Ties between Silicon Valley and the military industrial complexare not new. But the alliance of tech billionaires and venture capital titans working together to turn the Pentagon into a money spigot to fund far-future military gear is a novel conspiracy.
Their uniquely deranged rhetoric hits all the high notes: the revolutionizing power of unbridled capitalism, tech as a panacea for all social ills, the absolute necessity of U.S. military hegemony, and (as prime mover) our precarious position on the cusp of the Chinese century.
Like all conspiracies against decency, common sense, and restraint, this one has lots of speaker tours and expos. Here are some of the craziest things I remember hearing as I wandered around the recent Artificial Intelligence Expo for National Competitiveness in Washington, D.C., and my attempts at translation:
“The Pentagon can now lend money directly to companies — that’s a great deal for American taxpayers.”
Translation: You thought the previous six audits we failed were bad, wait until we have a loan portfolio to manage.
“Pentagon contracting needs a fundamental redesign — we can’t just tweak it anymore.”
Translation: We’ve been slowly eating away at DOD’s annoying oversight and regulatory units over the last 50 years but if you could just finally get rid of those people we’d appreciate it.
“Microsoft is part of the industrial base — but if we are to bring the full enterprise suite into classified government work this will require massive amounts of investment capital.”
Translation: The best things in life are free but operating any of our products is going to be like so expensive.
“A decade ago Silicon Valley didn’t agree with the DOD mission — they’ve done a complete 180.”
Translation: Retaliating against all those tech worker sit-ins and union organizing was really effective.
“The [pro-Palestine] peace activists are war activists — we are the peace activists!”
Translation: I couldn’t translate this one because I blacked out and hit my head on the Palantir-sponsored mocktail bar.
“China isn’t this compartmentalized.”
Translation: Watch as American corporate executives discover the benefits of central planning!
“Edge computing is the future.”
Translation: If you want to have 800 military installations all over the world you’ll need a lot of distributed computing sites, we’d like to introduce you to our new product line: “forward operating servers.”
“In terms of AI-driven weapons accuracy, there’s too much superfluous data that isn’t necessary for targeting.”
Translation: At least this is what the Israelis are telling us.
“Too much data used for AI targeting comes from open source intelligence.”
Translation: Give us direct unhindered access to all your classified databases forever until we’re all dead.
“Are we close to having ‘Google-fired missiles’?”
Translation: Google executives’ search for ad revenue destroyed your primary product so have you considered pivoting from building browsers to blowing stuff up?
“Quantum computing can overcome the military’s GPS denial issue in Ukraine.”
Translation: If you buy our really expensive autonomous systems that can’t function without GPS right now we promise they’ll work in 5 years, or maybe 10 — okay definitely no more than 20 years.
“We need to eliminate dis-synergy.”
Translation: Creating meaningless corporate neologisms makes me sound innovative and disruptive.
“The Replicator drone initiative can put thousands of attritable systems in place in 18-24 months, but what they need is to break down barriers so they can do this over and over and over again.”
Translation: Save 10% on weaponized drones when you sign up for our subscribe and save option!
“Watch as I remote pilot this new drone that uses automated sensors to avoid obstacles. It can even run on a cell phone hotspot in the middle of Riyadh!”
Translation: This demo worked great when [please wait….system loading] I was in the middle of the desert [please wait….system loading] but apparently the high speed internet here at [please wait….system loading] the convention center in Washington DC [please wait…]. Oh well, never mind.
“Lockheed Martin is building an AI factory.”
Translation: Our excellent staff of quality control agents are literally strapped to their cubicles with their eyelids pinned open to issue recalls for any product that is definitely being built by an AI and not some guy in a robotic exoskeleton playing Operation! using a closed circuit TV.
“These partnerships aren’t just about building a defense industrial base, they’re about building an American industrial base.”
Translation: About half of the supply chain parts are coming from China but it will still feel very American because you’ll be paying for it.
“The venture capital sector enables DOD to leverage tens of billions of dollars of VC money, which generates more money to invest in defense tech.”
Translation: We, the super rich, are the only thing standing between you and Red Dawn. I’ll soon be rendering your fat to make human candles for my apocalypse bunker but for now let’s make some great memories.
“But, if VCs keep losing on defense tech when firms and investors washout, that leveraging I just mentioned won’t happen.”
Translation: Remember when we all soiled our collective pants and you bailed out our investment accounts in Silicon Valley Bank even though they technically weren’t FDIC insured? Yeah we’d like to scale that up to infinity.
