on the explicit basis of «deterring Russian aggression».

In other words, Russia is viewed as a top global enemy – an existential threat – according to Washington. So, the deployment of the US Aegis missile system this week in Eastern Europe is fully consistent with Washington’s bellicose policies towards Russia. It would thus be irrational and foolishly naive to somehow conclude otherwise, that the US and its NATO allies are not on an offensive march towards Russia.

The depiction of Russia as a global security threat is of course absurd. We can also include similar US claims against China, Iran and North Korea. All such US-designated «enemies» are wildly overblown.

Western claims – amplified relentlessly in the Western news media – of Russia «annexing» Crimea and «invading» eastern Ukraine can be easily contested with facts and indeed counterpoised more accurately as belying Washington’s covert regime change in Kiev.

Nevertheless, Western fear-mongering supported by unremitting media propaganda has to a degree succeeded in conflating these dubious claims into a bigger specter of Russia menacing all of Europe with hybrid warfare. It is, to be sure, a preposterous scare story of a Russian bogeyman which has racist undertones and antecedents in Nazi ideology of demonizing Slavic barbarians.

But this demonizing of Russia, as with other global enemies, is a necessary prop for the American military-industrial complex and its essential functioning for the US economy.

The $600 billion-a-year military spend by Washington is roughly tenfold what Russia spends. And yet, inverting reality, Russia is presented as the threat!

The US military budget is greater than the combined budgets of the world’s next nine big military spenders: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan and South Korea, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Arguably, the US economy as we know it – dominated by Pentagon, corporate, Wall Street and congressional interests – would cease to exist were it not for the gargantuan government-subsidized military budget.

Structurally, the US economy has ossified into a war economy and the only way for this to be maintained is for the US to be continually placed on a war footing, either in the form of a Cold or Hot conflict. Historians will note that out of its 240 years of existences as a modern state, the US has been in war or overseas conflict for more than 95 per cent of its history.

During the former Cold War with the Soviet Union, a recurring theme in Washington was the alleged «missile gap» which purported to portray the US as losing its military edge. This resulted in relentless military expenditure and an arms race that in part led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Washington’s self-ordained privilege to run up endless debt (currently nearly $20 trillion) because of its dollar dominance as the world’s reserve currency has permitted the US to escape a day of reckoning for its ruinous military profligacy.

This madcap situation continues to prevail. A quarter of a century after the official end of the old Cold War, US military spending continues at the same profligate, unsustainable pace.

What Washington needs in order to keep the fiasco going is to whip the rest of the world into a frenzy of fear and loathing. That’s why the Cold War with Russia and China has had to be rehabilitated in recent years. Swords cannot be turned into plowshares because the US power interests that command its economy have no use for plowshares.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has on several occasions invited global cooperation on security matters, and with the US in particular. Moscow has also recently said that it does not want to embark on a new arms race. The latter wariness is understandable given the deleterious experience for the Soviet Union from runaway military spending.

However, that is precisely what the US wants and needs to induce: a global arms race which it can then invoke as justification for its own monstrous military.

According to SIPRI, both China and Russia have significantly increased their military budgets, by about 7.5 per cent each in 2015.

Russia may not want to engage in an arms race, mindful of the warping pressure that can inflict on its national resources and development.

But when the US installs a new missile system on Russia’s doorstep, the impetus for Russia to likewise scale up military commitments is onerous.

And that is what Washington is driving at. It is not that Russia is an objective security threat to Washington or its allies. The real threat to Washington is peaceful international relations which would make its military-industrial complex redundant.

It is a disturbing reality that world peace is antithetical to the very foundation of America’s corporate capitalist power.

Shamefully, the world is subjected to the risk of war and even annihilation all for the purpose of maintaining elite American power privileges. And among those who suffer this diabolical injustice are none other than the majority of American citizens, who have to endure poverty and misery while their corporate elite siphon off $600 billion a-year in military obscenity.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , ,

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

11 Comments on “Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power”


  1. “Or put it another way: if the US military budget were somehow drastically reduced in line with other nations…”

    …would undoubtedly result in a total collapse of world peace. – LS

    “The Russian government is not buying American and NATO denials that the new missile system is not directed at Russia.”

