Tag: war

Why Western Support for Armed Groups Depends on Strategy, Not Morality

Western support for armed groups has never followed a simple moral rule. Western support for armed groups depends on strategy, not sympathy. One faction is branded a terrorist group while another is quietly invited into military coordination rooms. The difference is rarely moral. It is almost always geopolitical. Some movements, like Hamas, remain isolated. Others move from enemy to ally in a few short years. History shows that when a group aligns with Western strategic goals, labels change quickly.

The Kosovo Liberation Army: From Blacklist to Battlefield Partner

In the mid-1990s, the Kosovo Liberation Army was dismissed by some U.S. officials as a terrorist group. It carried out attacks on Serbian police and officials. Yet the picture changed when Slobodan Milošević escalated violence against Kosovo’s Albanian civilians. The West wanted to stop a humanitarian catastrophe and stabilise the Balkans. The KLA was already active on the ground, so it became a useful partner.

By 1999, NATO was bombing Serbian positions while the KLA acted as its informal ground force. The “terrorist” label disappeared. Strategic interest replaced it. This was one of the clearest examples of Western backing of insurgent groups driven by necessity.

The Nicaraguan Contras: A Cold War Battlefield

In the 1980s, Washington fixated on stopping Soviet influence in Central America. The Sandinista government in Nicaragua was seen as a threat. The Reagan administration responded by funding, training, and supporting the Contras through the CIA.

Human rights groups documented torture, kidnappings, and attacks on civilians by Contra fighters. But their conduct mattered less than their usefulness. They were a Cold War proxy force. The goal was to weaken the Sandinistas, even at high moral cost. This was Western alliances with rebel groups shaped entirely by ideology.

The Afghan Mujahideen: A Costly Victory

The most famous case of Western support for armed groups is Afghanistan. When the Soviet Union invaded in 1979, the U.S. launched Operation Cyclone. Billions of dollars were funneled to Mujahideen factions through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

These fighters were celebrated as heroes in Western media. When the Soviets withdrew, the policy looked like a success. But the aftermath was catastrophic. The country descended into civil war. The Taliban emerged. Foreign fighters like Osama bin Laden built global jihadist networks. The U.S. had armed movements that would later turn against it. This became the ultimate warning about Western geopolitical partnerships built on short-term goals.

The Pattern Behind Western Choices

These cases show a consistent logic. The West supports groups that advance its strategic interests. It avoids groups that threaten those interests. The KLA helped stop mass killing in the Balkans. The Contras fought a Soviet-aligned government. The Mujahideen weakened the Soviet military.

Hamas does not fit this pattern. Its ideology is anti-Western. It targets civilians. It seeks to dismantle an important U.S. ally. It offers no strategic benefit to the U.S. or the EU. The decision not to support Hamas is not a contradiction. It follows the same rule the West has used for decades.

The Strategic Rule That Never Changes

Labels shift, alliances shift, and narratives shift. But one rule stays constant.
Great powers do not arm groups that aim their weapons at them.

Meta Description (150 characters)

Why the West supports some armed groups but not others. A look at Kosovo, the Contras, and the Mujahideen to explain today’s stance on Hamas.

Why Europe Still Thinks Russia Will Not Attack

Europe’s confidence in Russian non-aggression stems from historical logic and reliance on NATO, but this belief may be precarious. Despite high anti-Russian sentiment, many Europeans remain unprepared for possible conflict. The illusion of interdependence persists, even as military readiness declines. Europe’s peace is contingent on active vigilance and preparedness.

Many Europeans still believe Russia will not attack Europe because it appears irrational and costly. That belief has shaped policymaking for thirty years. Yet history shows that logic does not always prevent conflict.

How Europe Swapped Tanks for Energy Deals

After 1945, Western Europe placed its trust in memory and trade. The memory of war pushed governments to avoid confrontation. Cheap Soviet and later Russian energy supported industry and comfort.
By the 2000s, Germany ended conscription, France froze defence spending, and Britain reduced its army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era. This was called the peace dividend.

Russia’s attack on Georgia in 2008 and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 should have shaken that idea. Many in Berlin and Brussels dismissed both events as regional flare-ups rather than warnings. War was treated as something from another age.

NATO’s Umbrella and Europe’s Deterrence Belief

Most EU capitals rely on NATO’s Article 5 as their shield. It is quoted almost like scripture.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reminded members: “Deterrence only works if it is credible. That credibility depends on unity and investment.”

Yet European armies remain under-equipped. SIPRI’s 2025 report found only seven NATO states meeting the 2 percent GDP defence target. Germany promises to reach it by 2027, but its parliamentary audit warns about critical ammunition shortages.

The Illusion of Interdependence

For decades, the assumption was that economic links made conflict impossible. Europe needed gas. Russia needed Europe. Even after Ukraine lost Crimea, Nord Stream continued to operate.

The illusion collapsed after 2022, but the mindset survives. There is still a quiet belief that war will not happen because war hurts business.

Europeans Distrust Russia but Still Feel Safe

A 2025 Pew survey showed that 82 percent of Europeans view Russia negatively, yet far fewer feel an imminent threat.
The ECFR found sharp differences across the continent. Poles and Finns remain deeply worried. Italians and Spaniards do not see Russia as their main danger.

In Western Europe, peace is psychological. People trust NATO more than they trust their own military readiness.

The Price of Europe’s Peace Shows in Daily Life

In Warsaw, a shopkeeper named Ewa says she no longer reacts when sirens sound during drills. They happen every month.
In Munich, pensioners complain about gas bills that doubled after sanctions. They still shrug and say the war is far away.

This combination of fear and detachment is what keeps public calm alive.

What European Children Hear at Home

In Tallinn, parents whisper about conscription lists. One mother told Estonian Public Radio that her twelve-year-old asks whether he will have to fight when he turns eighteen.
A child’s question in a peaceful country reveals the uncertainty that politicians rarely admit.

