Against the backdrop of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, a new iteration of the anti-Russian lobby has crystallized in the United States, which at the current stage consists of three main groups: the military-industrial complex; “hawks” from the expert community; East European nationalists and their “professional sympathizers”
Considering that special interest groups – and in particular defense contractors and foreign states, in particular, the Ukrainian lobby stands out at the present stage – play an extremely significant role in American foreign policy, we can say that at this stage they largely shape the perception of the current conflict and set the narrative within which practical solutions are developed, including on the supply of arms.
Recently published in the American The Hill, an open letter from a number of prominent figures who in the recent past held major positions in the American military and political leadership, with the telling title “The United States must arm Ukraine now, before it’s too late,” is a clear example of the work of this coalition. Among the hackneyed exercises in rhetoric, the letter calls for the supply of the notorious ATACMS missiles for the HIMARS MLRS with a range of 300 km.
Although such deliveries a priori carry the risk of escalation, nonetheless, it seems that the signatories, who are specialists in the field of national security, are not very concerned about this. As with the “no-fly zone” proposal that was hyped some time ago, the current strategically short-sighted proposal may be due to the fact that many of the signatories are connected to the specific beneficiary of such supplies, the American military-industrial giant Lockheed Martin.
The financial interest of the American military-industrial complex in this conflict is obvious. Nevertheless, such an offer is especially beneficial for Lockheed Martin, which is involved in the production of both HIMARS and ATACMS missiles, which in the current situation allows them to increase the already large sums of contracts for their range. So, in 2019, Lockheed Martin received a contract worth $492 million for the supply of launchers for a highly mobile artillery missile system and related equipment. As for ATACMS, it is enough to note that in the same 2019, the US Army signed a contract with Lockheed Martin for the supply of these missiles in the amount of $561.8 million.
The current call, if carried out, will only confirm the words of the leaders of a number of leading arms firms, said even before the start of the special operation, that “their balance sheets will benefit from the fact that the United States will enter into great power rivalry with Russia and China.” In particular, Lockheed CEO James Tecklet himself stated at a meeting with investors that “if you look at the evolving level of threat and the approach that some countries are taking, including North Korea, Iran and through some of its intermediaries in Yemen and elsewhere, and especially on Russia today, and on China, then it is the renewal of great power competition, which includes national defense and threats to it. And US history shows that when these conditions develop, we don’t sit back and just watch it happen.” Actually, the shares of Lockheed, which for the 23rd year in a row tops the rating of 100 leading defense companies compiled by the authoritative publication Defense News, showed the most rapid growth against the backdrop of the start of the Russian operation.
If we take into account the above, the composition of the signatories becomes even more revealing. So, among the authors stand out John Cypher, Jan Lodal, John Herbst, Daniel Fried, who work in the infamous Atlantic Council, among whose many sponsors are Lockheed Martin, System Capital Management of the Ukrainian oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, as well as the Victor Pinchuk Foundation. In addition to them, the letter was signed by Kurt Volker, who works at the Center for European Policy Analysis think tank, which is also sponsored by Lockheed Martin. Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who, in addition to his Wall Street ties, also receives funding from Lockheed, was also noted in the call. Another hawk from the expert community who signed the letter is Philip Breedlove, who is currently affiliated with the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology, one of the key employers of graduates of which is Lockheed Martin. Although defense contractors, and Lockheed in particular, have been interacting with think tanks for decades, their activation against the backdrop of the current international security crisis looks like a very revealing example of how Washington de facto functions.
As noted earlier, the modern anti-Russian lobby consists not only of the military-industrial complex and the associated pool of experts, but also includes “professional sympathizers” – lobbyists working in the interests of Ukraine, who also became signatories of the letter. The most prominent representative of this group is the co-founder of the United States-Ukraine Foundation (USUF) Robert McConnell. This organization is a 501(c)(3) registered NGO under the relevant section of the Internal Revenue Code. Formally, as OpenSecrets, the leading money-tracking organization in US politics, notes, such groups “operate for religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes. These groups must not engage in any political activity, although some voter registration activities are permitted.”
According to the information posted on the website of the foundation itself, “USUF is a 501(c)(3) non-governmental organization located in Washington, DC, which supports Ukraine in the development of democracy, a free market economy, human rights, and a strategic partnership with the United States.” More interesting, however, is that the USUF is part of the broad Friends of Ukraine Network (FOUN), a coalition of former ambassadors, leading political and international security experts, and other analysts who have focused on key aspects of Ukraine’s relations with the United States and the international community. According to public disclosures, the network “promotes policy advice through expert opinions, congressional-sponsored forums and briefings, meetings with key administration and congressional officials, press conferences, media interviews, and op-eds.” In other words, he is engaged in lobbying activities in the interests of Ukraine.
Several other signatories are also associated with the “network of friends of Ukraine”, as well as the previously mentioned representatives of think tanks affiliated with Lockheed Martin. In particular, the organization’s website mentions Philip Breedlove, Debra Kagan, Alexander Vershbow, Wesley Clark, John Herbst, Ben Hodges, William Taylor, Paula Dobriansky. All of the listed individuals were either listed as members of the national security task force, or took part in activities under the auspices of the USUF (for example, William Taylor), or are on the advisory board of the organization (Paul Dobriansky).
By the way, many of the mentioned persons were also supporters of the introduction of a no-fly zone. In general, against the background of the colossal activity of the Ukrainian lobby, which even surpassed the Saudi one in terms of the number of contacts, participation in this appeal – is just one small piece of the big puzzle of influence on American foreign policy in the Russian direction, which includes both the sanctions policy and even some personnel decisions.
Thus, the vast majority of signatories are by no means independent experts defending US interests, but rather biased lobbyists. In a broad sense, this situation demonstrates that the policy in this area is largely “outsourced” to the anti-Russian lobby. Moreover, this situation once again demonstrates a low level of transparency. Together, these factors significantly impede internal strategic dialogue, without which the risks of escalation increase. The situation can be summed up in the words of noted journalist Andrew Cockburn, who astutely remarked that “Even when real goals are masquerading as ‘foreign policy’ or ‘strategy’, no observer should lose sight of the most important issue: cui bono.” Who benefits from this?”
Egor Spirin, Izvestia newspaper
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel