The Defense Industry

The defence industry and its influence on government policy, elections, and the media is one of the most consequential but under-discussed issues in modern geopolitics. As debates around the Ukraine-Russia war continue, much of the discourse remains trapped in a simplistic, one-dimensional framework—centered on the idea that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a fundamental violation of democratic principles. While this is true, such an approach fails to engage with the deeper, historical, and systemic drivers of global power conflicts. Moreover, it overlooks the vested interests of the military-industrial complex, which perpetuates these conflicts for profit, often at the expense of diplomatic solutions.

Historical Context: The Broken NATO Promise

To understand the current crisis in Ukraine, we need to step back and engage in second and third-order thinking. In the aftermath of the Cold War, an agreement between Boris Yeltsin and U.S. officials, including Al Gore, outlined the de-escalation of hostilities between NATO and Russia. One critical term of this agreement was that NATO would not expand eastward. This promise was pivotal in assuring Russia that an increasingly ambitious Western alliance would not compromise its security architecture.

Yet, over the decades, NATO has repeatedly breached this understanding by incorporating countries like Poland and the Baltic states. For Russia, these incursions were provocative but manageable. Ukraine, however, represented a clear red line. It is not just a neighbouring state but a cornerstone of Russia’s defense strategy and economic interests. From a geopolitical standpoint, Ukraine’s alignment with NATO or the West was perceived as an existential threat to Russia’s sovereignty.

This isn’t a justification for Russia’s invasion—it remains an abhorrent act. However, ignoring the historical and geopolitical factors that led to it is intellectually dishonest. It also obscures the role of Western institutions, particularly the military-industrial complex, in fueling these tensions.

The Military-Industrial Complex and NATO Expansion

A simple but cynical truth lies at the heart of NATO’s expansion: the defense industry profits massively. When a country joins NATO, it is required to adopt interoperable military systems. This means purchasing NATO-standard weapons, aircraft, and other military hardware, triggering billions of dollars in arms sales. These sales directly benefit defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman, which, in turn, funnel significant funds into lobbying efforts, campaign contributions, and think tanks that shape public opinion.

Consider the case of retired generals and defence officials who appear on television advocating for increased military spending or a more aggressive foreign policy. Many of these individuals are on the payroll of defence contractors, earning substantial sums to promote policies that directly benefit their employers. The Iraq War offers a historical precedent: Halliburton and Bechtel profited handsomely from contracts tied to the war, which was justified by the now-debunked claim of weapons of mass destruction. The same pattern repeats today, with the Ukraine-Russia conflict serving as a pretext for massive arms purchases and increased military budgets.

The F-35 Program: A Case Study in Waste

One of the clearest examples of the defense industry’s grip on policy is the F-35 fighter jet program. This project will cost U.S. taxpayers over $2 trillion despite being plagued by design flaws and questions about its relevance in modern warfare. In an era where unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and drones are reshaping the battlefield, pouring such vast resources into manned fighter jets is not only shortsighted but a testament to the defence industry’s ability to prioritize profit over practicality.

The F-35 program exemplifies how the defence industry feeds off taxpayer dollars, perpetuating a cycle of inefficiency and obsolescence. This unsustainable pattern diverts resources from investments that could genuinely enhance national security, such as cyber defence or next-generation technologies.

Media, Elections, and Public Opinion

The media’s role in this ecosystem cannot be overlooked. Corporate media outlets, often reliant on advertising dollars from defense contractors, are complicit in shaping a narrative that prioritizes military solutions over diplomacy. Retired generals and defense analysts with undisclosed financial ties to the industry are given platforms to advocate for policies that serve their financial interests, not necessarily the national interest.

Similarly, elected officials are heavily influenced by defense industry lobbying. Members of Congress who receive significant campaign contributions from defence contractors are more likely to support increased military spending and NATO expansion, even when these policies escalate tensions and undermine global stability.

A Call for Smarter Foreign Policy

We must ask whether this is in the true interest of NATO countries or the broader global community. Does expanding NATO at the expense of provoking Russia serve long-term stability, or does it merely enrich defence contractors and perpetuate a cycle of conflict? As President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address, the military-industrial complex poses a grave threat to democracy when its interests are allowed to dictate policy.

To move forward, we need a foreign policy rooted in strategic thinking, historical context, and a commitment to diplomacy. This includes recognizing the legitimate security concerns of other powers while holding them accountable for their actions. It also requires disentangling the defense industry from policy-making, demanding transparency from media figures and retired officials, and prioritizing investments in emerging technologies over outdated systems like the F-35.

Conclusion: Follow the Money, Demand Accountability

The imperative to "follow the money" cannot be overstated in navigating global conflicts. The defence industry's outsized influence on government policy, elections, and media narratives distorts democratic processes and skews our approach to foreign policy. While maintaining a strong defence is undeniably important, an unchecked military-industrial complex represents a greater threat to long-term stability.

Providing foreign military aid often triggers a re-buy order, funnelling taxpayer dollars directly back to the defense industry. This heavy flow of hundreds of millions of dollars raises an important question: is this financial cycle influencing how these conflicts are sold to the public? To foster a more balanced and thoughtful approach to global conflicts, we must critically examine the motives behind actions like NATO expansion and scrutinize the financial interests driving advocates of perpetual military spending.

By doing so, we can prioritize genuine peace and stability over pursuing profits, breaking free from the binary political narratives that hinder our understanding of complex global issues. As always, before accepting the prevailing narrative—follow the money.