Europe Is Tired and Distracted

Inflation, migration, energy transition, and far-right politics stretch governments thin. The Ukraine war feels both urgent and distant.

An ECFR survey in 2024 showed that most Europeans want the war to end as soon as possible, even if Ukraine gives up territory. That fatigue shapes Europe’s thinking about whether Russia will attack Europe in the future.

Why This Assumption Is Dangerous

Deterrence without readiness can fail. Adversaries often act when their opponent is tired. Russia surprised Europe in Crimea and again during the attack on Kyiv.

A future surprise may not be a tank crossing a border. It could be sabotage, cyberattacks, or political disruption.
SIPRI analysts warn that European military stocks and recruitment remain at peacetime levels despite talk of rearmament.

What Europe Needs to Remember

Peace does not maintain itself. Europe must accept that:

  • Deterrence requires real capability and political will.
  • Economic interdependence can collapse in one winter.
  • Public confidence does not equal preparedness.
  • Peace is a deliberate choice that demands investment.

Final Reflection

Europe believes Russia will not attack because it has not happened yet. History often turns when people least expect it.
The real danger may not be Russia’s aggression but Europe’s disbelief that conflict could return.

Veterans and the Anti-War Movement: A Call for Change

[The scent of tear gas still clung to his jacket.]

He hadn’t marched in years. His son was deployed to Iraq, and the old man found himself on the streets again. This time, he had a new sign: “Bring Them Home, For Real.” His first protest had been in 1969. Now it was 2004. Two wars, one weary heart, and the same flag waving overhead.

Is it still patriotic to question a war? Or has dissent become the new American tradition?

Red, White, and Protest: A Different Kind of Loyalty

You ever notice how protests always come with flags?

Not the burned ones—those make headlines. I mean the carried ones. Folded, unfurled, draped around shoulders. Protesters holding American flags upside down, not in hate, but in distress. Some stitched with peace signs. Others signed with names of the dead.

For many, the anti-war movement wasn’t about rejecting America. It was about rescuing it—from itself.

During the Vietnam War, students, musicians, and mothers didn’t just chant “Hell no, we won’t go” in rebellion. They said it because they believed a better America was possible. One that didn’t bomb rice paddies in the name of democracy. One that didn’t need body bags to feel strong.

The media labeled them radicals. But they saw themselves as citizens. Sometimes, better citizens than those giving the orders.

When Veterans Became the Conscience

Here’s what I noticed.

The most powerful voices against war? Often the ones who wore the uniform.

In 1985, a group of Vietnam veterans formed Veterans for Peace. They formed it not to burn their medals. Instead, they aimed to stop more wars from needing them. After 9/11, a younger generation joined in. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars brought forth a flood of disillusionment.

Groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) emerged. They were soldiers who had seen the “Mission Accomplished” banner. They knew it was a lie. They didn’t protest because they hated America. They protested because they loved the people who came back in pieces, or didn’t come back at all.

Some testified in front of Congress. Others threw their medals onto barricades in D.C. A few just wrote blog posts from their VA hospital beds. But all of them were asking one thing:

Is serving your country the same as obeying it blindly?

Mothers in Headscarves and Combat Boots

A weird thing happened in the 2000s.

The image of the anti-war activist changed.

No longer just students in tie-dye. Now it was military moms in Texas. It included Black clergy in Georgia. There were Gold Star widows in Arizona. People like Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, camped outside George W. Bush’s ranch asking, “For what noble cause did my son die?”

Or Muslim Americans who marched against drone wars, holding photos of children who looked like their cousins. The anti-war movement expanded its voice. It wasn’t Left or Right anymore. It was human.

Can Love for Country Include Dissent?

Maybe that’s the real question.

The flag has been co-opted so often—by war hawks, by corporations, by those who demand silence. But what if patriotism means more than salutes and standing still?

What if it means kneeling, marching, questioning?

What if the bravest thing a citizen can do is say, “I love my country too much.” They may refuse to watch it kill blindly.

I saw a sign once that stuck with me. It said:

“Dissent is not disloyalty. Silence is.”

Maybe that’s the problem.

Or maybe that’s the beginning of something better.

How the Media Sells Wars: From Vietnam to Gaza

Each generation swears it will not be fooled again. And yet, time and again, the public is sold on new wars with old tactics. From Vietnam to Iraq, Libya to Ukraine, and now Gaza and Iran, the mechanisms are familiar. The messengers, often recycled. The media, too often complicit.

Wars are not just fought with bombs and boots. They are prepared through headlines, shaped by studio debates, and sold via fear-laced soundbites. This post examines how media coverage has played a central role in enabling wars. It does this by constructing compelling but often misleading narratives. These narratives override skepticism and drown out dissent.

Vietnam: The First Televised War

The Vietnam War marked the first time American households watched war unfold on their evening news. Initially, networks largely echoed the government line, portraying U.S. involvement as a necessary stand against communism.

Walter Cronkite’s famous 1968 broadcast, in which he said the war would end in stalemate, marked a turning point. Yet, until then, images of burning villages and casualty reports were presented with little context or critique. The Gulf of Tonkin incident—which led to a major escalation—was later revealed to be grossly misrepresented, if not fabricated.

Iraq 2003: Weapons of Mass Deception

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is perhaps the most infamous case of media-enabled warfare. It was sold on the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Cable networks aired breathless coverage of mobile weapons labs, mushroom clouds, and Colin Powell’s now-discredited UN speech.

The New York Times later admitted it failed in its duty, publishing unverified claims from sources like Ahmed Chalabi. Meanwhile, dissenting voices such as Scott Ritter and Hans Blix were sidelined.

Journalist Chris Hedges noted:

“The media gives credibility to people who have no business being taken seriously.”

