Tag: military industrial complex

Trump says Ukraine will need Patriot missiles for its defense, chides Putin

U.S. President Donald Trump said Ukraine would need Patriot missiles for its defenses, after speaking with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday, and voiced frustration over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s failure to end the fighting.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he had a good call with Zelenskiy, repeating that he was “very unhappy” about his call with Putin a day earlier, given what he called the Russian leader’s refusal to work on a ceasefire.

Asked whether the United States would agree to supply more Patriot missiles to Ukraine, as requested by Zelenskiy, Trump said: “They’re going to need them for defense… They’re going to need something because they’re being hit pretty hard.”

Trump touted the efficacy of the Patriot missiles, calling the weapon “pretty amazing.”

Asked about the prospects for a ceasefire, Trump said, “It’s a very tough situation… I was very unhappy with my call with President Putin. He wants to go all the way, just keep killing people – it’s no good.”

Zelenskiy said he had agreed to work on increasing Kyiv’s capability to “defend the sky” as Russian attacks escalate, adding in a message on Telegram that he discussed joint defense production, as well as joint purchases and investments with the U.S. leader.

Ukraine has been asking Washington to sell it more Patriot missiles and systems that it sees as key to defending its cities from intensifying Russian air strikes.

A decision by Washington to halt some shipments of weapons to Ukraine prompted warnings by Kyiv that the move would weaken its ability to defend against Russia’s airstrikes and battlefield advances. Germany said it is in talks on buying Patriot air defense systems to bridge the gap.

A source briefed on the Trump-Zelenskiy call told Reuters they were optimistic that supplies of Patriot missiles could resume after what they called a “very good” conversation between the presidents.

Keep reading

German MPs demand more money for Ukraine – Bild

A group of German lawmakers from the Green Party has called on Chancellor Friedrich Merz to urgently increase military aid to Ukraine, saying Berlin must contribute more in light of a slowdown in US arms deliveries, according to a letter obtained by Bild.

The letter, signed by Bundestag deputies Robin Wagener, Sara Nanni, Sebastian Schafer, and Anton Hofreiter, criticized the federal government’s recently announced increase in military assistance from €7.1 billion to €8.3 billion as insufficient.

The lawmakers pointed to the US decision to pause certain weapons shipments to Kiev as a critical factor, arguing that Berlin should raise the figure to at least €8.5 billion and commit to maintaining that level through 2029.

The Green MPs, who have been among Kiev’s most vocal supporters in the Bundestag, reportedly said the government still has room to maneuver within the approved budget framework, and argued that the constitutional limits on debt spending could be sidestepped through special exemptions.

Keep reading

German government expands arms cooperation with Ukraine

While the US government is scaling back its military aid to Ukraine, and even halting previously promised arms shipments, the German government is intensifying its military cooperation with Kiev.

This was the central aim of Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul’s (Christian Democrat, CDU) inaugural visit to Kiev this past Monday. Wadephul was accompanied by “high-ranking representatives of German arms companies,” who reportedly even participated at times in a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The names of the participating corporate executives are being carefully withheld, and details of the arms deals remain undisclosed. Given growing public opposition to militarization, the weapons cooperation is evidently intended to proceed as quietly as possible, behind the backs of the public. It is already well known, however, that the arms manufacturer Rheinmetall operates a tank factory in western Ukraine. Its CEO, Armin Papperger, has made repeated public appearances in Kiev.

Which other arms and industrial companies were represented, and by whom? Could it be that Sigmar Gabriel was also part of the delegation—the former Social Democratic Party (SPD) minister who now sits on the supervisory board of Rheinmetall and serves as chairman of the Atlantik-Brücke (Atlantic Bridge)?

VW recently announced plans to “enter the arms business” and has initiated a collaboration with Rheinmetall to convert its Osnabrück plant for military vehicle production. Furthermore, the Bombardier plant in Görlitz—traditionally involved in railway carriage construction and taken over by Alstom in 2021—has been sold to arms manufacturer KNDS. The IG Metall union has actively supported all these deals.

Keep reading

Can Israel Survive Without the West? The Answer Reveals Our Collective Power

The Israeli genocide in Gaza, along with the escalating regional wars it has ignited, has brought two chilling truths into our focus: first, Israel is deliberately and aggressively undermining the security and stability of the entire Middle East and, second, Israel is utterly incapable of surviving on its own.

These two assertions, though seemingly distinct, are inextricably linked. For if those who relentlessly sustain Israel – militarily, politically, and economically – were to finally withdraw their support, the Middle East would not be the powder keg it has been for decades, a situation that has catastrophically worsened since 7 October 2023.

