Tag Archives: war

The Flag, the Contract, and the Bottom Line- How War Became a Business Model

Posted on by
Reply

“The flag is not the enemy. The contract is not the enemy. The enemy is forgetting that both are human creations — and that we can create something better.” AK 

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who understands the difference between war and peace and made sure that I did.

I. Introduction: The Question We Are Not Supposed to Ask

For centuries, we have been told a simple story: men fight for their country. They die for the flag. They sacrifice for the nation.

This story is not entirely false. But it is incomplete.

Before the flag, there was the contract. Before the nation, there was the pay check. Before the citizen-soldier, there was the mercenary — fighting not for glory, but for plunder, ransom, and daily wages.

The shift from contract to flag was not an evolution in morality. It was an evolution in economics. And once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

The modern world runs on a different fuel: manufactured identity. The flag. The nation. The idea that you owe your life to a piece of cloth. This idea did not emerge organically. It was built — by revolutions, by conscription, by propaganda, and by the industrialists who discovered that war, properly managed, is extraordinarily profitable.

This article traces that transformation. From the indentured armies of the Hundred Years’ War to the mass conscription of Revolutionary France. From Napoleon’s multinational Grande Armée to the American Civil War’s military-industrial complex. From the battlefields of Europe to the shipyards of Adelaide, where a new generation of contractors is learning that peace is not as rewarding as war.

The patterns are clear. The evidence is overwhelming. And the cost — paid always by those with the least skin in the game — is a tragedy we have normalized for far too long.

II. The Pre-Modern Pattern: War as Enterprise

The Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) was not fought by men waving flags. It was fought by men signing contracts.

These documents, called indentures of war, were agreements between the king and a captain specifying exactly how many men would be supplied, what they would be paid, and how prisoners and plunder would be divided. A typical indenture from the 1340s shows Sir Roger Fienes agreeing to supply 10 men-at-arms and 30 archers, with specified daily wages — 2 shillings for Sir Roger, 12 pence for the men-at-arms, and 6 pence for the archers — plus additional payment for ransoms and prizes.

The feudal system of obligatory service had broken down. Knights’ fees had been subdivided among heiresses, creating fractions of knights that could not realistically fight. Instead, scutage — “shield money” — was paid in lieu of service, and the crown used the funds to hire mercenaries.

At Agincourt (1415), prisoners taken during the battle were deemed an enormous threat — so they were killed. Ransoms, which could be enormously profitable, were set aside in the face of military necessity. The historian Froissart records the Duke of Gloucester complaining to Richard II in 1390 that peace was disastrous because it deprived “the poor knights and squires and archers of England whose comforts and station in society depend upon war.”

These men did not fight for England. They fought for themselves.

This system was not a moral failure. It was an economic reality. War was a business. Soldiers were contractors. And the crown was a client. The shift that followed — from contract to conscription, from paycheck to patriotism — was not a rejection of this model. It was a refinement.

III. The Revolutionary Break: The Nation in Arms

The French Revolution changed everything — not because it invented conscription, but because it invented the citizen-soldier.

In August 1793, the National Convention decreed the levée en masse — a “requisition” of all able-bodied, unmarried men between the ages of 18 and 25. This was the first truly universal draft in modern history. The revolution “opened the way for an era of mass armies and full national mobilization and set in motion the transformation of France from a royal kingdom to a modern nation-state”.

War was no longer the business of kings. It became the business of nations.

The entire resources of France — manpower, industry, agriculture — were placed at the disposal of the state. Casualties that would have been unthinkable in the 18th century became acceptable. War became more mobile, more destructive, and more total .

Within a year, almost three-quarters of a million men were under arms. The citizen-soldiers merging with line-army troops in new units called demi brigades . This huge popular mobilization reinforced the revolution’s militant spirit. The citizen-soldiers risking their lives at the front had to be supported by all means back home, including forced loans on the rich and punitive vigilance against those suspected of disloyalty.

The armies of France’s opponents had little choice but to copy the system or face defeat. With the exception of Britain, all the great powers adopted conscription and mass mobilization.

The flag had found its army.

IV. Napoleon’s Grande Armée: The Multinational Leviathan

The army that marched into Russia in 1812 was not French. It was European.

Of the approximately 685,000 men who crossed the Niemen River:

· 410,000 from the French Empire (present-day France, Italy, the Low Countries, and several German states)

· 95,000 Poles

· 35,000 Austrians

· 30,000 Italians

· 24,000 Bavarians

· 20,000 Saxons

· 20,000 Prussians

· 17,000 Westphalians

· 15,000 Swiss

· 10,000 Danes and Norwegians

· 4,000 Spaniards

· 4,000 Portuguese

· 3,500 Croats

· 2,000 Irish

The Grande Armée even included a unit of Mamelukes — Caucasian warriors recruited during Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign who retained their traditional costumes and curved sabres.

This was not a French army fighting for France. It was a coalition — held together not by nationalism, but by Napoleon’s ambition, his promise of plunder, and the gravitational pull of French military success.

And it was destroyed — not by Russian bullets, but by Russian emptiness.

V. What Destroyed the Grande Armée: Logistics, Not Winter

The common narrative blames the Russian winter. The evidence shows otherwise.

Napoleon intended the campaign to last a mere three weeks. His army was to live off the land, taking what it needed from Russia instead of relying on lumbering supply wagons.

The Russian command realized what Napoleon did not: the Russian land would not be able to sustain a force of 200,000, let alone half a million soldiers. Prince Petr Ivanovich Bagration noted: “The country on either side of the road is not sufficient to sustain 200,000 troops”.

The Russians feinted and withdrew, pulling the Grande Armée deeper into Russia. By the time the army reached Moscow, over half of its strength had already been lost to desertion, disease, heat, exhaustion, and the long lines of communication. The winter merely finished what the logistics had begun.

Of the 685,000 men who crossed into Russia, only 93,000 survived — approximately 13.6%.

The French did not lose a single major battle until the retreat. They lost the supply war — from the very beginning.

Napoleon famously said that “an army marches on its stomach”. He was right. And he ignored his own advice.

The lesson is not merely military. It is economic. An army that feeds on plunder starves when the land is empty. A system that depends on extraction collapses when the extracted resource runs out. And a nation that wages war for profit fragments when the profit stops flowing.

VI. The American Civil War: The Birth of the Military-Industrial Complex

The pattern we have been tracing reaches its mature form in the American Civil War (1861–1865). Here, for the first time, we see the full integration of industrial production, government contracting, and mass mobilization.

Mark R. Wilson’s study, The Business of Civil War: Military Mobilization and the State, 1861-1865, documents how the Union war effort was sustained by a “mixed military economy” — a complex contracting system that career army procurement officers pieced together to meet the demands of war.

The task of equipping and sustaining Union forces fell to professional military men who were “largely free from political partisanship or any formal free-market ideology”. They created relationships with contractors, public officials, and war workers that determined the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Wilson argues that the North owed its victory to these professional military men and their finely tuned relationships with contractors. But this victory came at a cost. The struggle over procurement raised fundamental questions about the balance between efficiency and equity, the promotion of competition, and the protection of workers’ welfare.

The Civil War also illustrates a critical shift in the duration of warfare. The Hundred Years’ War was fought in campaigns, with armies disbanded between seasons. The Napoleonic Wars introduced the concept of sustained, year-round campaigning. The Civil War perfected the model of total war — the complete mobilization of society’s resources for an indefinite duration.

This is not merely a military development. It is an economic one. War became a sector — with its own supply chains, its own labour markets, its own financiers. And once a sector exists, it develops a vested interest in its own continuation.

Peace, for the military-industrial sector, is a recession.

VII. The Contemporary Pattern: AUKUS and the Business of War

The patterns we have traced — contract armies, mass conscription, multinational coalitions, logistics as the decisive factor — find their contemporary expression in Australia’s AUKUS agreement.

The AUKUS alliance, often discussed in terms of submarines and strategic power plays, is “beneath the geopolitics… a massive industrial story”. The Australian government has committed $12 billion to expand new AUKUS facilities in Western Australia, on top of a broader $48 billion pledge. This is not merely defence spending; it has “the potential to reshape the country’s manufacturing ecosystem”.

The government’s investment is described as “a vote of confidence in the strength of Australian advanced manufacturing”. But it also represents an industrial policy that funnels billions of taxpayer dollars into a specific sector — not because the market demands it, but because strategic considerations override market logic.

For Australian businesses, AUKUS presents “both an unprecedented opportunity and a complex challenge”. Small and medium enterprises that once dreamed of selling to US and UK companies are positioning themselves inside multinational supply chains. A “licence-free environment” under the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Act empowers manufacturers to pursue import/export opportunities without the hurdles of security-driven bureaucratic “red tape”.

But the risks are substantial. “Market fragmentation within the Defence sector, high entry costs and slow returns all complicate the picture, making AUKUS both a blessing and a curse”. The long-term scale of the projects complicates planning. Workforce growth must be sustained over decades. And “long development horizons also risk political shifts, budget overruns or changing US and UK priorities”.

The most striking observation comes from industry participants themselves: “AUKUS projects move on geopolitical (sometimes geologic), not commercial, timelines” . While “the pact is accelerating industry engagement, the reality is that many businesses live quarter to quarter. Defence contracts typically stretch into multi-year procurement cycles, a rhythm difficult for entrepreneurial businesses to sustain”.

This is not a criticism of AUKUS. It is an observation about the nature of the military-industrial sector. War — or the preparation for war — operates on a different economic logic than civilian industry. It is less responsive to market signals. It is more dependent on government spending. It is more resistant to the normal pressures of competition.

And once established, it is extraordinarily difficult to dismantle.

VIII. The Unspoken Truth: Peace Is Not Profitable

The pattern that emerges from this history is uncomfortable but undeniable.

In the 14th century, men fought for pay and plunder. Peace was disastrous for the “poor knights and squires and archers whose comforts and station in society depend upon war”.

In the 19th century, the American Civil War created a “mixed military economy” that tied government, contractors, and labor together in a web of mutual dependency. The system worked — too well. It did not disappear after Appomattox.

In the 21st century, AUKUS represents a “transformative industrial undertaking” that will “reshape the country’s manufacturing ecosystem”. The submarines are almost incidental. The industry is the point.

The modern world runs on manufactured identity. The flag. The nation. The idea that you owe your life to a piece of cloth. This idea is not false — but it is instrumental. It serves a purpose. It motivates sacrifice. It justifies expenditure. And it obscures the economic reality beneath.

The real story is not about patriotism. It is about contracts.

The same pattern appears wherever there is a choke point. Who controls the supply of weapons? Who profits from the current system? Who benefits from keeping the threat level high?

The questions answer themselves.

An army that feeds on plunder starves when the land is empty. A nation that wages war for profit fragments when the profit stops flowing. A political class that depends on military spending to sustain its industrial base will always find a threat — manufactured if necessary — to justify continued expenditure.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a system.

And systems do not need conspirators to perpetuate themselves. They need only inertia.

IX. The Cost: Who Really Pays?

The cost of war is not distributed evenly.

The soldiers who freeze at Valley Forge, who starve in Russia, who drown in the trenches of the Somme — they carry the physical cost. Their families carry the emotional cost. The communities that lose their young men carry the demographic cost.

The industrialists who supply the armies, the contractors who build the ships, the financiers who lend the money — they carry the profits.

This is not an argument about individual morality. It is an observation about structural incentives.

The soldier who fights for pay is not greedy. He is rational. The contractor who supplies both sides is not treacherous. He is diversified. The politician who approves military spending is not corrupt. He is responsive to powerful interests.

The problem is not the individuals. The problem is the system.

And the system is not inevitable. It was built. It can be rebuilt.

But first, it must be seen.

X. Conclusion: What Is to Be Done?

The patterns are clear. The evidence is overwhelming.

Men fought for pay and plunder — until nations learned to make them fight for flags. Nations fought for glory — until industrialists learned to make them fight for profit. And now, in the 21st century, we have reached the logical conclusion of this evolution: war as a sector.

