Europe's Fiscal Acrobatics for Perpetual War
Recently, both German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and UK Defense Minister Grant Shapps echoed a stark message: European citizens must brace for "hard choices" to fund increased military expenditure. This directive conveniently follows German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall's record profits, reporting €7.2 billion in sales in 2023, a 12% increase. The narrative frames this as a necessary response to an
external threat, implying a collective sacrifice is required. Yet, the historical record shows precisely who benefits most from such 'hard choices.' In 2022, the five largest military contractors—Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics—reported a combined $185 billion in sales. These companies, and the politicians they heavily lobby through PACs and dark money
groups, consistently push for increased defense budgets. For instance, between 2003 and 2022, major defense contractors spent over $2 billion on lobbying in the US alone. This is not a new phenomenon; it mirrors the post-Cold War expansion of NATO and the justifications for interventions from Iraq in 2003 based on fabricated intelligence, through Libya in 2011, culminating in widespread
destabilization. The public is presented with a choice between social welfare and national security, while the actual choice made is often between enriching a select few and addressing fundamental societal needs. Where is the similar call for 'hard choices' when it comes to regulating financial markets or taxing corporate profits? Readers should recognize this pattern: a manufactured consensus