Though no oversimplification is intended, the brutal reality is that all it would take is for Israel to withdraw from Gaza, allowing the devastated, genocide-stricken Strip the faintest chance to heal. Over 56,000 Palestinians, including more than 17,000 children and 28,000 women, have been brutally slaughtered since the commencement of this war, a horrifying tally expected to surge dramatically when comprehensive investigations into the missing are finally conducted.

Only then could the process of returning to some semblance of normalcy begin, where the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people must be fiercely championed within an international system built, at least theoretically, upon unwavering respect for basic human rights and international law.

The abhorrent “might makes right” maxim would have to be utterly expunged from any future political equation. Middle Eastern countries, both Arab and Muslim, must finally rise to the occasion, stepping up decisively to aid their brethren and to ensure that Israel is powerless to divide their ranks.

For Israel, this demand is simply impossible, a non-starter and, understandably so, from its colonial perspective. Why?

“Invasion is a structure, not an event,” the influential scholar Patrick Wolfe has famously asserted. This profound statement unequivocally means that Israel’s wars, commencing with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the Nakba, of 1948, and all subsequent wars and military occupations, were not random historical coincidences, but rather integral components of an enduring structure of power designed to eliminate the indigenous population.

This renders as simply false the notion that Israel’s behavior after October 7 was solely driven by revenge and devoid of strategy. We are perhaps excused for failing to initially grasp this distinction, given the grisly, unspeakable nature of the Israeli actions in Gaza and the palpable sense of perverse pleasure Israel seems to derive from the daily murder of innocent people.

Yet, the language emanating from Israel was chillingly clear about its true motives. As Benjamin Netanyahu declared on 7 October 2023, “we will turn Gaza into a deserted island”.

That has always been an intrinsic, unchanging part of Israel’s colonial structure, and it will remain so unless it is decisively reined in. But who possesses the will and power to rein in Israel?

Israel operates through a network of enablers, benefactors who have long viewed Israel’s existence as an indispensable colonial fortress serving the interests of Western colonialism.

“The connection between the Israeli people and the American people is bone deep. (…) We’re united in our shared values,” Joe Biden declared with striking conviction in July 2022.

Without even bothering to question those “shared values” that somehow permit Israel to perpetrate a genocide while the US actively sustains it, Biden was undeniably honest in his stark depiction that the relationship between both countries transcends mere politics. Other Western leaders blindly parrot the same perception.

The unfolding genocide, however, has spurred some Western—and a multitude of non-Western—governments to courageously speak out against the Israeli war, Netanyahu, and his extremist ideology in ways unprecedented since Israel’s very establishment. For some of these countries, notably Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia, among others, the proverbial ‘bond’ is demonstrably ‘breakable’ and their support is most certainly not ‘unequivocal’.

There are various theories as to why some Western governments dare to challenge Israel, while others stubbornly refuse. That important discussion aside, shattering the bond between Israel and the West is absolutely critical, not only for a just peace to finally prevail, but for the very survival of the Palestinian people.

The nearly 21 agonizing months of unrelenting Israeli genocide have taught us a brutal lesson: Israel is, after all, a vassal state, utterly unable to fight its own wars, to defend itself or even to sustain its own economy without the direct, massive support of the US and others.

Keep reading

The Real National Emergency: Endless Wars, Failing Infrastructure, and a Dying Republic

Seventy years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the cost of a military-industrial complex, America is still stealing from its own people to fund a global empire.

In 2025 alone, the U.S. has launched airstrikes in Yemen (Operation Rough Rider), bombed Houthi-controlled ports and radar installations (killing scores of civilians), deployed greater numbers of troops and multiple aircraft carriers to the Middle East, and edged closer to direct war with Iran in support of Israel’s escalating conflict.

Each of these “new” fronts has been sold to the public as national defense. In truth, they are the latest outposts in a decades-long campaign of empire maintenance—one that lines the pockets of defense contractors while schools crumble, bridges collapse, and veterans sleep on the streets at home.

This isn’t about national defense. This is empire maintenance.

It’s about preserving a military-industrial complex that profits from endless war, global policing, and foreign occupations—while the nation’s infrastructure rots and its people are neglected.

The United States has spent much of the past half-century policing the globe, occupying other countries, and waging endless wars.

What most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with propping up a military-industrial complex that has its sights set on world domination.

War has become a huge money-making venture, and the U.S. government, with its vast military empire, is one of its best buyers and sellers.

Keep reading

Can You Privatize the Military-Industrial Complex?

