Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_386660773-scaled

Defense contractors eye long-term profits from Ukraine war

A new proposal would slash protections against price gouging and ratchet up weapons production well past Kyiv’s needs.

Europe
google cta
google cta

As Russia’s attack on Ukraine drags on, the world is dealing with a lot of uncertainty. At every stage, predictions about the war have done poorly when met with the cold, hard reality of modern conflict. But one thing has been certain from the start: the U.S. defense industry is going to cash in.

A recent example of this came last week when Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) proposed a new amendment to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. The proposal would give the Department of Defense wartime powers that would free it to buy huge amounts of artillery and other munitions using multi-year contracts, according to Defense News.

Here’s the important part: the amendment would also authorize the Pentagon to skip competitive contracting for Ukraine-related deals (including billions of dollars worth of contracts to refill U.S. stockpiles), and it would waive other provisions aimed at stopping weapons makers from overcharging taxpayers.

As an unnamed congressional aide told Defense News, the move would allow contractors to produce far more than Ukraine needs. Instead, we’re buying for a two-front war. “It’s hard to think of something as high on everybody’s list as buying a ton of munitions for the next few years, for our operational plans against China and continuing to supply Ukraine,” the source said.

In other words, lawmakers and defense contractors are taking advantage of Ukraine to get their weapons wish list, according to Bill Hartung of the Quincy Institute.

“It's part of the larger push to exploit the war in Ukraine to jack up Pentagon spending for things that have nothing to do with defending Ukraine, or any likely future scenario,” Hartung said.

As Defense News notes, the “proposed legislation also authorizes contracts for 20,000 AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air missiles, which Ukraine has not fired extensively – if at all.” The package also includes purchases of several other missiles that seem to go far beyond Kyiv’s wish list.

Notably, it’s unclear whether these weapons would actually be useful in the case of a U.S.-China war. 

“It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war in the future,” Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Defense News. “This is not the list you would use for China. For China we’d have a very different list.”

In related news, Lockheed Martin announced Tuesday that it plans to expand its production of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System — better known as HIMARS — by more than 50 percent. The decision follows months of positive publicity for the weapons system, which seems to have sparked increased interest from governments in Eastern Europe.

The announcement comes just a month after the Army said it wanted to double HIMARS production and triple production of certain types of artillery in response to the war in Ukraine. This type of boost would require new or at least dramatically expanded production facilities, raising concerns that it will be difficult to scale back down in the future.


Image: Dimj via shutterstock.com
google cta
Europe
G7 Summit
Top photo credit: May 21, 2023, Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Japan: (From R to L) Comoros' President Azali Assoumani, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan. (Credit Image: © POOL via ZUMA Press Wire)

Middle Powers are setting the table so they won't be 'on the menu'

Asia-Pacific

The global order was already fragmenting before Donald Trump returned to the White House. But the upended “rules” of global economic and foreign policies have now reached a point of no return.

What has changed is not direction, but speed. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s remarks in Davos last month — “Middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu” — captured the consequences of not acting quickly. And Carney is not alone in those fears.

keep readingShow less
Vice President JD Vance Azerbaijan Armenia
U.S. Vice President JD Vance gets out of a car before boarding Air Force Two upon departure for Azerbaijan, at Zvartnots International Airport in Yerevan, Armenia, February 10, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Pool

VP Vance’s timely TRIPP to the South Caucasus

Washington Politics

Vice President JD Vance’s regional tour to Armenia and Azerbaijan this week — the highest level visit by an American official to the South Caucasus since Vice President Joe Biden went to Georgia in 2009 — demonstrates that Washington is not ignoring Yerevan and Baku and is taking an active role in their normalization process.

Vance’s stop in Armenia included an announcement that Yerevan has procured $11 million in U.S. defense systems — a first — in particular Shield AI’s V-BAT, an ISR unmanned aircraft system. It was also announced that the second stage of a groundbreaking AI supercomputer project led by Firebird, a U.S.-based AI cloud and infrastructure company, would commence after having secured American licensing for the sale and delivery of an additional 41,000 NVIDIA GB300 graphics processing units.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.