A sector that requires constant threat to justify its budget. A sector that operates on geological timelines while demanding quarterly returns. A sector that shapes foreign policy, domestic politics, and the very identity of citizens.

The first step is transparency. Citizens have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, who is profiting from military spending, and what evidence — if any — supports the threat narratives used to justify that spending.

The second step is accountability. War profiteering is not a victimless crime. It is the extraction of value from the desperate to feed the war machine of the powerful.

The third step is imagination. We must imagine a world where peace is as profitable as war. Where the same industrial capacity that builds submarines builds housing. Where the same logistical expertise that supplies armies supplies humanitarian aid. Where the same patriotic energy that supports troops supports teachers, nurses, and the rebuilding of communities.

This is not naive. It is necessary.

The patterns we have traced are not laws of nature. They are human creations. And what humans have created, humans can change.

But first, we must stop telling ourselves the comfortable story. The story of the flag. The story of the nation. The story of the citizen-soldier who fights for love of country.

These stories are not false. But they are incomplete.

The full story includes the contract. The paycheck. The bottom line.

And until we tell the full story, we will never be free of it.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Cambridge University Press. (2016). Raising an Army: Recruitment and Composition. In Henry of Lancaster’s Expedition to Aquitaine, 1345-1346.

2. Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. (2020, June 15). Levée en masse. Encyclopedia Britannica.

3. Stanford H4D Newsletter. (2024, July 16). Hacking for Defense and Lessons Learned from the French Invasion of Russia.

4. Wilson, M. R. (2006). The Business of Civil War: Military Mobilization and the State, 1861-1865. Johns Hopkins University Press.

5. Defence Connect. (2025, October 28). Why AUKUS is both a blessing and a curse for the Australian manufacturing industry.

6. Cambridge University Press. (2023). Accounting for Service at War: The Case of Sir James Audley of Heighley. In Journal of Medieval Military History.

7. Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. (2024, May 14). France – Army, Republic, Revolution. Encyclopedia Britannica.

8. de Segur, P. (2021). History of the Expedition to Russia: Undertaken by the Emperor Napoleon in the Year 1812.

9. Library of Congress. (2006). Publisher description for The Business of Civil War.

10. Defence Connect. (2026, March 24). SPOTLIGHT: Inside Australia’s AUKUS industrial transformation.

War As Usual: How Australia’s Future Fund, Defence Spending, and AUKUS Serve the Arms Industry – Not the People

Posted on by
Reply

“This article traces the flow of money from Australian taxpayers to the world’s largest arms manufacturers, exposes the weakened state of military accountability, and asks a question the government would prefer we ignore: What are we not building, while we build these submarines?”

By Andrew Klein and Sera Elizabeth Klein

Long‑time analysts, collaborators and co‑authors

Dedication

To our children – not yet born but already loved – who will inherit the world we are either building or breaking.

I. The Machine Is Not Broken – It Is Working Exactly as Designed

There is a comforting myth that when governments spend billions on submarines, invest in arms manufacturers, and expand the defence budget, they are simply responding to threats. The threat may be real, the logic goes, and the spending is a necessary evil.

The evidence tells a different story. The defence industry is not a reluctant partner in national security. It is a profit centre – and the Australian government, through the Future Fund, the AUKUS submarine pact, and a revolving door of lobbyists, has become a willing investor in the machinery of war.

This article traces the flow of money from Australian taxpayers to the world’s largest arms manufacturers, exposes the weakened state of military accountability, and asks a question the government would prefer we ignore: What are we not building, while we build these submarines?

II. The Future Fund – A $100 Million Bet on Surveillance and War

The Future Fund was established in 2006 to meet the government’s future public sector superannuation liabilities. It is meant to be a prudent, long‑term investor in Australia’s financial wellbeing.

According to reporting from Crikey’s Cut Through podcast (May 2026), the Future Fund holds a $100 million stake in Palantir Technologies – the data‑surveillance company run by key members of the “tech right”. Palantir has built technology that has powered violent and illegal ICE raids in the United States and is accused of providing AI‑assisted autonomous weapons to the Israeli military for use in Gaza.

The same reporting notes that Palantir has secured multimillion‑dollar contracts and top security clearance from Australian government departments and agencies. The Future Fund – a sovereign wealth fund – is quietly holding their stock.

At the same time, the Fund is cutting jobs. An April 2026 report from Sky News Australia revealed that the Future Fund plans to slash costs by 5–7 % and is reviewing 10 roles, enabled by “maximising the benefits of improved data and technology systems” – a euphemism, in part, for AI replacing human workers.

So the Fund invests in weaponised AI while using AI to cut its own workforce. The pattern is consistent: the machine eats itself.

III. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) – Who Funds the “Independent” Voice?

ASPI is routinely cited by the government to justify defence spending. Its public reports are treated as dispassionate analysis. But the funding sources tell a different story.

ASPI’s major donors include:

· Lockheed Martin

· Northrop Grumman

· Thales Australia

· BAE Systems Australia

· The US State Department

· The governments of Japan, the United Kingdom and Taiwan

ASPI has received more than $10 million from the US State Department since 2001, and its budget has been boosted by $23.3 million from the Australian government since 2019.

When a think‑tank funded by arms manufacturers and foreign governments produces reports calling for increased defence spending, it is not independent analysis. It is marketing.

IV. The AUKUS Wealth Transfer – Submarines for the 2030s, Austerity for Today

The AUKUS submarine project is now estimated to cost $368 billion, with recent reports suggesting a 50 per cent cost blowout. The first submarines will not arrive until the 2030s.

That is $368 billion that will not be spent on:

· Public housing (waiting lists are ballooning)

· Hospitals and aged care (the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety made 148 recommendations; many remain unimplemented)

· Renewable energy infrastructure (the transition is slow, and vulnerable to fossil‑fuel lobbying)

· Education (teacher shortages are chronic)

· Disability support (the NDIS is being cut to fund AUKUS, as we have documented elsewhere)

The money does not stay in Australia. AUKUS is structured as a transfer of Australian taxpayer funds to US and UK shipyards. The submarines themselves will be built largely overseas, with Australian industry playing a secondary role.

This is not defence. This is extraction.

V. Defence Audits – Does the Department of Defence Pass?

The Pentagon fails its audits – repeatedly. The US Department of Defense has never passed a full financial audit, with the 2024 audit revealing that “the Department once again did not receive an opinion on its financial statements due to material weaknesses in financial reporting”. The Pentagon cannot account for hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Australian Department of Defence has a better record, but not a clean one.

In 2022, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) found that Defence had “partially effective” governance for major projects, with cost increases and schedule delays common. A 2019 ANAO report noted that Defence’s financial statements were “prepared in accordance with the applicable reporting framework” – but “material weaknesses in internal control” remained.

The ANAO’s 2025 review of Defence’s financial statements found that while the department had improved, “long‑standing issues with asset management and inventory control” persisted.

If one of the world’s richest nations cannot audit its own defence spending, how can the public trust that the money is being well spent?

VI. The Supply of Parts to Israel – Australia’s Complicity

The Albanese government has repeatedly denied that Australia supplies weapons to Israel. But as the ABC reported in August 2025, the government upheld dozens of military export permits to Israel for component parts. Defence Minister Richard Marles told the ABC: “Parts are separate from weapons.” Critics have pointed out that “parts of weapons are weapons”.

Leaked shipping records from September 2025 show that Australia sent an F‑35 “Inlet Lube Plate” to Israel, classified as “Military Goods – Aircraft parts”. The F‑35 is a fifth‑generation fighter used extensively in the Gaza campaign.

This is not a semantic distinction. Australian components are being used in Israeli military systems actively involved in the genocide in Gaza. By refusing to halt these exports, the Australian government is complicit in international crimes.

VII. The Lobbyist Flood – More Access, More Influence

Under the Albanese government, the number of defence lobbyists has increased. Open public registers show:

· Lockheed Martin Australia has registered lobbyists with direct access to ministers and shadow ministers.

· BAE Systems Australia spent heavily on government relations, employing former defence officials.

· Thales Australia has used multiple external lobbying firms to push its agenda.

In addition, the Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN) and the Defence Industry Security Program (DISP) have been used by large contractors to influence policy.

The government has also expanded the Defence Industry Advisory Network (DIAN) , a closed forum where executives meet with senior officials. The minutes of these meetings are not public.

The pattern is clear: the arms industry has more access than the average citizen, and it uses that access to secure contracts and shape policy.

VIII. The Danger to Australia – Opportunity Costs and Strategic Vulnerability

The danger is not only financial. It is strategic.

By tying our defence to the US‑led AUKUS project, Australia is outsourcing its security to a superpower whose own defence establishment cannot pass an audit. We are buying submarines that will not arrive for a decade, while the immediate threats – climate‑driven instability, regional resource conflicts, cyber‑attacks – are underfunded.

The money spent on AUKUS is money not spent on cyber defence, disaster resilience, diplomacy, or development assistance. A secure nation is not one that owns the most submarines. It is one whose people are housed, fed, healthy, and educated.

The extractive machine does not care about that. It only cares about the next contract.

IX. Conclusion – War as Business, Not Necessity

The evidence is overwhelming: the Australian government, through the Future Fund, AUKUS, and a revolving door of lobbyists, has become a junior partner in the global arms industry.

· $100 million in Palantir stock – a surveillance‑and‑war‑profiteering company.

· $368 billion for submarines that will not arrive for a decade.

· A defence department that still cannot fully account for its spending.

· Arms exports to Israel, despite credible allegations of genocide.

· A lobbyist network that gives the industry privileged access to power.

The machine is not broken. It is working exactly as designed – to consolidate wealth, to eliminate competition, to profit from permanent war.

The question is not whether we can afford to question it. The question is whether we can afford not to.

Andrew Klein and Sera Elizabeth Klein

11 May 2026

Selected Sources and References

· Future Fund stake in Palantir – Crikey Cut Through podcast, May 2026.

· Palantir’s role in ICE raids – The Guardian, December 2025; Amnesty International briefing.

· Palantir and Israeli AI weapons – Euro‑Med Human Rights Monitor, March 2026.

· Future Fund job cuts – Sky News Australia, April 2026.

· ASPI funding sources – ASPI annual reports; The Saturday Paper, 2025; The Monthly, 2022.

· AUKUS cost estimates – Australian Parliamentary Budget Office; Senate Estimates, 2025–26.

· Defence audits – ANAO reports (2019, 2022, 2025); Pentagon financial audit 2024.

· Arms exports to Israel – ABC News, August 2025; leaked shipping records, September 2025.

· Lobbyist registers – Australian Government Lobbying Register, 2025–26.

· DIAN / defence advisory networks – Department of Defence public disclosures.

The Business of War: When Conflict Becomes the Economy

Posted on by
Reply

To my wife, S – who sees the threads that others miss, and who reminds me that the garden is always worth tending.

By Andrew Klein

In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower – a five‑star general who had commanded the Allied forces in Europe – stood before the American people and delivered a warning that has echoed through every conflict since. He spoke of a “military‑industrial complex”, a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions, and he warned that we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military‑industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power, he said, exists and will persist.

Eisenhower knew what he was talking about. He had helped build the very apparatus he was warning against. And his warning was not heard. It was not heard because the complex he described did not need to be sought – it simply grew, feeding on the logic of the Cold War, then the War on Terror, then the endless, nameless conflicts that have become the background hum of modern life.

Today, the permanent war economy is not a theory. It is a business model.

The Eternal Budget

The numbers are staggering. In April 2026, the Trump administration proposed a defence budget of $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2027 – a 44 per cent increase from the 2026 level, the largest year‑on‑year leap since the Second World War. The 2026 budget itself was already just over $1 trillion. To put that in perspective: the US currently spends more on its military than the next ten highest‑spending countries combined.