Libya 2011: The Forgotten Fallout

In 2011, the media overwhelmingly supported the NATO-led intervention in Libya. News outlets echoed the line that Muammar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide in Benghazi. The result? Gaddafi was overthrown and killed. However, the country plunged into chaos. Open-air slave markets appeared in the years that followed.

Mainstream outlets rarely revisited the post-war consequences.

Ukraine 2022: Good vs Evil Framing

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine rightly sparked global outrage. But media coverage quickly adopted a moral binary: Ukraine as entirely noble, Russia as cartoonishly evil. This black-and-white narrative left little room to discuss NATO expansion or the role of Western interests in the region.

Experts like John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky, who offered critical historical perspectives, were rarely featured in major Western outlets.

Gaza 2023–2024: Language as a Weapon

Perhaps no conflict illustrates the role of language in war narratives more clearly than Israel’s war in Gaza. Terms like “clashes” and “retaliation” are selectively used. Palestinian deaths are often passive: “X people died,” versus “Israel was attacked by Hamas.”

CNN, BBC, and others have been criticized for underreporting civilian casualties or relying heavily on Israeli government sources without verification. Social media has forced some reckoning, with independent journalists like Motaz Azaiza and platforms like Al Jazeera gaining unprecedented visibility.

The Mechanics: How It Works

  1. Pretext: A dramatic event (real or inflated) triggers fear. Gulf of Tonkin. 9/11. Chemical attacks.
  2. Experts: Think tanks and former officials dominate airwaves. They often have undisclosed ties to defense contractors.
  3. Moral framing: The war is a fight for freedom, democracy, human rights. Never about oil, arms sales, or strategic positioning.
  4. Erasure of dissent: Voices questioning the narrative are painted as naive, traitorous, or pro-enemy.
  5. Limited coverage of aftermath: The camera moves on. The consequences fade.

Conclusion: The Cost of Compliance

The price of media complicity is measured in lives lost, regions destabilized, and truths buried. When the press becomes a participant in the drumbeat to war rather than a check on power, democracy falters.

To resist the next war narrative, we must remember the last. Skepticism is not cynicism. It is civic responsibility.

As Hedges said:

“The credibility of these media figures lies not in their accuracy, but in their usefulness to power.”

Let us be less useful. Let us remember. Let us ask better questions.

Permanent War Economy: Why Peace Is Bad for Business

The Profits of Perpetual Conflict: An Introduction

Why does it seem like there is always going to be a new war? The U.S. seems to be stuck in a cycle of endless military engagements. These range from Iraq and Afghanistan to Syria, Libya, and now Iran. This isn’t just about mistakes in foreign policy or failures of intelligence, though. It has to do with money. A lot of money.

Seymour Melman, an economist, came up with the term “permanent war economy” in the middle of the 20th century. He said that America’s growing reliance on military spending would hurt its economy and democracy. His warnings seem to have come true today. When defense contractors pay for think tanks, which then fill news panels and give politicians advice, peace is the norm. The plan is to go to war.

The Business Model of War

The defense contractors are the most important part of the war economy. Every year, the Pentagon gives billions of dollars in contracts to companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. The US defense budget in 2023 exceeded 850 billion dollars. This amount is greater than the combined budgets of the next ten countries.

War zones turn into places to do business:

Weapons systems such as fighter jets, drones, and missile defense systems

Private military companies like Blackwater and DynCorp

Surveillance tools, such as systems that can recognize faces

Companies that handle logistics and supplies, like KBR and Halliburton

Peace, on the other hand, puts this whole thing at risk.

Expert Opinion:

William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, says that we have created a situation. A massive network of interests depends on the military being active all the time. This network includes businesses, politicians, and the media. If the war ends, budgets will have to be cut. Workers will have to be let go. Facilities will have to be shut down. That makes it hard to make peace in both politics and the economy.

The Feedback Loop for the Think Tank

The American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council are think tanks. They regularly write policy papers. They also comment on the news that calls for military action. Weapons makers or friendly governments directly pay for many of them.

For instance, Raytheon has paid for events at CSIS while its former executives work in U.S. defense departments. This revolving door makes it so that military solutions are always preferred to diplomatic ones.

Media Amplification and Control of the Story

Chris Hedges, a journalist who used to work for the New York Times, says:

“The media gives people who shouldn’t be taken seriously a lot of power. They repeatedly consult voices that have been discredited. This happens not because these voices are experts, but because of who they represent.

Media outlets, which are more interested in ratings than in the truth, often spread stories that support war. The lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003 is the most famous example. During that time, networks kept saying things that weren’t true about weapons of mass destruction.

We see the same kinds of coverage of Iran today. People who are against interventionist policies are pushed to the side. In contrast, people who are for war are given a lot of attention.

The Human Cost of Making Money

People suffer while businesses make money. Brown University’s Costs of War Project says that:

More than 900,000 people have died in wars led by the U.S. since 9/11.

38 million people have had to leave their homes.

Direct and indirect costs have totaled eight trillion dollars.

This isn’t just a problem in the United States. It is a tragedy that happens all over the world because of money.

Is it possible to break the cycle?

More and more lawmakers, veterans, and academics are speaking out. The Quincy Institute and Veterans for Peace are two groups that want the U.S. to change its priorities. They want the U.S. to choose diplomacy over drones and aid over weapons.

Senator Bernie Sanders has said:

Reducing food aid and health programs is misguided. Allocating 850 billion dollars to the Pentagon is not only wrong, but it’s also detrimental to the economy.

But being angry isn’t enough to end the war economy. It calls for systemic change, closing revolving doors, and stopping the funding of propaganda.

In conclusion, a world without war

A permanent war economy makes it hard to find peace. But if war makes money, then peace needs to be made useful. That means backing voices that ask questions, pushing for journalism that looks into things, and holding leaders accountable.