“Government needs to focus on capitalizing underlying industries (semiconductors, biochem) because VC can’t do that — it takes too much capital and the timeline is too long.”
Translation: Can the taxpayer front the money for the really big expensive hardware stuff so VCs can just invest in the more short-term profitable stuff? I single-handedly employ an entire firm of asset managers to oversee my Belgian Malinois’s stock portfolio so if you don’t do this you’re destroying American jobs.
“VCs focus on the really hard things (quantum computing, advanced materials) because they only want the big wins.”
Translation: None of this stuff will ever perform the operations we’re talking about but that’s okay because we create enough hype around it and get in early enough that we can cash out before that becomes a problem — for us. It’s still a big problem for you because you listened to us and now you’re broke.
Shana Marshall is a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute and associate director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
MUNICH, GERMANY — During his keynote speech at the Munich Security Conference today Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky repeated the need for a “European army” — also framed as “an Army of Europe.”
What this specifically means is unclear, but the Ukrainian leader delivered the message home, if we are to judge by the headlines of the main European newspapers this afternoon. Zelensky tried to further raise the stakes by saying that Ukraine has intelligence that next summer Russia plans to send troops to Belarus. On that, he noted: “Is this Russian force in Belarus meant to attack Ukraine? Maybe, or maybe not. Or maybe it's meant for you. Let me remind you, Belarus borders 3 NATO countries.”
Zelensky walked a tight line between not directly antagonizing the United States and making clear to European leaders that the continent’s security is up to them, not Washington and that they might very well be left alone.
“Let's be honest, now we can't rule out the possibility that America might say no to Europe on issues that threaten it,” he pointed out. Similarly, Zelensky asked: “Does America need Europe as a market? Yes, but as an ally? I don't know. For the answer to be yes, Europe needs a single voice, not a dozen different ones.”
Ret. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Donald Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, at first appeared to have brought some clarity on some of the open questions regarding Europe’s role in future peace talks. Asked about whether Europe would be present at the planned talks, Kellogg said he was from “the school of realism, and that is not going to happen.” Later on, in a panel discussion, he was far less clear. It is also uncertain to which extent Kellogg is directly speaking for the White House, and European officials appear somewhat at a loss when seeking to tell apart Washington’s main messages to Europe from simple background noise.
Regardless of which course events take, there seems to be a lot of challenges facing NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who has a reputation of knowing how to approach U.S. President Donald Trump. On Saturday, before Kellogg commented on Europe being off the negotiation table, Rutte seemed to know or guess where things might be going and positioned himself as the bridge between the European and the American pillars of NATO.
In a panel discussion, Rutte said: “To my European friends, I would say: get into the debate, not by complaining that you might, yes or no, be at the table, but by coming up with concrete proposals, ideas, ramp up [defense] spending.”
Before Zelensky’s address, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz opened the day in what was most likely his last speech at the international meeting. Although he is running for re-election in Germany’s national elections next weekend, his center-left Social-Democratic Party (SPD) istrailing by 15 points in the polls the conservative Christian Democratic Union and its sister party, the Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU). Scholz hasindicated he will retire from politics if he does not remain chancellor.
At the beginning of his speech, and in a reference to Vance’s address to the conference yesterday, Scholz said Germany will not accept people who “intervene in our democracy,” adding that “where our democracy goes from here is for us to decide.”Scholz then moved on to discuss how to fund increasing defense expenditures in Germany. Last November, the issue played a major role in the collapse of the German ruling coalition, made of Scholz’s SPD, the Greens, and the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP). The latter party pushed for cuts in social programs rather than taking new public debt (the option favored by the SPD and the Greens) to increase the military budget.
When Scholz fired FDP leader and then Finance Minister Christian Lindner from the government, the ruling coalition lost its parliamentary majority, leading to the early elections to take place next weekend. Regarding the future of Ukraine, Scholz remarked that “there will only be peace if the sovereignty of Ukraine is assured, a dictated peace would therefore never get our support.” He added that “we will also not accept any solution that leads to decoupling European and American security.”
MUNICH, GERMANY — The Munich Security Conference started this Friday in a city recovering from an attack in which a suspect drove his car into a crowd of people, leaving 36 people injured on Thursday morning.
The international meeting also takes place against the backdrop of the German parliamentary elections on Feb. 23. Friedrich Merz, the chancellor candidate of the center-right Christian-Democratic Union (CDU) — which comfortably leads the polls with around 30% of support — could be spotted in the first row of the conference hall. Merz held a short meeting with United States Vice President J.D. Vance earlier in the day.