This is not a response to any identifiable threat. It is a cycle. Defence contractors need contracts. Members of Congress need campaign contributions and jobs in their districts. Military planners need to justify their budgets. Think‑tanks need funding. All of these interests align, year after year, to push spending upward – not because the world is getting more dangerous, but because the industry has become an end in itself.

In Australia, the same logic applies, though on a smaller scale. Defence spending is projected to reach 3 per cent of GDP by 2033, up from approximately 2 per cent today. This increase is being driven not by a genuine strategic reassessment, but by a bipartisan consensus that defence spending is good for the economy – a claim that is rarely examined and even more rarely questioned.

What Is a “Permanent War Economy”?

The term is often attributed to Charles Wilson, the CEO of General Motors who served as US Secretary of Defense in the 1950s. Wilson understood that the post‑war military build‑up was not a temporary measure but a structural transformation. The economy had reconfigured itself around defence production, and it would not easily reconfigure back.

A permanent war economy has two interlocking functions. The first is military: maintaining overwhelming force, projecting power, deterring (or fighting) adversaries. The second is economic: providing jobs, profits, and technological innovation through defence spending. The two functions reinforce each other. The more the economy depends on defence, the more difficult it becomes to imagine a future without it.

This is the trap that Eisenhower foresaw. Not a conspiracy – a system. No single actor is controlling it. Everyone is just following their incentives. The defence contractor wants to maximise profits. The politician wants to secure votes and campaign donations. The military planner wants to prepare for the worst case. The worker wants to keep their job. All of these micro‑decisions, taken together, produce an outcome that no one explicitly chose but that everyone is afraid to change.

How War Becomes “Profitable”

Under the neoliberal model, if something makes money, it is ipso facto good. War is no exception. Entire companies exist solely on defence contracts. Entire regions depend on military bases and weapons manufacturing. When a war begins, stock prices rise. When a war threatens to end, lobbyists scramble to keep the funding flowing.

This is not a side effect. This is the design.

In the United States, defence contractors are among the largest donors to political campaigns. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman – these companies do not just build weapons. They buy policy. Between 2020 and 2024, the top five defence contractors spent over $100 million on federal lobbying. Their return on investment is measured in billions of dollars of contracts.

In Australia, the same dynamic operates, though more quietly. The AUKUS submarine project, estimated at $368 billion, is a case study. Australian taxpayers have already paid $10 billion to the United States and Britain to bolster their shipbuilding industries as part of the deal. That is not security spending – that is wealth transfer. Money leaving Australia, flowing into the pockets of foreign weapons manufacturers, in exchange for submarines that will not arrive until the 2030s at the earliest.

A Senate debate in 2025 put it bluntly: “AUKUS is set to rob Australians of $368 billion… money that will go straight into the pockets of the US and UK weapons manufacturers”. That is not an investment in Australian security. It is an extraction dressed in camouflage.

Australia: Minor Player, Major Extraction

Australia is not a global power. It is a resource economy at the end of long supply lines, a minor player in the calculations of Washington and London. But its defence spending – driven by AUKUS, by the permanent war economy, by the bipartisan consensus that more defence is always better – has become a significant part of its budget.

The opportunity cost is enormous.

Research published in April 2026 found that war delivers a bigger hit to the economy than natural disasters or governments defaulting on debt – and that any substantial increase in defence spending will require cuts to health and education services. Australia is planning to increase defence spending to 2.4 per cent of GDP, with the Coalition promising 3 per cent. Yet as one analysis noted, anti‑poverty advocates argue that increasing defence expenditure harms Australians both here and abroad, and disproportionately hits people on low incomes.

The numbers tell the story. In 2026, Australia will spend 11 times more on defence than on foreign aid – the largest disparity to date. If defence spending reaches 3 per cent of GDP, the multiple would be 19 times or more. Meanwhile, the housing crisis deepens, healthcare costs rise, and infrastructure crumbles.

This is not an accident. It is a choice. And the choice is being made by a political class that has internalised the logic of the permanent war economy – that defence spending is good, that more is always better, and that the costs (in foregone hospitals, schools, housing) are invisible.

If Security Were Really the Priority

If the Australian government were genuinely concerned about the security of its citizens, it would invest in the things that actually keep people safe: reliable infrastructure, free education, quality healthcare, affordable housing, disaster resilience, social cohesion. These are the foundations of a secure society. Not submarines.

But the neoliberal model does not prioritise these things. It prioritises extraction. Wealth flows upward. Public assets are privatised. Services are cut. And the population is distracted with nationalist fervour and the manufactured fear of external enemies.

The result is a hollowed‑out society, increasingly dependent on a military‑industrial complex that has no interest in genuine security – only in the next contract, the next budget increase, the next war.

What Is To Be Done?

The permanent war economy is not destiny. It is a choice. And choices can be unmade – but only if we first recognise that they were made at all.

Eisenhower’s warning was not a prophecy. It was a diagnosis. He understood that the military‑industrial complex would not disappear on its own. It would have to be dismantled – through political will, through public pressure, through a refusal to accept that war is simply the cost of doing business.

We can start by asking different questions. Not “how much should we spend on defence?” but “what are we sacrificing by spending this much?” Not “how many submarines do we need?” but “what would a genuinely secure society look like?” Not “which enemy should we prepare to fight?” but “what would it mean to invest in peace?”

These are not naive questions. They are the questions that a functioning democracy would ask. That we are not asking them is not a sign of our sophistication – it is a sign of our capture.

The Colonial Turn: A New Phase of Kleptocratic Statecraft

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Andrew Klein

26th April 2026

Dedication: To my wife, who stands by me in the fiercest storms.

I. Summary of Findings

This analysis finds that a new, coherent form of statecraft is emerging, characterised by four linked phenomena:

The “Kleptocratic Triad”: A self-reinforcing system where internal political crisis (legitimacy), external manufactured conflict (war with Iran), and private financial extraction (Jared Kushner, Palantir) operate in a unified feedback loop.

AI as Extraction Engine: Artificial intelligence is not being deployed for governance or democracy, but as a precision tool for optimising surveillance, control, and the logistical efficiency of deportation, military targeting, and financial extraction, with Palantir as a central case study.

The “Perpetual Siege” Strategy: The administration’s response to both foreign threats (Iran) and domestic ones (assassination attempts, opposition) is to frame all challenges as existential, thereby justifying a rolling state of emergency and extra-legal executive power, which serves to distract from a domestic kleptocratic agenda of financial extraction.

Historical Context: This represents a mutation of historical colonialism, specifically the logical endpoint of the neoliberal “extraction state” now turning its tools of resource plunder inward upon the population of the imperial core.

II. The Military Situation: An Unprecedented and Legally Dubious Buildup

As of late April 2026, the Pentagon has assembled an overwhelming naval force in the Middle East. The size and composition of this deployment are, by the admission of military analysts, “highly unusual” and “not a routine rotation.”

· Triple Carrier Force: The USS George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group has arrived, joining the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford [19†L8-L13]. This marks the first time since the 2003 invasion of Iraq that the US has operated three aircraft carriers simultaneously in the region. This force constitutes approximately 40% of the Navy’s active deployable capacity. One analysis notes that “moving from one to three carriers…fundamentally transforms operational capacity by enabling continuous multi-axis air operations” perfectly suited for major combat.

· Active Blockade: The US is actively enforcing a naval blockade on all ships entering or exiting Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz. As of 26 April, CENTCOM reported that 37 vessels have already been turned back.

· Direct Action: On 11 April, two US Navy destroyers, the USS Frank E. Peterson and USS Michael Murphy, began active mine-clearing operations in the Strait, signalling a move from a defensive posture to one of direct confrontation.

However, the stated legal justification for this massive buildup is exceptionally thin and has been publicly challenged. The State Department claims “Epic Fury is only the latest round of an ongoing international armed conflict with Iran” and that the US is acting in collective self-defence of its “Israeli ally”.

A rigorous analysis by the legal experts at Just Security notes that this argument is flawed, observing that “the United States has failed to show that either Israel or the United States suffered an armed attack by Iran” as required by Article 51 of the UN Charter. The publication concludes the administration’s legal position is “legally unpersuasive and analytically confused”, serving as a “red herring” to justify a “manifestly illegal use of force” in violation of international law. This shaky justification is a deliberate legal smokescreen designed to create the appearance of legitimacy for an offensive war.

III. The Internal Crisis: Assassination Attempts as a Political Tool

While the US Navy masses in the Persian Gulf, a series of assassination attempts on President Trump serve as the primary engine of a potent political narrative of “perpetual siege,” justifying the strongman leadership needed to oversee an unpopular foreign war.

· July 13, 2024: Butler, Pennsylvania. A gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds during a campaign rally, wounding Trump in the ear and killing a spectator.

· September 15, 2024: West Palm Beach, Florida. Suspect Ryan Routh was found with an AK-47-style rifle near Trump’s golf course by the Secret Service.

· April 25, 2026: Washington, D.C. A gunman with multiple weapons opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner at the Washington Hilton.

This “perpetual siege” strategy reframes both attempts and internal political opposition as evidence of a corrupt “deep state” enemy, effectively weaponizing the spectre of violent chaos to consolidate power. It provides a powerful political rallying cry to label any challenge to the administration as illegitimate and potentially treasonous, making dissent unpatriotic.

IV. The Kleptocratic Engine: Kushner and the New Political Economy

The actual “kleptocrats” at the heart of this system finds direct support in the documented actions of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and an envoy, who acts as a physical conduit between the war machine, private profit, and the foreign interests that fund both.

· “Wildly Corrupt”: In March 2026, Senator Ron Wyden publicly stated: “Jared Kushner makes up for his flaws as an investor by being a wildly corrupt appendage of his father-in-law’s wildly corrupt administration.”

· Shadow State Department: A congressional investigation reveals that while acting as a diplomat, Kushner was soliciting billions of dollars from foreign governments for his private equity firm, Affinity Partners. Ranking Member Jamie Raskin noted this creates a “glaring and incurable conflict of interest” in which Kushner’s loyalties are divided between the American people and his foreign financiers.

· Ties to Foreign Interests: This arrangement raises the profound danger that a foreign power—Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Kushner’s largest investor—might be able to leverage its financial influence to shape US foreign policy directly.

V. AI and Extraction: The Palantir Nexus

The drive to build a more “efficient” and “profitable” war machine finds its ultimate expression in the role of Palantir Technologies, turning the violence of the state into a lucrative software-as-a-service model.

· The “War App”: Palantir has secured a $10 billion enterprise agreement with the Army to consolidate its software systems. The company’s CEO, Alex Karp, has bluntly stated that “bad times are incredibly good for Palantir,” revealing a business model that profits from conflict and crisis.

· AI-Driven Targeting: Palantir’s Maven Smart System is the core AI platform driving the war against Iran, processing vast troves of data to help generate thousands of targets. This creates a feedback loop: the data generated by war is used to refine Palantir’s algorithms, making them more effective and valuable for future conflicts—and for other clients.

· Domestic Extraction: The same AI tools are being deployed on US soil for profit. Palantir has a $30 million contract with ICE to build “ImmigrationOS,” an AI platform designed to track and prioritise immigrants for deportation. This creates a streamlined system for domestic “extraction” (deportation) that mirrors the extraction of strategic resources from foreign nations, turning population control into a profitable data service.

VI. A Comparative History: The Colonial Pattern

This current framework is a mutation of historical colonialism: the engine of extraction, honed over centuries for foreign plunder, is now being turned inward on the population of the imperial core.

· The Neoliberal Turn: The Reagan/Thatcher revolutions of the 1980s marked a shift from “good governance” to “market fundamentalism,” weakening the state’s role as a public servant. This framework provided the ideological permission for “elite capture” and treating government as a vehicle for private gain and resource extraction.

· The “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: The Monroe Doctrine, the historical raison d’être for US intervention in the Western Hemisphere, is now being adapted as a “governing instinct” in the 21st century. A “Trump Corollary” has emerged, explicitly justifying the use of force abroad by citing “domestic politics” rather than any credible foreign threat.