We will stay stuck in a cycle with no end. There will be new enemies and new weapons. We will see no real peace in sight. This will continue until we question the profit motives behind every airstrike and deployment.

Tehran Under Siege: Is This the Start of an All-Out War?

The air feels thick with the weight of breaking news, like the moment you hear thunder and know the storm’s already here. I’m scrolling X, and the posts are a chaotic mix of fear, bravado, and memes about World War III. It’s hard to look away.

We’re at a crossroads in the Middle East, where every missile and every word could tip the scales toward catastrophe or just another tense standoff. The Iranian regime’s survival, Israel’s audacity, and America’s shadow game—it’s all colliding in real time. But is this the spark of an all-out war, or just another chapter in a feud that’s been simmering for decades? I’m not sure, and the uncertainty is what gnaws at me.

Tehran Under Fire: A New Kind of War

On a recent broadcast by TRT World, Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, didn’t hold back. Israel’s strikes on Tehran weren’t just a tactical hit; they were, in his words, “a full-blown war on Iran.” We’re talking 200 fighter jets, 100 targets, top Iranian commanders killed, nuclear scientists assassinated, and ballistic missile sites obliterated. Tehran, a city untouched by direct attack since the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, is now a battlefield. Gerges, speaking on TRT World’s program (watch here), said Israel’s goal is clear: “to destroy utterly the Iranian nuclear program.” But it’s bigger than that—it’s an attack on the Iranian state itself.

Here’s what I noticed: Gerges framed this as an existential moment for Iran’s regime. If they don’t hit back—and hit back hard—the clerics could lose their grip. “The whole world and the Iranian public will see whether the Iranian leadership masters the art of bluster or can translate its rhetoric into action,” he said. On X, the sentiment echoes this urgency. User @MiddleEastEye posted, “Iran’s under pressure like never before. If they don’t respond, the regime’s credibility is toast.” But others, like @GeoPol_X, aren’t so sure: “Iran’s been called a paper tiger before. They might talk big but lack the muscle to match Israel’s tech.” The X chatter shows a split—some see Iran cornered, others see them biding their time.

I can’t shake the doubt, though. Iran’s been loud about retaliation, but can they deliver? Gerges thinks the next few days or weeks will decide not just Iran’s fate but the Middle East’s. If they falter, the regime might crumble under its own weight. But what if they do strike back? The ripple effects could be seismic.

The End of Tit-for-Tat

Historically, Iran and Israel have played a careful game of proportional strikes—think drone attacks answered with airstrikes, each side matching the other’s intensity. But Gerges, on TRT World, argued that Israel’s latest move shredded that playbook. Hitting Tehran directly, killing key figures, and targeting nuclear and missile infrastructure isn’t tit-for-tat; it’s a declaration. If Iran follows the old logic, Gerges suggested, they might strike Tel Aviv to mirror the attack on their capital. But it’s not just about optics.

You ever wonder why proportionality feels so irrelevant now? Gerges pointed out that Iran’s leaders have vowed to target Israel’s nuclear facilities if their own are hit. X users are buzzing about this. @IranObserver wrote, “Iran’s got no choice but to hit Israel’s strategic assets. Anything less, and the clerics are done.” But @WarMonitors countered, “Iran’s missiles are no match for Israel’s air defenses. They’d need a miracle to land a real blow.” The stakes are brutal: if Iran doesn’t act decisively, Gerges warned, “this could mean the end of the clerics’ regime in Tehran.” But acting decisively risks escalation they might not survive.

I’m caught between two thoughts here. Iran’s pride demands a response, but their military might not be up to the task. Gerges called it an “existential moment,” and that phrase sticks with me. It’s not just about saving face; it’s about proving they’re not the “paper tiger” Israel’s been mocking. The clock’s ticking, and X is already speculating on what targets Iran might pick—or if they’ll pick any at all.

America’s Shadow Game

The U.S. response, at first glance, seems like a mess. Donald Trump, as Gerges noted on TRT World, pledged full support for Israel, even saying the U.S. would defend them if needed. Yet he also claimed the U.S. had “nothing to do” with Israel’s unilateral strike. Meanwhile, the U.S. is pulling back its diplomatic presence in the Middle East, bracing for Iranian retaliation. Gerges sees no confusion here: “There is no daylight between the United States and Israel.” He’s convinced Israel needed at least a “yellow light” from Washington—maybe a green one—to pull this off. Trump’s own words back this up, boasting about U.S.-supplied bombs and air defense support.

X users are divided on America’s role. @TheIntelConsul posted, “Trump’s playing both sides—backing Israel while dangling nuclear talks with Iran. Classic dealmaker move.” But @GlobalAffairsX wasn’t buying it: “The U.S. is neck-deep in this. Those jets don’t fly without American intel.” Gerges leaned into this, arguing the U.S. is using Israel’s war to strong-arm Iran into nuclear concessions—no uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, period. It’s a high-stakes gamble: cripple Iran’s resolve, then drag them to the table.

But here’s the contradiction that bugs me: Trump suggested Iran might negotiate post-attack, which Gerges called out as unlikely. Iranian TV, he noted, already nixed the next round of talks in Oman. On X, @PersianPulse summed it up: “After getting hit like this, Iran’s not sitting down to chat. They’re plotting.” I’m with them—negotiation feels like wishful thinking when your capital’s smoldering. Gerges thinks the U.S. is banking on Israel’s strikes breaking Iran’s will, but what if it pushes them toward desperation instead?

What’s Next? Nobody Knows

I’m staring at my phone, refreshing X for updates, but it’s just fragments—rumors of Iranian missile launches, unconfirmed reports of Israeli countermeasures. The world’s holding its breath, and I’m right there with it.

