I was thinking about that point that people bring up about military spending with the US and Im getting suspicious that the actual money spent on the US military is a mirage suggesting a capability that far far surpasses the capabilities of the next 10 near peers of the USA.
Something just doesnt add up.
The US has spent trillions on its military yet NATO and the US is having a tough time making the fight against Russia trivial.
If the money spent is any indication of capability; then it follows that besting Russia in Ukraine should be trivial. But that is not the case.
You see... I can understand designing weapons in order to kill and win wars which Im sure that is the principles of Russian and Chinese philosophy in warfare.
But what if the US is doing that... But also allowing the profit motive to have a say? Im starting to think that the USA is blowing money on overvalued systems that are AT BEST, MAYBE a tiny bit more effective than the oppositions' weapons.
It aint like Ukraine was short of capable fighters with covert NATO training and backing.
For all the trillions spent on NATO; Ukraine should have settled this conflict months ago. Ukraine should have defeated the Donbas rebellion before it could even find its footing.
For real though. What the fuck? Is the west genuinely a paper tiger in the most real sense?
Consider also colonial projects like Isntreal. With all their backing from the US; they havent managed to just bulldoze Palestine into the phantom realm. They STILL have to put in effort.
It's just very strange... The realities don't match up with the money or the talk.
The only way it makes sense is if the west develops weapons for profit first and foremost, which doesnt always mean the highest quality.
You have to remember that US military spending is so high because it makes money for the military industrial complex and therefore the oligarchs who own it and the nation. Because it is a money making tool before it is a legitimate supply chain, the markups/margins are insane. The US pays 10× more for each missile/spoon/bullet/etc with its profit motive system, than for instance China with its planned, at cost system. So really the US military only appears to have 1t yearly value when it's more like 100b a year.
Tldr, yes, paper tiger.
What is so absurd in my view about military supply contracts is that they're often cost plus a certain relatively small (on paper) profit margin. The official profit margin can be small because the "cost" is defined by the supplier over the course of the project. So "cost overruns" and "delays" are obviously within the interest of the supplier because then they get paid more.