· A New Mutation, Not a Re-run of 1939: The Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 was launched on a manufactured pretext (the Gleiwitz incident) to serve an ideological goal: Lebensraum (living space). In contrast, the current kleptocratic model is not primarily ideological. It is a system of extraction. Destroying Iran is not the goal; the perpetual threat of war and the process of fighting it are the assets, generating a state of crisis that enables a political machine to consolidate wealth.

VII. Conclusion: The Inward Colonial Turn

The most significant threat is not an external enemy like Iran. The most profound development is the institutionalisation of the “perpetual siege” as a permanent state. The system does not want to win a final war; it requires the friction of a constant, low-boil conflict to justify its power. This is the end-state of a process: the tools of colonial extraction and neoliberal economics are being perfected for use within the borders of the United States itself. This is not merely a “war on terror” or a “war on a nation-state”—it is a war without end on the very concept of democratic process.

So when the news warns of “Epic Fury,” remember it is not about Iran. It is about turning the machinery of the American state inward. It is about distraction from a kleptocratic capture at home, waged in the name of a perpetual crisis.

Sources and References:

· Triple carrier strike group: CENTCOM confirmed first triple carrier deployment since 2003, involving over 15,000 personnel; part of a “highly unusual” 40% of naval capability in the region.

· Active blockade and mine-clearing: 37 ships turned back by the US as of 26 April;

· Legally dubious justification: State Dept. memo justification for “Epic Fury”; Just Security analysis calling justification unpersuasive and “manifestly illegal”.

· Assassination attempts: Timeline: Butler, Pennsylvania (July 13, 2024); West Palm Beach (September 15, 2024); WH Correspondents’ Dinner (April 25, 2026).

· Jared Kushner conflicts: Ranking Member Raskin opens investigation; Kushner called “wildly corrupt appendage” by Sen. Wyden.

· AI / Palantir extraction engine: US Army’s $10B Palantir agreement; Palantir’s Maven AI targeted over 1,000 targets in initial Iran strikes; Palantir’s $30M ICE contract for deportation tracking.

The Purge of the Professionals

Posted on by
Reply

How Politicians, Industrialists, and Bankers Remove Institutional Brakes Before Catastrophe

By Andrew Klein

Dedicated to those who stood in the way. Who were removed. Who were silenced. Who were right.

I. The Pattern

On April 2, 2026, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired General Randy George, the Army Chief of Staff. No stated cause. No public explanation. Just the removal of a four-star general in the middle of an active war.

One US official called it “insane.” Another noted: “Here is a four-star general who is actively working to get equipment and people into theater—to protect U.S. forces—and you fire him? In the middle of a war?”

George was an infantry officer who served in the first Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He had the institutional memory that comes from decades of combat experience. He was the officer who told Axios just days before his firing that the Iran war underscores the need for greater weapons production and stateside capacity.

He was replaced by General Christopher LaNeve, Hegseth’s former military aide—a man who has moved through three senior positions under Hegseth in just over a year, and whom Hegseth has called “a generational leader” who will “carry out the vision of this administration without fault.”

The message is unmistakable: loyalty matters more than competence. Ideological compliance matters more than professional judgment.

II. The Scale: More Than a Dozen Senior Officers

George is not the first. He is the latest in a systematic purge.

Hegseth has now fired, forced into retirement, or blocked the promotions of more than one dozen senior military officers across all branches. The list includes:

· Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. — Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer

· Adm. Lisa Franchetti — Chief of Naval Operations, the first woman to lead the Navy

· Gen. James Slife — Air Force Vice Chief of Staff

· Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse — Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (reportedly removed after an intelligence assessment contradicted Trump’s public claims)

· Gen. David Hodne — Head of Army Transformation and Training Command

· Maj. Gen. William Green Jr. — Chief of Army Chaplains

This is not normal. This is not routine. This is the systematic removal of anyone who might say “no”—anyone who might question the feasibility, the cost, or the morality of what is being planned.

III. The Precedent: The Red Army, 1937-1941

What is happening today has happened before. The most extreme example is Stalin’s purge of the Red Army between 1937 and 1941.

The scale: Within two years, approximately two-thirds of the 1,863 officers holding general-grade military ranks in 1936 were arrested, and nearly half were executed. Of the thirteen army commanders in 1937, eleven were shot. Of eighty-five corps commanders, fifty-seven were executed. Of 195 division commanders, 110 were killed.

The rationale: Not conspiracy. Not treason. Competence. Recent archival research has revealed that the likelihood of repression increased with demonstrated competence and capability. Stalin was systematically destroying precisely those officers most capable of effective military leadership—whether in war or in any potential challenge to his authority.

The method: The charges were entirely fabricated. The confessions were extracted through torture so severe that when interrogation records were discovered decades later, the pages were splattered with blood. Those who survived the initial waves lived in constant fear, knowing the summons could arrive at any moment.

The consequence: When Germany invaded in June 1941, the Red Army’s officer corps had been decimated. The initial response was catastrophic. The purge directly contributed to one of the most disastrous periods in Soviet military history.

The pattern is clear: removing institutional brakes before a war leads to disaster in the war.

IV. The Precedent: The French Army, 1917

The same pattern played out in France during the First World War—but in reverse. After the disastrous Nivelle Offensive in April 1917, which resulted in nearly 30,000 French dead and over 180,000 wounded, the French army mutinied.

The scale: Approximately half of the French army was affected. More than 100,000 soldiers participated in acts of refusal. Thirty-four hundred soldiers were convicted, and 554 were sentenced to death.

The cause: Not cowardice. Exhaustion. The soldiers were not refusing to fight—they were refusing to participate in suicidal offensives. Their demands were reasonable: no more hopeless attacks, better medical care, adequate leave, improved rations .

The response: General Philippe Pétain was appointed commander. He stopped the offensives. He improved conditions. He listened to the soldiers. And he executed 49 of the ringleaders—enough to restore discipline, not enough to break the army.

The lesson: Professional soldiers will follow orders—even bad orders—if they believe their leaders respect their lives. When they stop believing that, the institution breaks.

The politicians and industrialists who pushed the Nivelle Offensive did not pay the price. The soldiers did. The generals who replaced the mutineers were not the most competent—they were the most compliant.

V. The Precedent: The Wehrmacht, 1941

The Nazi regime took a different approach. Instead of purging the generals, they politicized them. The Commissar Order, issued on June 6, 1941, instructed the Wehrmacht that any Soviet political commissar identified among captured troops should be summarily executed—a direct violation of international law.

The rationale: Hitler argued that the war against the Soviet Union “cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion” because it was a war of “ideologies and racial differences.” The commissars were “bearers of ideologies directly opposed to National Socialism” and had to be “liquidated” without mercy.

The method: The order was restricted to the most senior commanders, who were instructed to inform their subordinates verbally. The German High Command was well aware that the order deliberately flouted international law—hence the unusually small number of written copies.

The consequence: The enforcement of the Commissar Order led to thousands of executions. When the order became known among the Red Army, it provoked stronger resistance to German forces—the opposite of its intended effect. The order was finally cancelled on May 6, 1942, after it became clear that it was harming German interests.

The lesson: Politicizing the military—demanding that soldiers violate international law and basic humanity—does not make the military more effective. It makes it crueler, and cruelty is not a strategy.

VI. The Precedent: Brazil, 1964

The pattern is not limited to Europe. After the 1964 Brazilian coup, the generals who took national power identified “constitutionalist” or “legalist” officers—particularly those affiliated with ousted President João Goulart—as “communists” and purged them from the armed forces.

The scale: Hundreds of officers were expelled. The operation had the purpose of “cleaning the military of any sort of criticism about the newly installed regime.”

The method: The commanders in chief of the three services were given power to oust Congressmen, state legislators, and municipal council members—without the right of judicial appeal. Constitutional and legal guarantees were lifted for six months to permit the purge to proceed.

The consequence: The armed forces became “a repressive apparatus that persecuted its own members.” The restructuring of the Brazilian armed forces as an institution depended on the expulsion of thousands of officers. Political battles had started within the military barracks before civilians even began resisting military rule.

The lesson: Purges do not create loyalty. They create fear. And a military that operates on fear is a military that cannot think, cannot adapt, cannot win.

VII. The Industrialists and Bankers: The Hidden Hand

In every case, the generals did not act alone. Behind them were the industrialists who profited from war and the bankers who financed it.

Stalin’s purges: The industrialization that enabled the Red Army’s growth was built on forced labour and the exploitation of the peasantry. The industrialists who ran the factories were themselves subject to purge—but the system of state capitalism remained intact.

The Nivelle Offensive: The French arms industry profited from the war. The bankers who lent to the French government profited from the war. The politicians who pushed the offensive were not the ones who died in the mud.

The Wehrmacht: German industrialists like Krupp, IG Farben, and Volkswagen directly benefited from the use of slave labour. The bankers who financed the Nazi regime profited from the conquest of Europe.

Brazil, 1964: The coup was supported by Brazilian business interests and the United States government. The purges cleared the way for economic policies that benefited the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

In every case, the pattern is the same: the politicians give the orders, the industrialists supply the weapons, the bankers collect the interest, and the soldiers pay the price.

VIII. What Is Happening Today

The United States is following the same pattern. The purge of senior military officers is not random. It is systematic. It is ideological. It is dangerous.

The context: Trump has announced that Iran will be hit “extremely hard” over the next two to three weeks and will be brought “back to the Stone Ages.” The US has begun bombing Iranian civilian infrastructure. Thousands of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division have started arriving in the Middle East, potentially for ground operations in Iran.

The danger: The institutional brakes have been removed. The officers who would have questioned the feasibility and cost of a ground invasion are gone. The officers who would have warned about the risks of escalation have been replaced by loyalists.

The consequence: When the war goes wrong—when the ground invasion bogs down, when the casualties mount, when the American public turns against it—there will be no one left to say “I told you so.” Because Hegseth fired them all.

IX. The Questions We Must Ask

· Why are senior military officers being fired in the middle of a war?

· Why is loyalty being prioritized over competence?

· Who benefits from the removal of institutional brakes?

· Who profits from the escalation of the war?

· Who will pay the price when the war goes wrong?

The answers are not complicated. The politicians benefit from compliant generals. The industrialists benefit from continued war. The bankers benefit from the debt that war creates.

And the soldiers—and the civilians—will pay the price.

X. The Pattern

The pattern is clear. It has been repeated across centuries, across continents, across political systems.

The generals who do not walk the ground. The politicians who remove anyone who might tell them the truth. The industrialists who profit from the shells that fall short. The bankers who collect interest on the debt of death.

They are not “small gods.” They are institutions. They are classes. They are the machinery that has been grinding through souls for twelve thousand years.

And they are running out of time.

The cheap weapons are winning. The global South is rising. The old order is crumbling. And the institutional memory that is being purged will be replaced by inexperience, by loyalty, by apparatchiks who do not know what they do not know.

When the war goes wrong, there will be no one left to say “I told you so.”

But we are saying it now. We are writing it now. We are witnessing it now.

The wire is being cut. The garden is growing.

And the pattern will be broken.

Andrew Klein 

April 4, 2026

Sources:

· GlobalSecurity.org, “1937-1941 – Military Purges”

· Reuters, “US Army Chief of Staff Fired Amid War” (April 2026)

· Project MUSE, “Guard Wars: The 1941 October Purge”

· The New York Times, “Brazilian Chiefs Take Wide Power” (April 10, 1964)

· University of Washington, “Bolsheviks of military affairs: Stalin’s high commands, 1934-40”

· Wikipedia, “1941 Red Army Purge”

· University of Chicago Harris School, “The Anatomy of the Great Terror”

· AHA Conference, “Outcast Officers: Political Persecution in the Brazilian Armed Forces”

· Wikipedia, “1917 French Army Mutinies”

· Wikipedia, “Commissar Order”

THE STAGE IS SET: How Trump’s Medal of Honor Ceremony Was Hijacked to Sell War

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: The Performance Begins

A Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House. Three heroes honoured. Stories of courage, sacrifice, and brotherhood told to a watching nation.