Gerges, via TRT World, left us with a stark reality: Iran can’t afford not to retaliate, but retaliation could spiral into something nobody controls. If they strike Israel’s strategic assets, as @WarIntel4U on X speculated, “we’re looking at a regional war, maybe worse.” If they don’t, Gerges warned, the clerics’ regime might collapse under the weight of its own rhetoric. And the U.S.? They’re not just spectators—they’re architects, whether they admit it or not.

Maybe that’s the problem. We’re all waiting for the next move, but war doesn’t follow a script. Iran’s response, or lack of it, will shape the Middle East for years. Will they prove they’re more than bluster, or will they fold? And what does America gain by fueling this fire while preaching peace? I don’t have the answers, and neither does X. But hey, what do I know?

Is Pakistan’s Military Obsession Bankrupting its Future?

Bottom Line Up Front: Pakistan’s 20% defense budget increase amid a 7% overall spending cut represents a dangerous prioritization. This prioritization could trap the country in perpetual underdevelopment. Genuine security threats drive these decisions, making the choice between guns and butter more complex than critics acknowledge.

Pakistan just announced a significant 20% jump in defense spending to $9 billion for 2025-26. At the same time, the country slashed overall federal expenditure by 7%. This breathtaking prioritization amid economic crisis raises a fundamental question about Pakistan’s future. Is the country’s military obsession strangling its development potential? Or do genuine security threats justify these painful sacrifices?

The numbers tell a stark story that should make every Pakistani parent wonder about their children’s future. While Pakistan allocates 2.8% of GDP to defense—among the world’s highest ratios—it spends just 1.77% on education. The country ranks 2nd globally among the 34 poorest economies in military burden. It ranks 17th in education spending. It is dead last (34th) in health expenditure. With 26.2 million children out of school and adult literacy barely above one-third, Pakistan’s resource allocation seems fundamentally backwards.

Yet dismissing Pakistan’s military spending as mere institutional greed ignores the country’s genuinely terrifying neighborhood. With India spending nine times more ($78.7 billion vs Pakistan’s $9 billion), an unstable Afghanistan harboring anti-Pakistan militants, and Chinese infrastructure worth $65 billion requiring protection, Pakistan faces security challenges that would bankrupt most countries.

The Staggering Math: Defense vs. Everything Else

Let’s break down the numbers that reveal Pakistan’s true priorities—and they’re more shocking than you might expect.

Pakistan’s defense budget breakdown reveals a military-industrial complex that consumes resources like a hungry giant. Personnel costs alone devour $2.97 billion (39% of the budget), while equipment modernization takes another $1.96 billion. When you add the $2.63 billion in military pensions—kept conveniently separate from the main defense budget—Pakistan’s total military-related spending reaches nearly $12 billion annually.

Compare this to the combined federal education budget of just $283 million. Pakistan spends 42 times more on defense than federal education funding. Even including provincial education spending, the entire education sector receives $6.3 billion—barely half the military’s allocation.

This creates a perverse economic reality that economist Farrukh Saleem has studied extensively. “Pakistan spends 2.86pc of its GDP on defence, while the global average is 2.18pc,” he notes. He adds crucial context: “Pakistan’s military expenditures on a per capita basis are among the lowest in the world. Israel spends $2,000 on a per capita basis and Pakistan spends $22 per capita.”

The Opportunity Cost Crisis

The economic multiplier effects reveal the true cost of Pakistan’s choices. Every dollar spent on education creates 2.4 times more jobs than equivalent military spending, yet Pakistan consistently chooses the less productive option.

Consider the employment impact: Pakistan’s current military spending of $9 billion creates approximately 114,240 jobs. The same amount invested in education would generate 270,480 jobs, while clean energy investment would create 153,000 jobs. These aren’t just statistics—they represent hundreds of thousands of families whose economic prospects are diminished by current resource allocation.

The IMF relationship exposes Pakistan’s twisted fiscal priorities. Since 1999, Pakistan has received $22 billion from the IMF. At the same time, it has spent $180 billion on defense. Often, military budgets were increased even while accepting IMF austerity conditions. As Ahmad Mobeen, senior economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, warned, “The shortfall will mostly be owing to lack of optimal implementation of announced measures. There is also an absence of meaningful structural reforms to widen the tax net in general.”

Recent Conflict: A $1 Billion Per Hour War

The May 2025 India-Pakistan conflict that triggered this budget increase provides a stark example of modern warfare’s economic devastation. Economist Farrukh Saleem estimated the 87-hour confrontation cost “about a billion dollars an hour for both countries put together.” Pakistan bore roughly 20% of those costs.

But here’s where the story gets interesting—and reveals the complexity of Pakistan’s strategic calculus. There is a staggering asymmetry in defence economics between India and Pakistan. Political scientist Farrukh Saleem wrote this in the News International. But in May’s aerial combat, ‘efficiency trumped extravagance.’

Pakistani officials claim their Chinese J-10CE fighters shot down multiple Indian Rafale jets. This is considered a tactical victory. It seemingly validates their investment in lower-cost Chinese equipment over expensive Western alternatives. As military analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi explained, “Pakistan’s defense partnership with China features flexibility. The terms range from direct payments to deferred ones and extend to strategic gifting.”

The Arms Race Trap: Can Pakistan Ever Win?

Pakistan’s security establishment justifies massive expenditures through the lens of strategic competition with India. However, this framing reveals a fundamental mathematical impossibility. India’s $78.7 billion defense budget creates an arms race Pakistan simply cannot win through spending alone.

China has become Pakistan’s military lifeline, supplying 82% of arms imports and offering flexible payment arrangements that mask true costs. This dependency creates new vulnerabilities: Pakistani security increasingly depends on Chinese geopolitical interests, while domestic defense industrial capacity remains underdeveloped.