Neither yesterday’s car attack, nor the coming elections, were left unaddressed by Vance in his speech Friday. The vice-president described the attack (committed by an Afghan asylum-seeker), as one of the “horrors wrought” by Europe's migration policies. He noted that “no voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.” In addition, Vance expressed his fears that the German election results could be annulled, similar to the Romanian presidential elections in November.
Vance also accused European leaders of abandoning the core democratic values that led to the Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War. "The threat I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America," Vance said.
Although Vance had provided a preview to Friday’s remarks in an earlier Wall Street Journal interview, his words were received with some arched eyebrows in the media center serving as a working place for the journalists covering the conference. “Undiplomatic announcements” was the headline topping an article about Vance’s speech published by the liberal Munich newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung.
The vice-president’s words also sent shockwaves in the conference hall. One of the first to respond was Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister. Pistorius, scheduled to speak less than two hours after Vance, described the vice-president words as “not acceptable.” He added that “democracy was called into question by the U.S. vice-president for the whole of Europe earlier.”
In the panel discussion that followed, which focused on Europe's defense policy, participants expressed bewilderment about the lack of attention to Ukraine in Vance’s speech.
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen had taken a radically different approach earlier in the day focusing on what she sees as commonalities between the Trump administration’s approach to the Ukraine War and that of the EU. She noted that “both the EU and the U.S. want an end to the bloodshed. We want a just and lasting peace, one that leads to a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. And Ukraine should be given solid security guarantees.”
In another attempt to establish a bridge with the Trump administration, von der Leyen added: “Ukraine needs peace through strength. Europe wants peace through strength. And as President Trump has made clear: the United States is firmly committed to peace through strength.”
Asked about whether European countries would increase defense expenditure to 5% of the GDP as demanded by Trump (the U.S. currently allocates 3.4% of its GDP to such a purpose), the president of the European Commission did not want to provide a specific figure. Still, von der Leyen announced that the Commission plans to allow extra fiscal room to the EU member states by activating the escape clause for defense investments.
The EU’s GDP increased by only 0.9% in 2024 (with negative growth in Germany, the bloc’s largest economy). It remains to be seen whether European citizens will support lifting strict EU rules on public debt for defense spending (and not for social policies, for instance) at a time of low economic growth.
Von der Leyen’s conciliatory tone towards the U.S. regarding Ukraine contrasted with her remarks about Trump’s tariffs policies. Building on a statement released early Friday, the Commission president announced her preference for a negotiated solution to avoid a trade war between the U.S. and the EU but noted that, if needed, “we will use our tools to safeguard our economic security and interests.”
After rumors that the initially announced meeting might not take place after all, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a bilateral encounter with Vice President Vance in the evening. Before the meeting, the Ukrainian leader said that his country wants “security guarantees” before any talks to end the war. Zelenskyy also noted that he is only willing to have an in-person meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin after a common plan is negotiated with U.S. President Trump.
Meanwhile, CNN reported Friday that the Russian government is assembling a high-level negotiating team that would engage in direct talks with the United States to put an end to the war in Ukraine.
On February 12, President Trump revealed he had talked to Putin about a peace deal in Ukraine, and Defense Secretary Hegseth gave a speech about what a peace settlement would not entail (NATO membership, US protection, return of occupied territories).
This left Ukrainians reeling with feelings of betrayal and being steamrolled, while European leaders looked shellshocked at finding themselves sidelined. I thought the right moment had arrived to finally write a long-planned article, on inclusive, people-centered peace-making, with my co-author Wolfgang Sporrer.
The next morning, I woke up to the inconceivable news that Wolfgang had died in his (and my) hometown, Vienna. The cause of his death, three days earlier on February 10, has not been publicized. He had been posting pictures from his latest assignment in the Middle East just days ago, along with his usual pithy comments on matters of war and peace.
In Europe, where the canceling of experts arguing for a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine has been far more ruthless than in the US, only a few brave souls have been sticking out their neck. Wolfgang was easily the most knowledgeable among them, having sat in on the consultations under the Minsk accords after 2015 and implemented the OSCE’s monitoring along the pre-2022 frontline in Ukraine, and later teaching conflict management, negotiation and mediation at the Hertie School, Germany’s premiere foreign policy school. He was also optimistic and constructive to a fault, convinced that peace was always possible if one approached it with a seasoned negotiator’s toolkit and attitude. His last article was titled “No War is Inevitable”.