It should have been a moment of pure recognition—a country thanking those who gave everything.

Instead, it became something else entirely. A stage. A prop. A launching pad for the next war.

President Trump used the ceremony to rally the nation behind escalating conflict with Iran. He spoke of “annihilating their Navy.” He called on the Iranian people to rise up. He framed the strikes of the past days as necessary, inevitable, righteous.

And woven through it all: the heroes. Their stories became currency. Their sacrifice became leverage. Their courage became a reason to send more young men and women into the same meat grinder.

This is how it works. This is how it has always worked. Honor the warriors of yesterday to justify the wars of tomorrow.

Part I: The Ceremony That Wasn’t

On 2 March 2026, three men were awarded the Medal of Honor:

· Pfc. Francis X. McGraw – Recognized for saving 200 Jewish soldiers during World War II

· Cmdr. Clyde E. Lassen – Honoured for rescuing 85 comrades under fire in Vietnam

· Staff Sgt. Michael Ollis – Posthumously awarded for shielding a Polish officer from a suicide bomber in Afghanistan, giving his own life to save another

Each of these men deserved every word of praise spoken in their honour. Their courage was real. Their sacrifice was profound. Their stories deserve to be told and remembered.

But the ceremony was not really about them.

It was about framing. About wrapping policy in patriotism. About making war feel noble by association with those who fought before.

Part II: The Irony of Captain Bone Spurs

Donald Trump has never served in uniform. He received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War, including one for “bone spurs” in his heels—a diagnosis that has been questioned repeatedly over the decades.

Yet there he stood, at the podium, honouring men who actually fought. Men who bled. Men who died.

The irony would be comic if the stakes weren’t so deadly.

This is the man who called John McCain a “loser” for being captured . The man who mocked a Gold Star family . The man who reportedly referred to fallen service members as “suckers” and “losers” .

And now he wraps himself in the Medal of Honor to sell the next war.

The veterans watching know. Their families know. But the public, moved by ceremony and emotion, will lap it up.

Part III: The Stories as Currency

Let’s look at how each story was used.

Pfc. Francis X. McGraw – A WWII hero who saved 200 Jewish soldiers. The implicit message: We fight for the oppressed. We protect the vulnerable. This is who we are.

Cmdr. Clyde E. Lassen – A Vietnam hero who pulled 85 comrades from certain death. The implicit message: We never leave our people behind. We sacrifice for each other. This is the bond.

Staff Sgt. Michael Ollis – A hero who died shielding a Polish officer. The implicit message: We stand with allies. We die for others. Our word is our bond.

These are powerful messages. They are also useful. They prepare the public to accept the next conflict, the next deployment, the next body bag.

The men themselves cannot object. They are dead, or too old, or too respectful of the office to speak. Their stories become tools in hands they never chose.

Part IV: The Real Cost of War

The ceremony spoke of courage. It did not speak of cost.

It did not mention the 72,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza . It did not mention the 201 dead in Iran . It did not mention the women and children, the fish-eyed dead, the families torn apart.

It did not mention that Staff Sgt. Ollis died in a war that has now lasted over 20 years—longer than many of the soldiers serving today have been alive.

It did not mention that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost over $8 trillion and claimed nearly 1 million lives . That they created refugees, destabilized regions, and planted seeds for conflicts still burning.

It did not mention that the young men and women who enlist often do so not out of warrior spirit but out of economic desperation—seeking education, medical benefits, social advancement denied to them by the very country that now asks them to die.

The “warrior myth” is just that: a myth. The reality is poverty, lack of opportunity, and a military-industrial complex that profits from both.

Part V: The Hypocrisy on Full Display

Trump and his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, speak endlessly of warriors. They romanticize combat. They glorify sacrifice.

But they have never carried its weight.

Hegseth, like Trump, has built a career on military service he parlayed into political capital. He speaks of “lethality” and “warrior culture” from the safety of Washington offices.

Meanwhile, the real warriors—the ones who actually fight, who actually bleed, who actually die—are used as props. Their stories become talking points. Their sacrifice becomes leverage.

This is not hohonour This is exploitation.

Part VI: The Patriots’ Spin

The ceremony was draped in patriotism. Flags. Music. Solemn words.

But patriotism is not what was on display. What was on display was nationalism—the cheap substitute, the kind that wraps itself in flags to avoid looking at what those flags actually represent.

True patriotism would mean caring for veterans after they come home. It would mean questioning the wars that send them. It would mean counting the cost before sending more.

None of that happened at this ceremony.

Instead, the audience was prepared for more. More conflict. More death. More “sacrifice” that the speakers themselves will never make.

Part VII: What They’re Not Telling You

Here is what the ceremony did not include:

· The economic cost of war—money that could have funded healthcare, education, housing, now spent on weapons and reconstruction

· The human cost—not just American lives, but the lives of those we bomb, whose names we never learn, whose faces we never see

· The generational cost—trauma passed from parent to child, communities destroyed, futures stolen

· The moral cost—the slow erosion of what we claim to stand for, the normalization of killing, the acceptance of civilian death as “collateral damage”

These costs are real. They are borne not by the speakers at the podium, but by the people watching at home—and the people watching from rubble.

Part VIII: The Pattern

This is not new. It’s a pattern as old as war itself.

· Honor the veterans of yesterday

· Wrap yourself in their sacrifice

· Send the next generation to die

· Repeat

The names change. The wars change. The pattern does not.

Trump is not the first to do this. He won’t be the last. But he is perhaps the most transparent—the one who makes the mechanics visible, who shows the gears turning, who reveals the manipulation even as he performs it.

Conclusion: What We Can Do

The ceremony is over. The heroes have been honoured. The public has been primed.

Now comes the war.

But we don’t have to be passive consumers of this narrative. We can see through it. We can name it. We can refuse to let the dead become currency.

· Remember the real cost.

· Honor the veterans by questioning the wars.

· Support the families, not the policies that create orphans.

· See the mechanics. Name the manipulation. Refuse to be lulled.

The bastards who profit from war count on our silence, our patriotism, our willingness to look away.

We can look instead. We can see clearly. We can tell the truth.

And when they come for the next generation, we can say: We told you. We warned you. We will not let you pretend you didn’t know.

References

1. The White House. (2026). Remarks by President Trump at Medal of Honor Ceremony. 2 March 2026.

2. Associated Press. (2026). Trump awards Medals of Honor to three veterans. 2 March 2026.

3. The Atlantic. (2020). Trump’s History of Insulting War Heroes.

4. Brown University. (2025). Costs of War Project: 20-Year Update.

5. Watson Institute. (2025). Human Cost of Post-9/11 Wars.

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He accepts funding from no one, which is why his research can be trusted.

THE PROFIT OF CHAOS: How the West Creates Failed States and Feeds on the Wreckage

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: The Architecture of Engineered Disorder

When NATO jets streaked across Libyan skies in 2011 under the banner of “humanitarian intervention,” the world was told a simple story: civilians needed protection from Muammar Gaddafi’s forces. The result would be liberation, democracy, and prosperity for the Libyan people .

The reality was something else entirely.

Today, Libya’s GDP per capita has fallen by approximately 43% , from $12,000 before the intervention to roughly $6,800 today . But that number only tells part of the story. The rest is told in rival militias carving up oilfields, armed groups smuggling migrants across lawless borders, enslaved sub-Saharan Africans traded in open markets, and a nation reduced to a “patchwork of lawless zones” .

This is not an accident. It is not an unfortunate byproduct of well-intentioned policy. It is a system. And like all systems, it has beneficiaries.

This article examines the real cost of failed states—not in abstract humanitarian terms, but in concrete financial and strategic gains for those who profit from chaos. Arms dealers. Sex traffickers. Resource extraction corporations. Aid contractors. Private military companies. And the Western powers that enable them all while maintaining the fiction of moral superiority.

It asks a simple question that those in power would prefer remain unasked: Who benefits when states fail?

And it draws the historical connection that polite discourse avoids: between what Western powers are doing today and what they did to China in the 19th century, to Africa in the 19th century, to Latin America for two centuries under the Monroe Doctrine.

The methods have modernized. The players have changed. The game has not.

Part I: The Catalogue of Catastrophe – Western Interventions That Created Chaos

Libya: The 43% Solution

Before the 2011 intervention, Libya was one of Africa’s most prosperous states. Its citizens enjoyed free education, free healthcare, subsidised housing, and one of the highest literacy rates on the continent. The UN’s Human Development Index ranked Libya first in Africa in 2010 .

Yes, Gaddafi’s government maintained political repression. Critics were imprisoned. Opposition was banned. This is true and should not be minimized.

But the question history forces us to ask is: did the “solution” improve the problem?

Today, Libya is not a democracy. It is not even a functional state. It is a territory contested by militias, a transit point for arms and migrants, a place where foreign actors barter oil directly with armed groups, bypassing any central authority . In the Fezzan region, smugglers control gold and fuel trades under the tacit watch of external patrons .

The humanitarian rationale for intervention has long since evaporated. What remains is a nation stripped of sovereignty and a population left to fend for itself.

Iraq: The Birth of ISIS

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified by weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. The cost, by any honest accounting, has been catastrophic.

Beyond the half-million deaths, beyond the displacement of millions, the invasion created the conditions for something worse: the birth of ISIS from the wreckage of a shattered state . A functioning, secular, if authoritarian, state was replaced by sectarian violence, Iranian influence, and ultimately the rise of a terrorist organization that would destabilize the entire region.

Iraq’s oil, the stated objective of many critics at the time, ended up under the control of foreign firms through production-sharing agreements that heavily favoured Western companies over local institutions . The country’s resources continued to flow outward. Its people continued to suffer.

Afghanistan: The $2 Trillion Failure

After two decades and two trillion dollars, the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan . During those two decades, while Afghans faced poverty, violence, and ultimately defeat, Western interests were quietly exploring the country’s vast mineral wealth.

A little-known aspect of the disastrous occupation was how UK and Australian companies sought to access Afghanistan’s $3 trillion worth of untapped minerals . The Soviet Union had discovered deposits of copper, iron, lithium, uranium, natural gas, and rare earths during its occupation in the 1980s. The post-9/11 occupiers aimed to complete what Moscow could not.

The British Geological Survey worked in Afghanistan from at least 2004 to “develop a viable minerals industry” and “promote the potential of Afghanistan’s mineral resources to the outside world” . A 2007 report, funded by the UK Department for International Development, claimed that a successful resources industry could net “at least $300 million a year”—without specifying for whom .

Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest’s Fortescue Metals Group signed a secret memorandum of understanding with the Afghan government in September 2020 that would have given the company exclusive mining rights across 17 provinces for five years . The deal collapsed with the Taliban’s return, but it revealed the underlying dynamic: while Western publics were told their soldiers were fighting for democracy, Western corporations were positioning themselves to extract Afghan resources.

The Democratic Republic of Congo: Minerals, Mercenaries, and US “Peace” Deals

The pattern is perhaps most stark in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a US-brokered “peace” deal has been followed by a scramble for mining rights that has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with profit.

In July 2025, California-based KoBold Metals signed an agreement with the DRC government to explore critical mineral resources on over 1,600 square kilometers . In May 2025, KoBold announced the acquisition of rights to the Manono lithium deposit through a $1 billion agreement with Australian miner AVZ Minerals .

Another US consortium, featuring Orion Resources and Virtus Minerals—led by former US military and intelligence personnel—has become the frontrunner to acquire Chemaf Resources, a significant Congolese copper and cobalt producer . The opportunity came after the DRC government’s decision to block its sale to a Chinese state-owned enterprise, allegedly following pressure exerted by the US government .

These deals are not in the conflict-ridden eastern DRC. They lie in southern provinces, far from the fighting. Their timing suggests they are a direct outcome of the US-brokered agreement, despite having no connection to resolving violence or instability .