The numbers tell the story of an impossible competition. According to Saleem’s analysis, “The US spends $392,000 per soldier. Saudi Arabia spends $371,000. India spends $42,000. Iran spends $23,000. Pakistan spends $12,500 per soldier.” Pakistan’s efficiency per dollar is remarkable, but the absolute gap remains insurmountable.

The Economic Development Sacrifice

Pakistan’s military spending occurs within a fiscal crisis context that makes every dollar count. With 55% of revenues consumed by debt servicing and 30% by defense, only 10-15% remains for civilian governance and development. This arithmetic simply doesn’t work for a developing country requiring massive investments in human capital and infrastructure.

The IMF’s $7 billion Extended Fund Facility program demands fiscal discipline, yet defense spending mysteriously remains exempt from conditionality. Pakistan has perfected the art of accepting international bailouts while protecting military expenditures. This pattern suggests either remarkable diplomatic skill. Alternatively, it could indicate dangerous self-deception about economic priorities.

Academic research consistently shows military expenditure creates long-run negative impacts on human development and economic growth in Pakistan’s context. From 1973-1997, economists estimate Pakistan’s per capita GDP could have been $718 higher annually without the nuclear program alone.

Addressing the Counterarguments: Security Realities Matter

Critics of this analysis often underestimate the genuine security challenges driving these expenditures—and they have valid points worth addressing.

Counterargument 1: “Pakistan faces existential threats” This isn’t hyperbole. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan killed 558 people in 2024—a 90% increase from the previous year. The Balochistan Liberation Army systematically targets Chinese personnel and CPEC infrastructure. Afghanistan’s border requires 1,000 military forts and a $532 million barrier system to manage infiltration and trade.

Response: These are real threats requiring real responses. The question isn’t whether Pakistan needs defense. It’s whether current spending levels represent optimal allocation. The May conflict demonstrated that technological sophistication and tactical innovation matter more than absolute spending levels.

Counterargument 2: “Nuclear deterrence justifies enormous costs” Pakistan spends an estimated $1 billion annually on nuclear capabilities. This spending prevents conventional military escalation. Without it, vastly higher defense expenditures would be required. Nuclear weapons provide cost-effective deterrence against India’s conventional superiority.

Response: Nuclear deterrence works, but at what opportunity cost? South Korea faces similar threats from North Korea yet maintains defense spending at 2.6% of GDP while achieving remarkable economic development. The issue isn’t whether deterrence works—it’s whether Pakistan’s specific implementation optimizes security per dollar spent.

Counterargument 3: “Military industries contribute to the economy” Saleem notes that Fauji Fertilizer significantly impacts the economy. It is one of the highest taxpayers in Pakistan. In 2019, Fauji Fertilizer paid Rs42 billion in taxes and duties. Fauji Cement deposits around Rs10 billion a year in the treasury.

Response: Military-industrial contributions are real but represent inefficient capital allocation. The same resources invested in civilian industries would generate higher economic returns and employment. Military industries succeed despite their institutional structure, not because of it.

Regional Comparison: Learning from Neighbors

Pakistan’s choices look even more questionable when compared to regional success stories:

  • Bangladesh: Maintains defense spending at 1.4% of GDP while achieving 6%+ economic growth
  • Vietnam: Spends 2.3% on defense but prioritizes export-oriented manufacturing
  • South Korea: Achieved development despite facing existential threats by limiting defense to 2.6% of GDP

These countries demonstrate that security and development aren’t mutually exclusive—they require different optimization strategies.

The Transparency Problem

One rarely discussed issue complicates this entire debate: Pakistan’s defense budget lacks transparency. Economic expert Dr Ikramul Haq noted, “In the media, misinformation spreads about the budget allocations for defence. There are also misconceptions about the benefits available to them.”

Without detailed breakdowns of defense spending efficiency, Pakistani citizens cannot evaluate whether their sacrifices produce optimal security outcomes. This opacity enables institutional capture and reduces public accountability.

A Way Forward: Smart Security, Smarter Economics

Pakistan doesn’t need to choose between security and development—it needs to optimize both simultaneously. This requires:

Immediate Reforms:

  • Transparent defense budget reporting with performance metrics
  • Shift from personnel-heavy to technology-focused military structure
  • Leverage Chinese partnerships for technology transfer, not just equipment purchases
  • Create explicit trade-offs between security and development spending

Long-term Strategy:

  • Develop domestic defense industry to reduce import dependence
  • Focus military spending on genuinely essential capabilities rather than prestige projects
  • Expand civilian oversight of defense expenditures through parliamentary committees
  • Create hybrid public-private defense research institutions

Economic Integration:

  • Use defense procurement to stimulate domestic technology sectors
  • Require military contractors to invest in civilian applications
  • Develop export potential for defense technologies to offset costs

The Choice That Defines Pakistan’s Future

Pakistan stands at a crossroads where every budget decision shapes the next generation’s prospects. The current approach prioritizes security over development, accepting lower economic growth and human development outcomes in exchange for military security.

As former finance minister Miftah Ismail recently argued, “Modernizing our armed forces is essential, but the key is spending wisely.” The evidence suggests Pakistan’s military spending isn’t inherently excessive given regional threat levels. However, it is catastrophically inefficient given economic constraints.

The country faces competing visions of national development. One path maintains current security-dependent economics that require continuous external support and limit development potential. The alternative emphasizes economic development as the foundation of long-term security, accepting higher short-term risks for better long-term outcomes.

Both approaches carry substantial risks. Pakistan’s current trajectory creates permanent dependency and stunted development. The alternative risks political instability if security threats materialize faster than economic growth can address underlying vulnerabilities.