Though it’s rare to hear someone praise the military-industrial-congressional complex, it is only the latter component that masks a praiseworthy feat.  Markets—also known as “people” voluntarily exchanging—have devised the most efficient methods for producing weapons in the United States, but Congress—or the government, in general—is what hampers the sale of these weapons. The U.S. is the world’s largest arms exporter, but the international weapons market would benefit further if the U.S. regime had nothing to do with it.  Ensuring the separation of administration and armaments would benefit not only Americans but virtually every person on the planet. When it comes to manufacturing weapons, American industrial prowess is unrivaled, but, as Robert Higgs explains, the level of corruption also appears to be unmatched:

It is regrettable in any event for people to suffer under the weight of a state and its military apparatus, but the present arrangement—a system of military-economic fascism as instantiated in the United States by the [military-industrial-congressional complex]—is worse than full-fledged military-economic socialism. In the latter, people are oppressed by being taxed, conscripted, and regimented, but they are not co-opted and corrupted by joining forces with their rapacious rulers; a clear line separates them from the predators on the “dark side.” In the former, however, the line becomes blurred, and a substantial number of people actively hop back and forth across it…

How can the military-industrial-congressional complex become less loathsome? Make it less fascistic; remove democracy’s corrupting influence by extricating Congress from the complex. When a foreign government wishes to purchase weapons from an American manufacturer, it must first gain approval from the State Department, Congress, the Department of Defense, or even from the president. Why is that? Defenders of the status quo screech the tired refrain of “national security,” but as John Tamny makes clear, there’s no way of guaranteeing a good’s final destination:

It’s too easily forgotten by the deep and not-so-deep in thought that production is all about the getting. Goods and services always flow. Everywhere. Without regard to embargoes and sanctions. To be clear, if you’re producing, you’re getting.

Yes, if Country A produces weapons but doesn’t want Country Z to have them, there’s no stopping Buyer D, U, M, or B from selling to Z. But will “we” sell weapons to “the terrorists?” That is the wrong question. Per Tamny, “there’s no getting around the economic fact of life that there’s no accounting for the final destination of any good,” and there’s no policy—imposed preference—that can get around that fact either. “The terrorists” will obtain whatever they’d like. The pertinent question to ask is, who will sell to “the terrorists”?  Currently, weapons manufacturers are somewhat insulated from the court of public opinion. Instead of the collective judgement that markets provide, only a handful of bureaucrats—or just one person, the U.S. president—decide which buyers are morally deserving of receiving American weapons, and, unlike with markets, they’ll suffer no repercussions if their decisions are wrong.

Can government officials be trusted to make ethical decisions? The question answers itself. Again, “the terrorists,” like it or not, receive the weapons they’re able to purchase, just as addicts receive the drugs they’re not ‘allowed’ to have. What must be scrutinized is who bears responsibility for the transactions. Under the status quo—because it’s immune from market forces—not only will government officials suffer no consequences for their lack of knowledge; the collective knowledge of the people—“markets”—is subordinate to the limited knowledge (and morality) of the parasitic caste.  When a monopoly loses its state-sponsored privileges, it must act like every other business: it must adapt to social pressure. The newly ‘exposed’ weapons manufacturer must suffer the consequences—good or bad—of selling or marketing to governments or “terrorists” when doing so might carry some moral implications.

Keep reading

New Bill Would Give Israel Access to B-2s, Massive Bombs to Strike Iran

A new bipartisan bill in Congress would give Israel access to US weaponry to conduct strikes on Iran’s nuclear facility, similar to the one ordered by President Donald Trump last month. 

The Bunker Buster Act was introduced by Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY). “Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror, and one of America’s top enemies, can never have a nuclear weapon. That’s why I strongly supported our military actions earlier this month,” a statement from Gottheimer said. “Iran has killed scores of Americans, including our service members, and repeatedly attacked our key democratic ally, Israel. Israel must be able to defend herself against Iran, and ensure that Iran cannot rebuild its nuclear capabilities.”

Gottenheimer introduced similar bills in previous Congress sessions. If passed, it would give Israel access to American B-2 bombers and 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs that are currently only used by the US. 

On June 22, Trump deployed B-2s and the massive bombs to strike nuclear facilities in Iran. 

While the legislation would require Iran to be working on a nuclear weapon before having access to American arms, politicians in Washington and Tel Aviv have long asserted that Tehran was building a nuclear weapon without evidence. 

Keep reading

The Military-Industrial Complex Is Riding High

The Senate is on the verge of passing the distinctly misnamed “big beautiful bill.” It is, in fact, one of the ugliest pieces of legislation to come out of Congress in living memory. The version that passed the House recently would cut $1.7 trillion, mostly in domestic spending, while providing the top 5% of taxpayers with roughly $1.5 trillion in tax breaks.

Over the next few years, the same bill will add another $150 billion to a Pentagon budget already soaring towards a record $1 trillion. In short, as of now, in the battle between welfare and warfare, the militarists are carrying the day.

