The theory of long-term economic development recognizes an interrelationship between long waves of economic activity and long waves of military and political tension. Periodic shifts from one dominant technological mode to the next alternate with economic depressions, wherein increased government spending is used as an incentive for overcoming the crisis. The spending is concentrated in the military-industrial complex, because the liberal economic ideology allows enhancement of the role of the state only for national security objectives. Therefore, military and political tension is promoted and international conflicts provoked, to justify increased defense spending. This is what is happening at present: the U.S. is attempting to resolve its accumulated economic, financial, and industrial imbalances at other countries’ expense, by escalating international conflicts that will allow it to write off debts, appropriate assets belonging to others, and weaken its geopolitical rivals. When this was done during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the result was World War II. The American aggression against Ukraine pursues all of the above-mentioned goals. First, economic sanctions against Russia are intended to wipe out billions of dollars of U.S. debt to Russia. A second objective is to take over Ukrainian state assets, including the natural gas transport system, mineral deposits, the country’s gold reserves, and valuable art and cultural objects. Third, to capture Ukrainian markets of importance to American companies, such as nuclear fuel, aircraft, energy sources, and others. Fourth, to weaken not only Russia, but also the European Union, whose economy will sustain an estimated trillion-dollar loss from economic sanctions against Russia. Fifth, to attract capital flight from instability in Europe, to the USA.
Well, Obama's end to the U.S. combat role in just ended. U.S. combat troops are back in action. An analogous situation might have been if the U.S. reinvaded South Viet Nam just as the last helicopter lifted off from the U.S. Embassy carrying refugees from the North Vietnamese onslaught. Some wars can't be won. Viet Nam is one of them. Afghanistan is another. The time when the Taliban will not take over soon after the U.S. removes its combat troops will never come. But not being the President who lost a war is apparently far more important in the White House than the expense of even more lives wasted in a military stalemate. At least Mikhail Gorbachev had the sense to get out of Afghanistan when he recognized that the Soviets were were incapable of winning their futile war. But not Barack Obama, who is increasingly looking like the sorriest excuse for a President that the U.S. ever had.