Key Takeaways: Time for Hard Choices

Pakistan’s military spending debate reflects deeper questions about national priorities and development strategy:

  1. The numbers don’t lie: Pakistan allocates 42 times more to defense than education, creating unsustainable opportunity costs
  2. Security threats are real: Regional challenges justify significant defense investment, but current levels may exceed optimal allocation
  3. Efficiency matters more than totals: Pakistan’s tactical successes prove smart spending beats big spending
  4. Transparency is essential: Citizens deserve detailed information about defense spending effectiveness
  5. Integration is possible: Smart policies can align security and development goals rather than treating them as trade-offs

The choice is stark. We can evolve toward more efficient resource allocation. Alternatively, we can continue the current trajectory toward permanent dependency and stunted development. Pakistan’s next generation deserves better. They should not inherit a security state that cannot educate its children, heal its sick, or grow its economy.

Pakistan’s future depends on finding a sustainable balance between legitimate security needs and development imperatives. This must be achieved before both military and economic security become unattainable through resource exhaustion. The clock is ticking, and the consequences of getting this wrong will echo through generations.

NATO’s New Target: Peace Through Armament?

Rustling banners in Madrid. Whispers of war in Brussels. Defense budgets ballooning—uncomfortably.

Last week, something shifted beneath the hubbub. The logic of peace that once guided Europe now scrambles to rationalize rearmament. Meanwhile, citizens push back. They blame Brussels for bowing to Washington’s demands.

An irony emerges. The defenders of peace—championed as the ultimate guardrails—are spending their way toward a new kind of unrest.

The New Peace Through Armament
Here’s what I noticed…
At a NATO defense ministers’ meeting in Brussels on June 5, Secretary-General Mark Rutte introduced a new, dramatic target. European members should raise defense spending from the traditional 2% of GDP to a staggering 5%. That 5% would be split—3.5% on core military tools like tanks and air‑defense systems, and another 1.5% on resilience: cyber, infrastructure, and surveillance lemonde.fr+15nato.int+15dobetter.esade.edu+15theguardian.com+3euronews.com+3apnews.com+3.

U.S. officials, including Secretary Pete Hegseth, regarded this as a minimum credible burden‑sharing. This was especially true under pressure from former President Trump. He remains intensely vocal about defense shortfalls breakingdefense.com+7washingtonpost.com+7apnews.com+7. And it’s not hypothetical: Germany already plans to expand the Bundeswehr by up to 60,000 troops youtube.com+2reuters.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2.

🎯 Why Now? Who Benefits?
A weird thing happened…
Europe has spent 31% more on defense since 2021. The EU launched its “Readiness 2030” or “ReArm Europe” plan. This plan is a €800 billion military-industrial mobilization, supported by fiscal flexibility, loans, and redirected funds theguardian.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2theguardian.com+2.

Proponents argue this is overdue—Europe can’t rely on U.S. support indefinitely, especially with Trump back in power. Putin’s war in Ukraine is the existential alarm. But critics see something darker: a weaponized economy. Social spending may fall by the wayside. Inflation, debt levels, and a stronger defense industry loom .

The Human Backlash: Madrid Speaks Out
You ever wonder why people resist?
Just two days after the Brussels meeting, thousands marched in Madrid. Holding placards reading “peace with Russia” and “no to rearmament,” protesters demanded redirecting billions from defense to essential needs. They called for funding in schools, healthcare, and pensions en.iz.ru.

Spain’s defense minister, Margarita Robles, quickly distanced the government from the 5% goal. She clung to the 2% NATO norm and dismissed inflation-burdened public opinion.

A protestor said:

“We came out to protest against the state budget … instead of developing medicine and education” en.iz.ru.

What Are We Missing in This Race?
Here’s what’s worth questioning…
Are higher defense budgets truly about security—or about geopolitics? Europe’s fiscal and industrial decisions are tethered to Washington’s agendas, risking militarization in the name of budget metrics. And then there’s automation—drone warfare, cyber annihilation—promising apocalyptic conflict, not deterrence.

Will this escalate threats instead of preventing them? Critics caution that every conflict becomes exponentially more lethal when militarized. Even “small” skirmishes are described in the Madrid rally as “automated, indiscriminate and unlike anything the world has seen before.”

Maybe that’s the problem.
No tidy answers. Just a mounting question: can Europe redefine security without surrendering its social safety net? Or will this new arms race force us to ask entirely different questions—about democracy, war, and who truly benefits from arming peace?

Recent coverage of NATO rearmament and European backlash

Revival of UVB-76: Cold War Ghosts in Modern Warfare

There’s something eerie about hearing a sound that once haunted the Cold War airwaves come alive again. A distant buzz. Then a flurry of coded numbers. And silence. The kind of silence that doesn’t calm you—it presses against your chest like a warning.

Just days after Ukraine’s drone strikes took out parts of Russia’s prized bomber fleet, something strange happened. It stirred on Moscow’s most secretive airwave. The Cold War’s infamous “Doomsday Radio,” known as UVB-76, suddenly jolted back to life. It broadcasted not just static but also cryptic, rapid-fire messages.

It’s the kind of signal that doesn’t just say “we’re listening.” It says: “get ready.”

A Station That Wasn’t Supposed to Speak

UVB-76—nicknamed “The Buzzer”—has long fascinated military analysts and conspiracy theorists alike. Normally, it emits a constant, low-frequency buzzing sound, droning on like an old fluorescent light stuck in an abandoned hallway. But when it talks, something is brewing.

This week, it spoke louder than it has in years.

Not once. Not twice. But dozens of times in a single day.

Each time: strange call signs. Repetitive number sequences. Unbreakable ciphers—unless you’re inside the Kremlin.

And the timing couldn’t be more chilling:

  • Ukraine just struck inside Russian territory with drone attacks.
  • Russia’s nuclear bomber fleet—central to its deterrence doctrine—was hit hard.
  • The Istanbul peace track collapsed—again.
  • And President Putin? He declared, once more, that there would be “no negotiations with terrorists.”

So… What Is This Thing?