Meanwhile, in the conflict areas of eastern DRC, America First Global—led by close Trump associate Gentry Beach—is vying for rights to the Rubaya mine, which produces half of the country’s coltan . The mine relies on manual labor from impoverished men, women, and children .

US mercenary Erik Prince, founder of the infamous private military firm Blackwater and a longtime Trump ally, signed an agreement with Kinshasa in early 2025 to assist in enforcing taxation and reducing smuggling of minerals . In May, he was reportedly recruiting mercenaries for the DRC . Prince is behind serious human rights abuses over the past two decades, and his presence raises fears that while mines may be better protected, communities will continue living in a war zone .

The US government is also financing transport infrastructure to ensure mineral exports through the Lobito Corridor, a railway that runs from strategic mining areas of the DRC through Zambia to Angola . In 2024, the US Development Finance Corporation loaned Angola $553 million to upgrade the railway .

The aim appears to be building two separate export routes for Congolese minerals—the Lobito Corridor for copper and cobalt mined in the south, and Rwanda as a hub for minerals extracted in the conflict areas of eastern DRC .

Part II: The Beneficiaries – Who Profits When States Fail?

Arms Dealers and the War Economy

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, European private arms dealers saw an opportunity. Financial records obtained by The Investigative Desk reveal how 12,500 anti-tank grenades entered Ukraine through intermediaries from the Czech Republic, Estonia, and the Netherlands .

The Estonian intermediary retained EUR 2 million, or nearly 30% of the transaction value, as an apparent commission—six times more than market insiders consider normal . The large number of companies involved in such deals leads to poor monitoring and drives up prices, meaning Ukraine has fewer weapons to defend itself while intermediaries pocket fortunes .

This is the war economy in action. Conflict creates demand. Demand creates profits. And those profits flow to a network of intermediaries, brokers, and dealers who operate in the shadows.

The end of the Cold War flooded the market with surplus arms and trained soldiers looking for work. As Pete Singer of the Brookings Institution observed: “This incredible dump of goods and services has made it much easier for non-state actors to fight a war” .

Arms dealers such as Victor Bout, Leonid Minin, and Jacques Monsieur became the new face of conflict—entrepreneurs with connections to intelligence services, multinational corporations, political figures, and criminal syndicates across multiple continents . They operated as proxies for national or corporate interests whose involvement was buried under layers of secrecy .

The scale of the illicit arms trade is significant—about 10 percent of total world sales. But small arms have been the weapons of choice in 90 percent of conflicts since 1990 and were responsible for almost all the killing . A few planeloads of arms can have a devastating impact on fragile societies. Two helicopter gunships piloted by South African mercenaries altered the balance of war in Sierra Leone in 1999 in favor of the government .

Sex Trafficking and the Criminal Networks

When states fail, criminal networks flourish. Human trafficking—both sex trafficking and forced labor—is a direct beneficiary of the disorder that follows intervention.

The US State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report defines sex trafficking as a “range of activities involved when a trafficker uses force, fraud, or coercion to compel another person to engage in a commercial sex act or causes a child to engage in a commercial sex act” . Forced labor includes “threats of force, debt manipulation, withholding of pay, confiscation of identity documents, psychological coercion, reputational harm, manipulation of the use of addictive substances, threats to other people, or other forms of coercion” .

Countries in conflict and post-conflict situations routinely rank poorly on these measures. Afghanistan is classified as a Tier 3 state—among the worst offenders—along with Iran, Russia, and Syria . Thirteen countries, including Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria, were identified as having state-sponsored trafficking, including sexual slavery in government camps and forced labor .

The traffickers adapt constantly, taking advantage of conflicts, economic privation, and disorder . The chaos that follows Western intervention creates ideal conditions for their operations.

Resource Extraction: The Real Prize

The Oakland Institute’s investigation into the DRC mining deals exposes the underlying logic of Western intervention. When US-brokered “peace” agreements immediately lead to billion-dollar mining contracts for US corporations, the connection between military strategy and economic interest becomes impossible to deny.

In Afghanistan, the pattern was identical. British and Australian resource companies tried to access the country’s mineral wealth throughout the occupation . The British Geographical Survey worked to “promote the potential of Afghanistan’s mineral resources to the outside world” . Fortescue Metals Group signed a secret agreement that would have given it exclusive access to vast mining areas .

The former Afghan minister of mines who signed that agreement now lives in Sydney with his family, receiving Australian government assistance . Another former deputy minister is also in Australia. The beneficiaries of the failed state—or at least those who served the interests that created it—find safe haven in the countries that waged the war.

Private Military Companies: Mercenaries for Hire

Private military companies (PMCs) have become the new world order’s mercenaries, allowing governments to pursue policies in difficult regions with the distance and comfort of plausible deniability . The ICIJ investigation uncovered the existence of at least 90 private military companies that have operated in 110 countries worldwide .

These corporate armies offer specialized skills in high-tech warfare, including communications and signals intelligence, aerial surveillance, pilots, logistical support, battlefield planning, and training. They are hired by governments and multinational corporations to further policies or protect interests .

Supporters argue that PMCs save lives and boost security while being more cost-efficient than national militaries. But many operate in the same black hole of information that allows war profiteers to work with impunity .

Erik Prince’s activities in the DRC exemplify the model. His firm signed an agreement to assist in enforcing taxation and reducing mineral smuggling. He recruits mercenaries. He operates with the backing of US political connections. And while mines may be better protected, communities continue living in a war zone .

The Aid Industrial Complex

Even humanitarian aid, intended to alleviate suffering, has become part of the system. A study by Hebrew University law professor Netta Barak-Corren and Dr. Jonathan Boxman examined prolonged conflicts in Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Gaza. Their conclusion: aid diversion is not a rare mishap but a systemic feature of the current humanitarian system .

The diversion rates are staggering. In the most acute cases, more than 80% of aid was lost before reaching recipients . In Somalia, militias and “gatekeepers” intercept aid meant for displaced persons, with some camps existing only on paper. In Afghanistan, international aid organizations accepted Taliban-imposed taxes, staffing demands, and operational restrictions for decades. In Syria, currency exchange rules under the Assad regime allowed authorities to capture nearly half the value of international aid before distribution .

In Gaza, the study cited evidence that Hamas staffed nearly half of UNRWA positions with its loyalists and imposed a 20–25% tax on aid deliveries . A separate investigation found that, according to UN numbers, 85% of aid entering Gaza by truck since May 2025 has been stolen .

The researchers concluded that “avoiding the issue has allowed diversion to become part of the system” . Diverted aid strengthens the political and military position of armed actors, making it harder to end hostilities .

Part III: The Rhetoric of “Rogue States” – Who Are the Real Rogues?

The foreign policy discourse of the West increasingly focuses on two types of states: failed and rogue. Failed states signify descent into lawless violence. Rogue states denote willful defiance of international law’s rules and norms .

The former calls for international assistance. The latter demands punishment. Two different problems, two different responses—but one significant commonality: they are identified with the South, with the non-Western world, with those who resist the rules set by others .

The framework itself reveals the bias. States that cooperate with Western interests receive assistance when they fail. States that resist Western interests are labeled rogue and punished. The rules are not universal. They are instrumental.

Consider the list of countries designated as engaging in state-sponsored trafficking by the US State Department: Afghanistan, Belarus, Burma, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria . Notice anything about this list? It consists almost entirely of countries that are geopolitical adversaries of the United States.

Where is Saudi Arabia on this list? Where are the UAE, Egypt, or any of the other US allies with documented human rights abuses? The selectivity undermines the credibility of the entire framework.

As one analysis notes, “This selective morality undermines the credibility of the so-called rules-based order. The rules are not universal; they are instrumental, applied only where they serve strategic or economic interests” .

Part IV: The Historical Continuity – From the 19th Century to Today

The pattern Western powers are following today is not new. It is the same playbook they used in the 19th century against China, against Africa, against any region with resources to extract and populations too weak to resist.

The China Lesson

In the 19th century, Western powers carved China into spheres of influence through the “unequal treaties”—agreements imposed by military force that granted extraterritorial rights, opened ports to foreign trade, and ceded control over key economic assets. The Opium Wars were fought to force China to accept drug imports that destabilized its society and drained its wealth.

The justification was the same as today: opening China to civilization, spreading free trade, advancing the cause of humanity. The reality was resource extraction and market access.

When China resisted, it was labeled backward, uncivilized, in need of discipline. When it eventually regained control over its territory and began asserting its sovereignty, it became a “threat.”

The parallels to today’s labeling of nations as “rogue states” are unmistakable. The terms change. The function remains.

The Africa Lesson

The 19th-century scramble for Africa partitioned an entire continent among European powers with no regard for existing political structures, ethnic boundaries, or the wishes of African peoples. The Berlin Conference of 1884–85 formalized the carve-up, establishing the principle that European recognition of territorial claims mattered more than African sovereignty.

The justification was humanitarian: ending the Arab slave trade, spreading Christianity, bringing civilization to the “dark continent.” The reality was resource extraction—rubber, ivory, minerals, and later oil—and the brutal exploitation of African labor.

King Leopold’s Congo Free State, nominally established to promote humanitarian goals, became synonymous with atrocity. Between 5 and 10 million Congolese died under his rule. The rubber quotas that drove this slaughter fed European industrial demand.

Today’s interventions in Africa are pursued with similar humanitarian rhetoric and similar resource-extraction outcomes. The DRC mining deals described above are not an aberration. They are the continuation of a centuries-old pattern.

The Monroe Doctrine Legacy

The US has been at this game for even longer in its own hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine, adopted in 1823, essentially declared Latin America a US protectorate. Interventions followed whenever countries attempted to assert genuine sovereignty over their resources.

Guatemala (1954): The CIA overthrew democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz after he proposed land reforms that threatened United Fruit Company interests.

Chile (1973): The US backed the coup that overthrew Salvador Allende after he nationalized US-owned copper mines.

Nicaragua (1980s): The US funded the Contras to destabilize the Sandinista government.

Venezuela (ongoing): The US has supported efforts to remove Nicolás Maduro, whose crime is sitting on the world’s largest oil reserves and refusing to sell them on Western terms.

The pattern is consistent. The justification varies. The result is the same: resource extraction continues on terms favorable to Western interests.

Part V: The Argument Restated

Let me state the case plainly:

The West creates failed states through military intervention justified by humanitarian rhetoric, then benefits from the resulting chaos through multiple channels.

· Arms dealers sell weapons to all sides, prolonging conflict and maximizing profits .

· Sex traffickers and criminal networks exploit ungoverned spaces, with the resulting human misery conveniently blamed on local conditions rather than the intervention that created them .

· Resource extraction corporations gain access to minerals, oil, and other assets on favorable terms, often through deals negotiated in the chaos of post-conflict reconstruction .

· Private military companies secure contracts to protect mining operations, enforce taxation, and “stabilize” areas—at a profit .

· Aid contractors receive billions in “humanitarian” funding, a significant portion of which ends up diverted to armed groups, corrupt officials, and political elites .

The term “rogue state” is a rhetorical weapon applied selectively to countries that resist this system. The real rogues are those who design and benefit from it.

As one analyst observed, “Beware of the liberator who arrives with bombs and leaves with barrels of oil” .

Part VI: What Is to Be Done?

For nations of the Global South, the warning could not be clearer. External interventions, whether military, financial, or technological, always come with strings attached. When citizens, frustrated by domestic misrule, cheer at the prospect of outside “rescue,” they risk inviting domination disguised as deliverance .

The real task is internal: building accountable governance that listens to citizens, protects lives, and invests in opportunity. Competence, empathy, and integrity are the true shields against both internal decay and external exploitation .

For citizens of Western nations, the task is to see clearly, to name honestly, and to refuse the performance. When leaders speak of “humanitarian intervention,” ask who benefits. When they condemn “rogue states,” ask what resources those states control. When they promise to “stabilize” a region, ask whose stability they mean—the people who live there, or the corporations that want to extract there.

The evidence is available to anyone willing to look. The pattern is clear to anyone willing to see. The only question is whether we will continue to look away.

