US goals in Ukraine

“U.S. wants Russian military ‘weakened’ from Ukraine invasion, Austin says” (WAPO, 4/25/22)

“U.S. to send diplomats back to Ukraine, pledges support in protracted war” (WAPO, 4/25/22)

The Austin referred to in the first headline from the Washington Post is the US Secretary of Defense. He was accompanied by US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, on an official visit to Ukraine, to make clear that the US will continue to back the Ukrainian military.  

There apparently was no discussion of negotiations, because the US government leadership doesn’t want the war to end. Why would it? The war is justifying massive increases in US military spending (both to supply Ukraine and, in even greater amounts, at home) and Lockheed Martin and the other “merchants of death” are riding high. Better yet, it is doing so without any American body bags being off loaded from C5As (for those of you too young to remember the Vietnam War, those were the military transport planes, built by, you guessed it, the Lockheed Corporation, which, on their return trips from Southeast Asia, brought back the young Americans who died in the war).

The war in Ukraine has also had another collateral benefit for the Biden administration. It pushes their failure to deal effectively with the COVID pandemic and the climate warming crisis, both at home and abroad off the front page. It provides the talking heads of the US media a convenient excuse to bury the alarming news of a planet on fire (“no more water, the fire next time”) and continuing lack of effective dissemination of the COVID vaccines worldwide. It provides cover for those “Democrats” who have opposed The Green New Deal, critical infrastructure spending, etc., on the grounds of cost, reminiscent of the “guns or butter” debates that shut down the Great Society legislation in the late 1960s. History, it appears, does repeat and when we fail to learn from history, we are destined to repeat it.

On the diplomatic front, the war has allowed the US to push other European countries, who are not NATO members, to join, so as to be under our “protective umbrella”, which I might add is mostly nuclear in nature. And, it has led to other NATO members pledging to increase their “defense” (read military) budgets, in order to purchase more weapons from US corporations. BTW, I have a question for the readers: How do you tell the difference between former US government officials and lobbyists for the “defense” industry. Hint: There isn’t any. (see article by Matt Taibbi below)

Yes, the US is willing to help the Ukraine fight to the last Ukrainian because it can benefit from this proxy war. It doesn’t even try to hide that fact.

 

From TK News by Matt Taibbi

When is a TV news interview not just an interview?

Leon Panetta was the nation’s top security official under Barack Obama, famous for his hangdog eyes and soft-spoken, equivocating defenses of torture and assassination of Americans while serving as both Secretary of Defense and CIA director. That was years ago. Today, he’s a senior counselor at Beacon Global Strategies, which represents a host of security companies, including famed munitions maker Raytheon. In Matt Orfalea’s booming video above, we see Panetta on a recent CNN broadcast stumping for Raytheon products like Javelin and Stinger missiles, with host Bianna Golodryga saying only that he “was America’s defense secretary and CIA director.” Orfalea goes on to capture how Panetta and other military “experts” chant WEAPONS WEAPONS WEAPONS over and over like they’re trying to open magic treasure chests, their commercial ties never revealed.

As war rages, there will be officials on TV with sincere opinions about how the U.S. can help Ukraine. Very often, however, what you’re watching is a paid lobbyist plugging for a weapons maker.

Joe Biden last week authorized another $800 million in military aid to Ukraine. This second major tranche of weapons came on the heels of weeks of passionate advocacy from former national security officials calling for heavy spending on reinforcements. Somewhere in the past, these commentators usually have impressive credentials. However, the more recent jobs of these commentators are often paid gigs helping military contractors “achieve their business objectives.” This phenomenon was embarrassing before Iraq, but the last months have seen near-total saturation of the airwaves by such figures. ...