No one outside of Russia’s deepest defense circles truly knows.

Some believe UVB-76 is tied to Russia’s Perimeter system—better known in the West as the Dead Hand. It is a relic of Cold War strategy. The design ensures that if Moscow’s leadership was wiped out in a nuclear strike, the system would automatically retaliate. Yes—retaliation by machine. A second-strike ghost protocol, programmed to unleash hell even after silence had fallen.

Others argue it’s more mundane. It might be a system to signal hidden Russian military units. It could also signal reserve forces or strategic sites scattered across the country.

But make no mistake: the buzz only breaks when the state wants its deep systems to listen.

And that’s what happened this week.

Operation Spiderweb and the Sound of Desperation

The world was focused on headlines about battlefield wins and drone attacks. Meanwhile, Russia was quietly initiating what insiders are calling “Operation Spiderweb.” We don’t know what it is exactly. We just know that it follows massive losses in Crimea and Belgorod. It now coincides with strange military movements across Russia’s western front.

The reactivation of UVB-76 isn’t just a weird footnote in this drama—it might be the opening act of something darker.

If this is a signal to sleeper units… what are they being told?

If it’s a test of a nuclear fail-safe… why now?

If it’s meant as psychological warfare… who’s the real audience?

When the Ghosts of the Cold War Start Whispering Again

We live in a time where TikTok dances and drone footage often distract us from history’s darker instincts. But this—this radio buzz from an old Soviet bunker—reminds us that old machinery still runs deep beneath today’s surface.

It’s not fearmongering to listen to the static. It’s not paranoia to decode patterns in the noise.

Because sometimes, when a forgotten radio finally speaks, it’s not trying to entertain.

It’s trying to warn.

Maybe the Cold War never really ended. Maybe it just fell asleep with one eye open

Ukraine Strikes: A New Era in Asymmetric Warfare

A sudden explosion beneath the Kerch Strait Bridge. Not just another strike, but one aimed at the foundations—physical and psychological.

Ukraine’s SBU released a chilling video of the blast. The road and rail lifeline connecting Russia to occupied Crimea now bears fresh scars. Built by Russia in 2018 to solidify its 2014 annexation, the bridge has become a symbol of imperial reach—and a repeated target.

And just hours later, another front lit up.

Ukraine Hits Russia Where It Hurts Most: Its Aging Wings

While the sea churned in Crimea, Ukraine’s drones soared silently into Russian airspace, deep behind the frontlines. The targets? TU-95 and TU-22M3 bombers—core components of Russia’s long-range strike capability and nuclear deterrent.

  • Ukraine claims: Up to 40 aircraft hit—a third of Russia’s fleet.
  • Russian bloggers admit: 9 destroyed (5 TU-22s, 4 TU-95s).
  • Independent analysts: At least 13 bombers damaged or destroyed, per satellite imagery.

These Soviet-era giants are no longer manufactured. Once gone, they’re gone for good.

“Ukraine is actually making one of the biggest contributions to NATO’s collective defense,” said Fabrice Pothier, ex-policy planner for NATO and CEO of Rasmussen Global.

Morale, Not Just Metal

It’s easy to focus on the hardware. But the real damage might be to Moscow’s psyche.

For Putin, maintaining control of the war narrative is as vital as control of the battlefield. These successful Ukrainian strikes—made with relatively cheap, improvised drones—shatter that illusion of dominance.

“This is a humiliation not just for the Russian army, but for the FSB and other intelligence services,” said one DW analyst.

Inside Ukraine, the mood shifted. After weeks of relentless Russian missile attacks, the sense of powerlessness is slowly giving way to hope.

Washington’s Silence Is Loud

A senior Ukrainian delegation has been in Washington, seeking to capitalize on these battlefield wins. There’s talk of new sanctions. Bipartisan support is building in the Senate.

But Trump?

He hasn’t committed to backing the sanctions bill. Despite past frustrations with Putin, his position remains… opaque.

“If Trump really wants peace, this is the moment to act,” said Olivia Yanchuk of the Atlantic Council. “He could say: if Putin rejects a ceasefire, serious new sanctions are coming.”

The leverage is there. But will it be used?

Europe’s Role: Ready, but Still Reluctant

Chancellor Mertz is in D.C. to urge American action—and reassure the U.S. that Europe is stepping up.

  • Germany and the UK are leading NATO’s defense meeting in Brussels.
  • Europe is offering post-ceasefire military and financial aid.
  • But Ukraine’s drone success? That was all Kyiv’s ingenuity, not Brussels’ design.

Still, experts say the EU must go further: sharing satellite data, fusing intel, and building real-time battlefield awareness capacity—especially if U.S. support falters.

“This war is also about data, surveillance, and recon—capabilities Europe needs to master,” Pothier added.

Strategic Win, But Not Yet a Turning Point

These strikes are not a game-changer yet. They’re part of a long war of erosion, where both sides probe, weaken, and regroup.

Putin, stubborn as ever, sees slow territorial gains as worth the cost. As long as he feels no real economic pain, he’s unlikely to bend.

But that’s where the West—especially the U.S.—comes in.

“Once real sanctions hit Putin’s war economy, he will come to the table,” said Pothier. “Until then, he’ll keep bleeding slowly.”

Takeaways & Next Questions

  1. Ukraine’s ingenuity is rewriting the playbook on asymmetric warfare.
  2. Russia’s airpower is not as untouchable as it claims.
  3. The West’s hesitation is now the war’s biggest variable.
  4. The moral impact of battlefield wins matters as much as the physical.

What’s your take?

  • Should the U.S. impose tougher sanctions now—or wait for negotiations?
  • Will drone warfare redefine the balance between large and small militaries?

Drop your thoughts in the comments. Your voice might be part of the next turning point.

Maybe the bridge that really needs to collapse… is indecision.