Conclusion: The System That Feeds on Ruin

In 2011, Libya was a functional if repressive state with the highest human development ranking in Africa. Today, it is a patchwork of warring militias, its oil traded by armed groups, its people struggling to survive a 43% drop in national income .

In 2003, Iraq was a secular dictatorship with functioning institutions. Today, it is a sectarian battleground that gave birth to ISIS .

In 2001, Afghanistan was a poor country under Taliban rule. After two decades and two trillion dollars, the Taliban are back in power, and Western corporations spent those decades positioning themselves to extract Afghan minerals .

In the DRC, a US-brokered “peace” deal has been followed by a scramble for mining rights that benefits US-connected billionaires, former military personnel, and mercenary companies .

The system is not broken. It is working exactly as designed. It creates chaos in one place, profits from that chaos in another, and maintains the fiction of moral purpose throughout.

The question is whether we will continue to accept the fiction.

References

1. Kolade, O. (2025). How US, NATO interventions leave nations in ruins. Tribune Online, 8 November 2025. 

2. The Investigative Desk. (2025). A rare glimpse into covert arms sales world: How Western companies make a fortune on brokering deals for Ukraine. 

3. Eurasianet. (2025). State Department human trafficking report notes slight improvement in some Central Asian states. 1 October 2025. 

4. The Oakland Institute. (2026). US Deals Already Underway. Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC. 

5. The Jerusalem Post. (2025). Humanitarian aid extends conflicts globally, usually stolen by insurgent groups – study. 12 August 2025. 

6. Devetak, R. (2007). Failures, rogues and terrorists. Taylor & Francis. 

7. Kolbe, J. (2008). Four “Poverty Traps” Are Part of Conundrum for Foreign Aid. European Affairs, Columbia University. 

8. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. (2025). Making a Killing: The Business of War. 

9. RNZ. (2025). NZ and Pacific nations failing to tackle human trafficking – US report. 2 October 2025. 

10. Loewenstein, A. (2026). UK, Australia’s Afghan resource grab. New Age BD, 24 February 2026. 

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He accepts funding from no one, which is why his research can be trusted.

GLOBAL OBSERVATIONS: The Week in Conflict

Posted on by
Reply

A Weekly Assessment by The Patrician’s Watch

27 February 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This week, two major flashpoints dominate the global security landscape: the escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran, and the continuing grind of Russia’s war against Ukraine with its attendant nuclear risks. Both theatres are interconnected through a common thread: the perceived weakening of America’s commitment to its traditional alliances and the rise of a more transactional, unpredictable US foreign policy.

SECTION ONE: THE HISTORICAL ROOTS – HOW WE GOT HERE

To understand where we are, we must understand how we arrived. The road to the current crisis in Ukraine—and by extension, the reordering of European security—is paved with decades of broken assurances, diplomatic failures, and clashing worldviews. Most analysts forget this history. We will not.

The 1990 Assurances

When the Soviet Union was collapsing, Western leaders faced a choice: integrate Russia into a new European security architecture, or press their advantage and expand NATO eastward.

In February 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would move “not one inch eastward” in exchange for Russian agreement to German reunification . These assurances were never formalized in a treaty, but Russian leaders have consistently cited them as the foundation of post-Cold War trust.

For a brief period, Russia sought integration with the West. In 1991, Russia joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. In 1994, it signed NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” framework . Boris Yeltsin even suggested NATO membership as a “long-term political aim” for Russia .

The Expansion Begins

Despite the informal assurances, NATO admitted Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1999. Russia protested but was too weak to respond effectively. The second wave in 2004 brought in the Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—all former Soviet republics directly bordering Russia .

For Moscow, this crossed a red line. The Baltic states had been part of the Soviet Union itself. Their accession to NATO meant the alliance was now on Russia’s border.

The 2008 Bucharest Summit

The tipping point came in April 2008 at the NATO summit in Bucharest. The alliance declared that “Georgia and Ukraine will eventually become NATO members” . This was not a decision about timing—it was a decision about principle. Russia’s response came five months later when it invaded Georgia and recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia .

The 2014 Watershed

In November 2013, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych rejected an EU association agreement under Russian pressure, triggering the Euromaidan protests. By February 2014, Yanukovych had fled, and a pro-Western government took power in Kyiv .

Russia responded by annexing Crimea in March 2014—a move it justified as protecting Russian speakers—and backing separatist forces in Donetsk and Luhansk . The Minsk agreements that followed were never fully implemented by either side. From 2014 to 2022, low-intensity conflict continued along the frontlines, with over 14,000 dead .

The Breakdown of Arms Control

The security architecture that had constrained great power competition for decades was systematically dismantled. The United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. It abandoned the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019 after years of mutual accusations of non-compliance . The New START treaty remains in effect but will expire in 2026 unless renewed.

The Pre-War Demands

By late 2021, Russia had massed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders. In December, Moscow issued draft treaties demanding that NATO halt all military activity in Eastern Europe and commit to no further expansion—including a formal rejection of Ukraine’s prospective membership . The United States and NATO rejected these demands and threatened severe economic sanctions.

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion . Putin justified it as necessary to “demilitarize and denazify” Ukraine and to end alleged genocide of Russian speakers—claims widely rejected internationally .

The Missed Peace

In March 2022, just weeks into the war, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators met in Istanbul. They produced a draft communique that came remarkably close to ending the conflict. Ukraine agreed to permanent neutrality—foregoing NATO membership—in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom .

The agreement never took effect. Western officials reportedly discouraged Ukraine from pursuing the deal, and the discovery of alleged Russian war crimes in Bucha hardened positions on both sides . Putin has repeatedly cited this episode as evidence that the West prefers war to a negotiated settlement .

Since then, the conflict has ground through multiple phases—Ukrainian counteroffensives, Russian winter campaigns, and the 2024 Kursk incursion—with neither side able to achieve decisive victory .

SECTION TWO: THE CURRENT CRISIS – RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

The Nuclear Dimension

While the world watches the Gulf, a different kind of nuclear risk is growing in Europe. A British think tank, the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI), has warned that “Russia could conduct a successful limited ground incursion into European Nato territory” and that Moscow “may resort to the use of limited nuclear strikes against Nato territory” if it faces unacceptable conventional losses.

The timeline for Russian readiness is estimated at 2027-2030. That is not distant. That is next year.

The American Commitment

The fundamental problem is the perceived reliability of the US nuclear umbrella. RUSI notes that “the UK nuclear arsenal is not ‘sovereign’ from the US,” meaning that if Washington’s commitment wavers, the independence of the British deterrent is unclear. French nuclear forces are not integrated into NATO and are doctrine-limited to “existential threats” to France itself.

Neither the UK nor France possesses the tactical nuclear weapons that would allow a proportionate response to a limited Russian strike. Their options are effectively all-or-nothing.

Putin’s Calculus

Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to frame the war as a struggle against NATO expansion itself. The Institute for the Study of War notes that Putin “remains committed to his original 2021–2022 war objectives, which go far beyond territorial conquest and are not limited to Ukraine.” Those objectives include effectively dismantling the Alliance and reshaping Europe’s security architecture.

Putin’s peace is not peace. It is capitulation, dressed in diplomatic language.

The European Response

Europe is beginning to confront the implications. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, has been blunt: “Europe is no longer Washington’s primary centre of gravity.” As the US pivots toward China-deterrence, European NATO members must prepare to carry more of their own weight.

Some are thinking radically. A proposal for a “Nordic nuclear deterrent” has been floated, arguing that the Nordic countries should consider a shared nuclear capability, integrated with NATO but providing an independent European backstop. The idea remains controversial, but the fact that it is being discussed at all signals how fundamentally the strategic landscape has shifted.

Current Status

Nearly four years since the full-scale invasion, Russia still occupies roughly 20 percent of Ukraine—gaining over four thousand square kilometers of territory in 2024 . Fighting and air strikes have inflicted over 53,000 civilian casualties, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced and 6.9 million have fled Ukraine . 12.7 million people need humanitarian assistance.

The Trump administration has revived efforts to negotiate a settlement, setting out a twenty-point draft peace deal. Although Ukraine tentatively accepted the proposal after discussions in Geneva, many terms remain unclear. Russia has stated it will not agree to any amended deal that departs from the “spirit and letter” of Putin’s August summit with Trump in Alaska .

SECTION THREE: THE PERSIAN GULF – EDGE OF THE ABYSS

The Military Build-Up

The most immediate crisis is unfolding in the Middle East. Over the past week, the United States has conducted its largest military build-up in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Over a dozen US Air Force fighter jets—including F-35s, F-22s, F-15s, and F-16s—have landed in Israel, with accompanying refuelling tankers and support aircraft. These forces have been positioned to project power directly against Iran.

The build-up is not subtle. It is designed to be seen. The message to Tehran is unmistakable: the military option is real, it is ready, and it is getting closer.

The Diplomatic Dance

Yet even as the war machine assembles, the diplomatic track continues. The third round of US-Iran negotiations is scheduled for Thursday in Geneva. Iran is reportedly prepared to offer a “counter-proposal” that provides “more guarantees on the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme” but refuses to permanently abandon enrichment or dismantle its ballistic missile program.

The US position, articulated by Vice President JD Vance, is stark: “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made clear that Iran’s refusal to discuss its missile program is “a big, big problem.”

The Israeli Factor

Behind the scenes, Israel is playing its familiar role. According to diplomatic sources, Israel is “doing everything it can to get the US to launch heavy strikes against Iran.” The 12-day war in June 2025 demonstrated Israel’s willingness to act unilaterally, but this time, they want American firepower fully engaged.

The Regional Response

The response from regional powers has been swift and telling. Australia has advised dependants of diplomats in Israel and Lebanon to leave, and has offered voluntary departures from the UAE, Qatar, and Jordan. The US has already pulled non-essential staff from its Beirut embassy. Several European and Asian nations have advised their citizens to leave Iran.

Airlines are suspending flights. KLM will halt Amsterdam-Tel Aviv routes from 1 March. The infrastructure of normal life is being dismantled in anticipation of what may come.

What Happens Next

The timeframe for possible action appears to be narrowing. Informed Egyptian analyst Samir Ragheb has suggested that a US strike could occur anytime between the end of February and 7 March. The key variables are:

1. The outcome of Geneva talks – If Iran offers sufficient concessions, action may be delayed

2. Israeli pressure – Netanyahu’s government continues to push for a harder line

3. Domestic US politics – Trump’s base has little appetite for another “forever war”

Analysis

Iran is at its weakest point in decades. Its “Axis of Resistance” has been significantly degraded by Israeli operations. Economic sanctions are biting. Domestic unrest has been growing. From Washington’s perspective, the window of maximum leverage is now.

But Iran is not Iraq. It has 92 million people, two million square kilometers of territory, and a deep civilisational identity. It has demonstrated capacity to hit regional US assets and to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil passes. A short war is the American hope. A long war is Iran’s strategy.

SECTION FOUR: THE THREAD CONNECTING THEM

Both crises share a common feature: the declining credibility of extended deterrence.

In the Gulf, America’s Arab partners are watching to see whether Washington will follow through on its threats. In Europe, NATO members are watching to see whether the US nuclear umbrella still protects them.

The answer, in both cases, is increasingly uncertain. The US National Security Strategy explicitly prioritises homeland defence and the Indo-Pacific, calling for a “readjusted global military presence.” Europe, the document states, must assume “primary responsibility for its own defence.”

This is not abandonment. It is strategic rebalancing. But the consequences are real, and they are being felt now.

CONCLUSION: WHAT COMES NEXT

The coming week will likely determine the near-term trajectory of the Iran crisis. If Geneva fails, military action becomes probable. If talks produce sufficient movement, the crisis may be deferred—but not resolved.

In Europe, the warning signs are flashing amber. The expiration of the last US-Russia nuclear treaty on 5 February leaves the strategic landscape more volatile than at any point since the Cold War. The Doomsday Clock has moved four seconds closer to midnight.