Wolfgang first contacted me in summer 2022 on Twitter, as it was. Later, I realized there were curious parallels in our lives. We are not just both from Vienna, but our homes are just blocks from each other in the city’s 7th district. We had both studied law at Vienna University and Belgium’s University of Louvain-la-Neuve and then international relations in the US. Wolfgang served as the head of the human dimension unit in the OSCE special monitoring mission in Ukraine, and later at the EU delegation in Moscow.
In both places, I might have run into him when I dropped by to raise awareness about the human rights and peace issues I had found in my work with activists in remote regions. But I never did. I would have remembered a fellow Austrian, larger than life, with a twinkle in his eyes and an unending supply of shrewd anecdotes and thoughtful observations about the business of making peace, told in his old-school, gregarious Viennese accent.
What brought us together were the lessons we had learned from communities affected by armed conflict, he as a senior OSCE diplomat, I while working with grassroots women activists. Wolfgang took peace seriously, as an essential objective that should inform our grand strategies, as the fundamental condition for a good life and as a hands-on, skilled practice.
Wolfgang loved his craft. He stood out for always looking at peace from the point of view of average people: how they are affected by armed conflict, how their lives are in danger, and how we can restore their safety and security. He began and ended every conversation about war with ordinary people.
When asked about his ideas for ending the war in Ukraine, he declined to offer a peace plan and instead focused on process. He looked at it as a mediator: how do you get the parties to agree to sit at the same table? That would already be a first successful step. He kept reminding people that Ukraine and Russia were talking every day, at the Istanbul hub of the Black Sea Grain Deal. Wolfgang was a glass-half-full kind of guy, spotting openings and opportunity where others see only violent deadlock.
Last year, he proposed we write an article together, about inclusive, people-centered peace-making. We both thought this approach was curiously missing from discussions about ending the war in Ukraine, despite being recognized by many governments, the UN and academics as the gold standard for making peace: not only is inclusive peace-making better at ending armed conflict, with settlements that last longer and lower relapse rates.
It also produces a better peace, one in which countries rebuild faster, communities thrive more and enjoy greater safety and reconciliation. Examples of the sturdy settlements this approach produces include Northern Ireland in 1998 and Colombia in 2016.
How does inclusive peace-making (or inclusive diplomacy) achieve all this? By placing the human security, well-being and rights of people living in conflict-affected territories at the center of war-ending diplomacy. Peace has to deliver for the people who suffered from war. We achieve this by bringing these people right into the peace process, to the negotiation table. There, their concerns can be heard, put on the agenda and addressed, and they can envision creative solutions to intractable problems.
As a result, communities emerging from war will not be plagued by typical post-conflict dysfunction, deprivation and injustice that translate into friction and a renewed conflict. Ordinary people at the table and bread-and-butter issues on the agenda make the atmosphere calmer and more constructive overall.
Because men will be at any negotiating table by default, inclusive diplomacy means including women: comparative data from 40 conflicts shows that when women were part of peace processes, there was a far higher likelihood that an agreement will be reached, that agreement was more likely to be implemented and it was 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years. These numbers are so remarkable that anyone serious about making peace cannot afford to ignore them.
While Western governments seem to have forgotten all about inclusive diplomacy and people-centered peace-making, countries from the Global South did not. A range of governments brokered prisoner exchanges. Last summer, Qatar prepared to mediate a partial ceasefire to halt attacks on energy infrastructure in both Ukraine and Russia, to protect civilians during the upcoming winter, though the attempt collapsed when Ukraine launched its incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. When China and Brazil invited others from the Global South to endorse their peace plan in September last year, it was updated to reference “inclusive diplomacy”.
Last month, Oleksyi Arestovych, one-time advisor of Zelensky and now one of his harshest critics, talked on one of his wildly popular YouTube streams about how any ceasefire or peace agreement would need to address everyday problems caused by war, occupation and displacement: regulate free movement of people, goods and services between territories occupied by Russia and those controlled by Ukraine, the mutual recognition of vital records and diplomas earned by young people on either side, protect the rights and interests of those forced to leave property behind and those buying such abandoned homes.
Government, he said, sounding like the aspiring presidential candidate he is, has to exist for the people, not the other way around.
I never got to write that article about inclusive, people-centered peace-making with Wolfgang. In this current moment, with Europe’s ruling elites aghast at the specter of peace and Ukrainians feeling betrayed and abandoned, he would have looked for openings to do things right, to build a good peace. He was fearless, brilliant and original, kind and supportive, and one of the most persuasive proponents of peace and diplomacy in Europe. Rest in peace, Wolfgang.
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.