Pentagon Pork and the People It Harms

The bill, passed by the House of Representatives and at present under consideration in the Senate, would allocate tens of billions of dollars to pursue President Trump’s cherished but hopeless Golden Dome project, which Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists has described as “a fantasy.” She explained exactly why the Golden Dome, which would supposedly protect the United States against nuclear attack, is a pipe dream:

“Over the last 60 years, the United States has spent more than $350 billion on efforts to develop a defense against nuclear-armed ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles]. This effort has been plagued by false starts and failures, and none have yet been demonstrated to be effective against a real-world threat… Missile defenses are not a useful or long-term strategy for keeping the U.S. safe from nuclear weapons.”

The bill also includes billions more for shipbuilding, heavy new investments in artillery and ammunition, and funding for next-generation combat aircraft like the F-47.

Oh, and after all of those weapons programs get their staggering cut of that future Pentagon budget, somewhere way down at the bottom of that list is a line item for improving the quality of life for active-duty military personnel. But the share aimed at the well-being of soldiers, sailors, and airmen (and women) is less than 6% of the $150 billion that Congress is now poised to add to that department’s already humongous budget. And that’s true despite the way Pentagon budget hawks invariably claim that the enormous sums they routinely plan on shoveling into it — and the overflowing coffers of the contractors it funds — are “for the troops.”

Much of the funding in the bill will flow into the districts of key members of Congress (to their considerable political benefit). For example, the Golden Dome project will send billions of dollars to companies based in Huntsville, Alabama, which calls itself “Rocket City” because of the dense network of outfits there working on both offensive missiles and missile defense systems. And that, of course, is music to the ears of Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), the current chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who just happens to come from Alabama.

The shipbuilding funds will help prop up arms makers like HII Corporation (formerly Huntington Ingalls), which runs a shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, the home state of Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss).  The funds will also find their way to shipyards in Maine, Connecticut, and Virginia.

Those funds will benefit the co-chairs of the House Shipbuilding Caucus, Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Representative Rob Wittman (R-VA). Connecticut hosts General Dynamics’ Electric Boat plant, which makes submarines that carry ballistic missiles, while Virginia is home to HII Corporation’s Newport News Shipbuilding facility, which makes both aircraft carriers and attack submarines.

The Golden Dome missile defense project, on which President Trump has promised to spend $175 billion over the next three years, will benefit contractors big and small. Those include companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon (now RTX) that build current generation missile defense systems, as well as emerging military tech firms like Elon Musk’s Space X and Palmer Luckey’s Anduril, both of which are rumored to have a shot at playing a leading role in the development of the new anti-missile system.

Keep reading

A Big Beautiful Bill for the Military-Industrial Complex

The US Senate worked through the weekend on the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The goal was to pass it quickly to ensure the House will then pass it and send it to President Trump’s desk before the July 4th holiday.

However, disagreements among Republican Senators over reductions in spending on programs including Medicaid and food stamps as well as language in the bill eliminating “clean energy” tax credits were preventing Senate Republican leadership from getting enough votes to pass the bill.

Also, some Republicans disagree with other Republicans in both the House and Senate on increasing the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Many conservatives see this income tax deduction as encouraging states to maintain high taxes to fund big governments.

One item in the BBB that few Republicans are objecting to is the bill’s increase in military spending. The House version of the BBB added 150 billion dollars to the Pentagon’s already bloated budget. The Senate bill gave the military-industrial complex 156 billion dollars.

Increasing military spending contradicts President Trump’s promise to stop wasting money on endless wars that have nothing to do with ensuring the security of the American people.

Some of the BBB’s military spending will be used to put troops on the border. I support strengthening border security. However, I do not support using the military for domestic law enforcement, which includes enforcing immigration laws. Soldiers are trained to view people as potential enemies, not as innocent civilians to be protected. Introducing this mindset into domestic law enforcement will lead to abuses of liberty.

Keep reading

Building the Largest Army in Europe

They say it takes a generation to reshape the way a nation views its military allegiance. Germany dwindled its military capacity significantly after its defeat in the last world war, wearing their loss as a badge of shame. Neither the people nor the government wanted to reinvigorate Germany’s military power after the destructive nation building and expansion under the Third Reich. The times have changed, as they always do, and Germany is now on the defensive. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz envisions forming the largest army in Europe.

“Building up our military is our top priority,” said Merz. “From now on, the federal government will provide the military with as much money as it needs to ensure it becomes Europe’s strongest armed force. We are Europe’s most populous country and Europe’s biggest economy, and nothing less should be expected from us. Our partners not only expect this — they demand it.”

Merz stated that Germany will spend 3.5% of its GDP on military defense over the next decade, placing spending as a percentage on par with the United States. Germany already found a loophole to spend on defense indefinitely after declaring an emergency and deciding to ignore prior military spending limits. The Germany government now plans to spend $400 billion on defense alone through 2029. Simultaneously, the nation will not cut social programs or readjust its overall budget as a constitutional amendment now permits lawmakers to bypass the debt brake and borrow in perpetuity without calculating that spending in the federal budget.

Keep reading