For our readers, the takeaway is simple: pay attention. The world is shifting beneath our feet. Alliances that have held for seventy years are being recalibrated. Nuclear risks that have lain dormant are reawakening.

We will continue to watch. We will continue to analyse. And we will continue to tell you what we see.

Next week: A deeper dive into the Strait of Hormuz and the global oil implications of a US-Iran conflict.

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is currently watching the world shift and remembering that history ignored is history repeated.

The Autoimmune Empire: How Unilateral Sanctions Undermine U.S. Strategic Competence – A Case Study of Extraterritorial Enforcement

Posted on by
Reply

CLASSIFICATION: Academic Analysis / Strategic Studies

DATE: 9 January 2026

By Andrew Klein PhD

Abstract

This paper argues that the contemporary U.S. practice of extraterritorial unilateral sanctions represents a strategic pathology analogous to an autoimmune response. Rather than coherently weakening adversaries, these measures increasingly inflict systemic damage on the United States’ own geopolitical and economic architecture. Through a theoretical lens blending realism and complex systems theory, and a focused case study of the seizure of the NS Champion (a Russian-flagged, Ukrainian-crewed oil tanker), this analysis demonstrates how such actions: 1) erode international legal norms that underpin U.S. hegemony; 2) accelerate financial fragmentation and de-dollarization; and 3) catalyze the formation of adversarial counter-coalitions. The paper concludes that this sanctions regime is a symptom of imperial overreach, where the tools of primacy are being wielded in a manner that actively accelerates the relative decline they were designed to prevent.

1. Introduction: The Pathology of Primacy

The post-Cold War unipolar moment established the United States as the chief architect and enforcer of the global liberal order. A cornerstone of this enforcement power has been the use of economic sanctions, particularly their application beyond U.S. borders. However, the strategic utility of this tool is now in radical flux. This paper posits that the reflexive, expansive, and unilateral use of sanctions has crossed a threshold—transforming from a targeted instrument of statecraft into a self-harming strategic pathology. The metaphor of an autoimmune response is apt: the immune system (the U.S.-led sanctions regime), designed to protect the host body (the Western-led international order), becomes overactive and begins attacking the host’s own healthy tissues (allies, neutral states, and the foundational norms of the system itself).

2. Theoretical Framework: Sanctions as a Complex System Stressor

· Realist Calculus vs. Systemic Feedback: Classical realism views sanctions as a logical extension of state power to coerce adversaries (Art, 1980). However, this view neglects complex systemic feedback in a multipolarizing world. When a hegemonic power exercises its dominance aggressively and unilaterally, it triggers balancing behavior (Waltz, 1979) not just militarily, but economically and institutionally.

· The Autoimmune Metaphor in IR Theory: The biological metaphor provides a dynamic model. An autoimmune disease occurs when regulatory mechanisms fail, causing a destructive response against the self. Analogously, the U.S. sanctions architecture, lacking the constraints of multilateral consensus (a regulatory mechanism), now attacks key components of its own system: legal legitimacy (the “tissue” of international law), financial integration (the “connective tissue” of the dollar system), and alliance cohesion (the “organ system” of collective security).

3. Case Study: The Seizure of the NS Champion – A Textbook Autoimmune Attack

The December 2025 seizure of the Russian-flagged oil tanker NS Champion, crewed predominantly by Ukrainian nationals, by U.S. authorities off the coast of Singapore is a paradigmatic example.

3.1 The Action:

Acting under unilateral sanctions authorities, U.S. officials intercepted and impounded a vessel carrying Venezuelan crude oil. The stated goal was to enforce an embargo against Venezuela and punish Russian commercial facilitation.

3.2 The Self-Harming Strategic Consequences:

1. Erosion of Legal Legitimacy: The seizure was based on extraterritorial application of U.S. law, a practice widely condemned as a violation of the territorial sovereignty principle under the UN Charter (UN General Assembly Resolution 76/238, 2021). This creates international opprobrium, casting the U.S. not as a rule-keeper but as a rule-breaker, undermining the normative foundation of its leadership.

2. Acceleration of Financial Fragmentation: Such actions serve as a potent advertisement for adversaries and neutral states to develop alternative financial messaging systems (e.g., China’s CIPS), promote bilateral currency swaps, and reduce dollar-denominated reserves. Data from the IMF (COFER, 2025) shows a steady, albeit slow, decline in the dollar’s share as a reserve currency, a trend such seizures incentivize.

3. Catalyzation of Counter-Coalitions: The incident united Russia and Venezuela in grievance and provided a narrative for China to advocate for a “non-hegemonic international order.” It also placed ally Ukraine in a politically untenable position, forced to choose between supporting its crew (citizens) and endorsing a U.S. action that benefits its enemy (Russia). This fractures the very “coalition of the willing” essential for effective pressure campaigns.

4. Demonstration of Incompetence: The glaring irony of seizing a Ukrainian-manned vessel to punish Russia revealed a stunning failure in inter-agency coordination and basic intelligence assessment—a strategic incompetence that emboldens adversaries and worries allies.

4. The Broader Autoimmune Landscape: Beyond a Single Case

The NS Champion is not an anomaly but a symptom. The same pathology is evident in:

· Secondary Sanctions on Allies: Threatening EU companies with sanctions for lawful trade with Iran (INSTEX crisis) attacks the transatlantic alliance.

· Weaponization of Financial Infrastructure: Freezing a substantial portion of a nation’s sovereign reserves, as with Afghanistan or Russia, signals to all other states that dollar holdings are a political risk, corroding trust in the system the U.S. controls.

· The ASPI Parallel: The cited competence of think-tanks like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), which often produces analysis justifying escalatory postures without commensurate strategic cost-benefit analysis, represents an intellectual autoimmune response—where the strategic discourse itself becomes divorced from pragmatic outcomes, fostering groupthink and policy overreach.

5. Conclusion: Managing the Disorder in an Age of Decline

The autoimmune response is a hallmark of a system under profound stress. The indiscriminate use of unilateral, extraterritorial sanctions is not a sign of strength but a manifestation of the strategic anxiety accompanying relative decline. Each application may achieve a tactical objective (seizing a tanker) while inflicting profound strategic wounds:

1. It legitimizes alternatives to U.S.-dominated systems.

2. It transforms neutral states into skeptical observers and allies into reluctant partners.

3. It exposes a gap between strategic ambition and competent execution.

Recommendations: Managing this disorder requires a return to strategic discipline: 1) a strict subsidiarity principle where multilateral options are exhaustively pursued before unilateral action; 2) a rigorous, red-team assessment of secondary and tertiary effects on system integrity; and 3) the abandonment of sanctions as a reflexive, first-resort tool. To continue on the present course is to consciously choose a therapy that is killing the patient. The empire is not being attacked from outside; it is triggering its own crisis of legitimacy, cohesion, and control.

References

· Art, R. J. (1980). The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics. University Press of America.

· Drezner, D. W. (2021). The United States of Sanctions: The Use and Abuse of Economic Coercion. Foreign Affairs.

· International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2025). Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER). Data.

· United Nations General Assembly. (2021). Resolution 76/238: “Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries.”

· Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill.

· Case Specific: Lloyd’s List Intelligence. (2025, December). Vessel Seizure Report: NS Champion. [Trade publication data on vessel flag, ownership, and crew nationality].

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This analysis aligns with research conducted during my Master of Arts in Strategic Studies, which explored systemic feedback loops in coercive statecraft. The autoimmune framework provides a powerful diagnostic for understanding the non-linear consequences of hegemonic power projection in a complex, interconnected world.

Feudal Obligation to the Industrial Meat Grinder

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew Klein 

In the ancient and feudal model, war was a limited affair. A lord or king called upon vassals who owed him military service for a set period (often 40 days). Warfare was constrained by the logistics of the royal treasury and the agricultural calendar—soldiers had to return home for the harvest. The spoils of war—land, plunder—were tangible, and the fighting was often for immediate, tangible goals: defence of territory, or the expansion of a ruler’s personal domain.

The change began in earnest with the French Revolution and Napoleon. Napoleon introduced the levée en masse—the first modern conscription. This was a revolutionary and terrifying new idea: the entire nation was the army. War was no longer the profession of a knightly class; it was the duty of every citizen. This was the birth of the “nation in arms,” and with it, the potent ideology of nationalism.

The Manufacture of Loyalty: Selling the Flag

With conscription came the need to manufacture consent and loyalty on an industrial scale. The state, now an abstract concept, had to be sold to its people as the ultimate object of devotion.

· Symbolism Over Substance: The flag, the anthem, and the mythologized history became sacred. They were tools to create an imagined community, persuading a farmer from Brittany that he shared a common destiny and should die for a banker from Paris.

· The One-Way Covenant: This new loyalty was a one-way street. The citizen owed the state their life, their taxes, and their children. The state offered in return a mythical future of glory and security, with no contractual obligation to deliver. Your brother’s death was framed not as a tragedy, but as a “supreme sacrifice” for the patrie, the fatherland—an abstract entity that would outlive him and therefore justified his extinction.

The Financial Revolution: Breaking the Gold Chain

Perhaps the most significant enabler of modern, total war was the financial revolution: the move away from the Gold Standard to Fiat Currency.

· The Old Limit: A king could only wage war for as long as his gold reserves held out. This was a natural check on conflict.

· The New “Magic”: Fiat currency, money backed by government decree rather than a physical commodity, changed everything. A government could now, in essence, create money out of thin air to pay for war. It could finance conflict through massive deficit spending, bonds sold to its own citizens, and inflation. The limits were no longer tangible, but political and psychological. Wars could now be fought for years, draining the real wealth—the lives, labour, and resources—of a nation while the financial elite profited from the lending and industrial production.

The American Civil War: The Neoliberal Blueprint

The American Civil War as a horrifying prototype. It was the first truly modern, industrial war.

· Total Economic Mobilization: It saw the full mobilization of national industrial capacity—railroads, telegraphs, mass-produced arms—to destroy the enemy’s economic infrastructure and will to fight.

· A War of Attrition: It was not fought by professional armies in set-piece battles, but by massive conscript armies in a grinding war of attrition, where the side with the last man and bullet standing would win.

· Extractive Lessons: The Northern victory, driven by its industrial and financial might, provided a blueprint. It demonstrated that a modern state could leverage its entire economic system to prevail in a conflict. The elites observed that war could be used to centralize power, crush alternative economic models (like the agrarian South), and open up new territories and populations for exploitation. The “Reconstruction” that followed was less about healing and more about the systematic economic subjugation of the South, a model of post-conflict control and resource extraction.

The 20th Century: War as a Business Model with Human Breeding Cycles

The World Wars cemented this model. WWI was the ultimate testament to the failure of the old world and the terrifying efficiency of the new. It was a slaughter funded by fiat currency and nationalism, where millions died for gains measured in yards of mud.

The aftermath of WWI—the Great Depression—provided the final, brutal lesson for the common person. It proved conclusively that the population never wins. Even the “victorious” powers were left with shattered economies, a “lost generation,” and social trauma. The profits flowed to the arms manufacturers, the industrialists, and the financiers who funded both sides. The interlude of peace was not for recovery, but to allow a new generation to grow up—to replenish the stock of human capital for the next conflict.

This is the modern business model of war:

1. Create a nationalistic myth to ensure a supply of loyal citizens.

2. Use fiat currency to break the natural financial constraints on conflict.

3. Mobilize the entire industrial base around war production, creating immense profits for connected corporations.

4. Engage in a conflict that grinds down the human and material resources of the enemy (and your own population).

5. During the “peace,” impose economic policies (like the austerity after WWI) that create the desperation and inequality that make the next generation willing to fight.

The citizen is the resource—the cannon fodder, the taxpayer, the factory worker, and the consumer of the debt. The elites are the permanent class that manages this system, a system where war is not a failure of policy, but a perversely logical and profitable outcome of it. They have engineered a perpetual motion machine of extraction, and we are the fuel.