Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

A new US lobby group headed by defence ministry insiders has heightened concerns over the role of business interests in determining Washington’s foreign policy, as arms companies seek to boost foreign sales.

Americans for Peace Prosperity and Security (APPS) is a new pressure group founded by former FBI agent Mike Rogers, who says he is pursuing a career in talk radio after stepping down from Congress in January.

APPS was formed in the run-up to the presidential election of 2016 with the stated aim of helping to “elect a president who supports American engagement and a strong foreign policy”.

US lobby backed by arms industry could influence foreign policy | Middle East Eye

Since the Obama administration took office in 2009, US weapons exports have soared, resulting in a bonanza for weapons manufacturers. As of this writing, stock prices for the defense contractors L-3 Communications (LLL), Northrop Grumman (NOC), Raytheon (RTN), General Dynamics (GD), and Lockheed Martin (LMT) are at or near their respective five-year highs. As Nation contributor and the New America Foundation’s William Hartung recently observed, in 2014, “the United States was credited with more than half the value of all global arms transfer agreements.” In 2015 alone, the United States exported nearly $23 billion in weapons and by some estimates, the Obama administration has approved over $200 billion worth of arms sales since taking office. The United States now controls anywhere between 50 to 70 percent of the global arms market.

Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence which suggests that US arms merchants are banking on a new and more dangerous cold war with Russia. As The Intercept reported last week, “Weapon makers have told investors that they are relying on tensions with Russia to fuel new business in the wake of Russian’s annexation of Crimea and modest increases in its military budget.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, the country at the forefront of the push for a new cold war with Russia—Ukraine—has, since the crisis there began in the spring of 2014, turned itself into a veritable arms bazaar. The Obama administration has repeatedly boasted that by the end of 2015, Ukraine had received upwards of $780 million in US security assistance and $2 billion in loan guarantees, while Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko has made no secret of his intention to divert IMF loans to fund the war effort in the east. What has resulted is that, according to a recent AP report, “Ukraine has turned into a supermarket for illegal weapons.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/th...oreign-policy/

U.S. defense contractors, which saw international sales rise strongly under President Barack Obama's administration, can expect a continued boom in arms exports under Donald Trump, aided by persistent security risks in the Middle East and rising tensions in Asia and Europe.

Shares of major defense contractors, including Raytheon Co. (RTN.N), Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) and General Dynamics (GD.N) hit lifetime highs, on Wednesday as investors bet on higher Pentagon spending under Trump, who has vowed a massive build-up of the U.S. military even as he pledges to reduce foreign entanglements.

U.S. arms export boom under Obama seen continuing with Trump | Reuters

Weapon makers have told investors that they are relying on tensions with Russia to fuel new business in the wake of Russian’s annexation of Crimea and modest increases in its military budget.

In particular, the arms industry — both directly and through its arsenal of hired-gun, think-tank experts and lobbyists – is actively pressuring NATO member nations to hike defense spending in line with the NATO goal for member states to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.

Retired Army Gen. Richard Cody, a vice president at L-3 Communications, the seventh largest U.S. defense contractor, explained to shareholders in December that the industry was faced with a historic opportunity. Following the end of the Cold War, Cody said, peace had “pretty much broken out all over the world,” with Russia in decline and NATO nations celebrating. “The Wall came down,” he said, and “all defense budgets went south.”

Now, Cody argued, Russia “is resurgent” around the world, putting pressure on U.S. allies. “Nations that belong to NATO are supposed to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense,” he said, according to a transcript of his remarks. “We know that uptick is coming and so we postured ourselves for it.”

Speaking to investors at a conference hosted by Credit Suisse in June, Stuart Bradie, the chief executive of KBR, a military contractor, discussed “opportunities in Europe,” highlighting the increase in defense spending by NATO countries in response to “what’s happening with Russia and the Ukraine.”

The National Defense Industrial Association, a lobby group for the industry, has called on Congress to make it easier for U.S. contractors to sell arms abroad to allies in response to the threat from Russia. Recent articles in National Defense, NDIA’s magazine, discuss the need for NATO allies to boost maritime military spending, spending on Arctic systems, and missile defense, to counter Russia.

Many experts are unconvinced that Russia poses a direct military threat. The Soviet Union’s military once stood at over 4 million soldiers, but today Russia has less than 1 million. NATO’s combined military budget vastly outranks Russia’s — with the U.S. alone outspending Russia on its military by $609 billion to less than $85 billion.

And yet, the Aerospace Industries Association, a lobby group for Lockheed Martin, Textron, Raytheon, and other defense contractors, argued in February that the Pentagon is not spending enough to counter “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.”

Think tanks with major funding from defense contractors, including the Lexington Institute and the Atlantic Council, have similarly demanded higher defense spending to counter Russia.

Stephen Hadley, the former National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush now serving on the board of Raytheon, a firm competing for major NATO military contracts, has argued forcefully for hiking defense budgets and providing lethal aid to Ukraine. Hadley said in a speech last summer that the U.S. must “raise the cost for what Russia is doing in Ukraine,” adding that “even President Putin is sensitive to body bags.”

The business press has noticed the development. The Washington Business Journal noted that “if anyone is benefiting from the unease between Russia and the rest of the world, it would have to be Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp,” noting that the firm won a major contract from Poland, which is revamping its military in response to Russia. Roman Schweizer, an analyst for the defense industry with Guggenheim Securities, predicted last year that U.S. arms sales would continue to rise, particularly because “eastern NATO countries will increase procurements in the wake of continued Russian activity in Ukraine.”

At the Defence Security Exposition International, an arms dealer conference held in London last fall, contractors were quick to use Russia and rising defense budgets to hawk their products. “The tank threat is … much, much more closer to you today because Putin is doing something” in eastern Ukraine, a shoulder-fired-rocket touting representative from Saab told Defense One.

“Companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have pledged to increase the share of exports in their overall revenues, and they have been seeking major deals in East and Central Europe since the 1990s, when NATO expansion began,” said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that as some nations ramp up spending, U.S. firms will be “knocking at the door, looking to sell everything from fighter planes to missile defense systems.”

“Russian saber-rattling has additional benefits for weapons makers because it has become a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending — even though the Pentagon already has more than enough money to address any actual threat to the United States,” he said.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/...pons-industry/

And that's just from the first page of a Google search...

Originally Posted by Neo

And that's just from the first page of a Google search...

None of which says any more than:

- Arms companies benefit from their weapons being used.
- Arms companies try and sell governments shit they don't need (sometimes illegally - Harry)

None of which says they are buying influence over foreign policy, you paranoid whackjob.

Take your meds, there's a good looney.