FM: John Whitbeck

Transmitted below is a thoughtful reflection from my distinguished recipient Bill Astore.

It took Russia nine months to capture Bakhmut, and Western media have been trumpeting (admittedly with some propagandistic exaggeration) the pathetic performance of the Russian military in Ukraine.

In the circumstances, it strikes me as psychedelically deranged and delusional for anyone to be worried that Russia will follow up by invading France, Germany or any other country which, unlike Ukraine, does not have a significant Russian minority which Russia perceives to be oppressed and threatened and that their own country must now massively increase its so-called "defense" spending and/or renounce its traditional neutrality and join NATO to protect itself from the "threat" that Russia will decide to invade it -- a "threat" which, exceedingly unlikely before the current war in Ukraine, has, rationally, been even further reduced or eliminated by that war.

In a rational world, Western states (notably including the United States) would recognize that they can and should now spend substantially less on their militaries and substantially more on matters intended to improve the quality of life for their own people and to protect them from genuine and pressing threats like climate change and pandemics.

Of course, we do not live in a rational world, and, throughout history, humanity has shown far more enthusiasm for confrontations and conflicts than for cooperation and mutual benefit, while those who seek power, whether through elections, coups or wars, tend to be obsessed with power in all its forms.

The prevailing madness is not limited to the countries of the "Global West" (including the "honorary whites" of Japan and South Korea). Even among the "Global Majority", which has sensibly kept its distance from the war in Ukraine, virtually every country other than Costa Rica, European ministates and small island states maintains a standing army. Why?

Whenever either nuclear war or climate change puts an end to the brief but hugely destructive existence of humanity, at least the surviving species and other life forms on our planet should be better off.

Higher Military Spending Will Save Democracy

So the "liberal" New York Times says

Bill Astore

Jul 15

Three days ago, I got a story in my New York Times email feed on “A Turning Point in Military Spending.” The article celebrated the greater willingness of NATO members as well as countries like Japan to spend more on military weaponry, which, according to the “liberal” NYT, will help to preserve democracy. Interestingly, even as NATO members have started to spend more, the Pentagon is still demanding yet higher budgets, abetted by Congress. I thought if NATO spent more, the USA could finally spend less?

No matter. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as the hyping of what used to be called the “Yellow Peril,” today read “China,” is ensuring record military spending in the USA as yearly Pentagon budgets approach $900 billion. That figure does not include the roughly $120 billion or more in aid already provided to Ukraine in its war with Russia. And since the Biden administration’s commitment to Ukraine remains open-ended, you can add scores of billion more to that sum if the war persists into the fall and winter.

Here’s an excerpt from the New York Times piece that I found especially humorous in a grim way:

[Admittedly,] The additional money that countries spend on defense is money they cannot spend on roads, child care, cancer research, refugee resettlement, public parks or clean energy, my colleague Patricia points out. One reason Macron has insisted on raising France’s retirement age despite widespread protests, analysts believe, is a need to leave more money for the military.

But the situation [in Europe of spending more on butter than guns] over the past few decades feels unsustainable. Some of the world’s richest countries were able to spend so much on social programs partly because another country — the U.S. — was paying for their defense. Those other countries, sensing a more threatening world, are now once again promising to pull their weight. They still need to demonstrate that they’ll follow through this time.

Yes, Europe could continue to invest in better roads, cleaner energy, and the like, but now it’s time to buckle down and build more weapons. Stop freeloading, Europe! Dammit, “pull your weight”! You’ve had better and cheaper health care than Americans, stellar educational systems, child care benefits galore, all sorts of social programs we Americans can only dream of, but that’s because we’ve been paying for it! Captain America’s shield has been protecting you on the cheap! Time to pay up, you Germans, you French, you Italians, and especially you cheap Spaniards.

Look at all those cheap Spaniards. They have good stuff because of Captain America. Freeloaders! (NYT Chart, 7/12/23)

As the NYT article says: NATO allies need to “follow through this time” on strengthening their militaries. Because strong militaries produce democracy. And European “investments” in arms will ensure more equitable burden sharing in funding stronger cages and higher barriers to deter a rampaging Russian bear.

Again, you Americans out there, that doesn’t mean we can spend less on “defense.” What it means is that the U.S. can “pivot to Asia” and spend more on weaponry to “deter” China. Because as many neocons say, the real threat is Xi, not Putin.

We have met the enemy, and he is us. That’s an old saying you won’t see in the “liberal” NYT.

Comment

Restack

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Whitbeck Blog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to whitbeck-blog+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/whitbeck-blog/d55c1691-105f-0a3d-d05a-22f1632d150a%40gmail.com.

[Salon] Higher Military Spending Will Save Democracy

Higher Military Spending Will Save Democracy

So the "liberal" New York Times says