    Western governments are not buying Russian denials that their military buildup near the Baltic states is not directed at the US and NATO, nor are Western government buying Russian violations of airspace and intimidation are friendly mistakes. – LS

    Wow, just too much to address in this one. Sorry, much too pro-Soviet for my liking.

    • Peter Hofman's avatar joopklepzeiker Says:

      Soviet LS ? that is already a long time ago .
      And yes to much to address to your comment .

      But the whole world is the enemy of the USA , that needs all the Mill bases around the world and 11 top notch carriers on the front door of other country’s.

      But the only country who is really threatening the USA gets a free pass to the nukes and the access to 150 billion.

      Yep to much to address.

      It is not pro Russian but anti USA militarily conglomerate , anti feeding the war machine, to keep the machine working you need enemy’s.


      • Glad to see you still have spark. I was getting a bit concerned. As usual, I totally disagree but what the heck.


        • Just an afterthought….

          I want nothing more than a strong military and a return to the levels we once enjoyed before Obama surrendered to the world.

          I suspect Israel would want the same and would relish the thought of having a huge military complex protecting Israeli interest and people throughout the world.

          In my humble opinion, a huge military, when used properly, will not be challenged. In the real world, this is the best form of peace we can sustain. If you doubt my word, then look at Israel’s strong military and the reluctance of her enemies to engage them in all out war.

          • Peter Hofman's avatar joopklepzeiker Says:

            Aha , the key is not only strong but used PROPERLY , i can not agree more .

            And that ” properly” is the problem , special if yo mix up defense and offense .

            My hope is that Trump gets PROPERLY right , i do not worry about strong under his leadership

            It would be a blessing for the world and the people of the USA, a happy USA with a strong economy based on production and trade instead on petro dollar blackmail.
            So she can take her place as superpower back, in stead of slip sliding into a run of the mill second world country ,run by criminals.
            The horror , the most powerful army in the world in the hands of criminal megalomania if Trump is not winning the presidency , it is not good at the moment but that would be a disaster .

            Reboot USA ,vote the Donald

            Enough sparks LS ??


          • Good points Joop. Yep you still go it.

        • Peter Hofman's avatar joopklepzeiker Says:

          It would be boring if you agreed totally with me and i had to worry how to get as fast as possible some mental assistance to you .

          progress is hidden behind opposite opinions.

  2. IraB's avatar IraB Says:

    My eyes watered as I read the duplicitously selected pieces of information that were put on display by the writer. I will take issue with his assertion regarding, “over half of discretionary spending”, spent on the defense establishment.

    Dear Comrade Writer, what say you to ALL the money spent on the, “Educational Industrial Complex”? In what used to be the great state of California, approximately 2/3 of the budget is spent on producing high school graduates who not only are NOT college ready, and who can NOT speak English at the 10th grade level, nor execute mathematical problems at the eight grade level.

    Despite all this failure, the teachers keep on receiving pay. Despite all this failure, the same consultants keep receiving fat contracts. Despite all this failure, the teachers receive fat pensios. Despite all this failure, every boilerplate appeal for more money and more bonding authority is approved by liberal voters who are so EASY to fool. All that need be done is say that objectors to the insane greed and graft are anti-child, if someone objects to having to endlessly pony up.

    What say you, comrade writer? What say you comrade liberal shill?


    • Totally agree IraB. Hey, that rhymes.

      What is needed is a federal government that sticks to it’s constitutional obligations. A federal Dept of Education is not in the constitution nor is all the spending and endless programs from welfare to bathroom decrees.

      Without all this social engineering type spending, we would have more to resources to secure borders, maintain a strong military, etc. which are all part of the fed’s constitutional obligation to the people.

      Like I always say, it’s time we put the beast that is the federal government back in it’s constitutional cage!

    • Peter Hofman's avatar joopklepzeiker Says:

      In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion. Military spending includes: all regular activities of the Department of Defense; war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.

      https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/

      • IraB's avatar IraB Says:

        Percentage of discretionary spending is one metric, and it is NOT unfair to direct attention to that metric. HOWEVER, pointing to, “percentage of DISCRETIONARY SPENDING”, without mentioning, “percentage of federal budget”, constitutes a critical omission of pertinent info. You see the difference, I’m sure.


Leave a reply to Louisiana Steve Cancel reply