TO PUBLISH INCONVENIENT NEWS WE RELY ON DONATIONS Please contact Michael Walsh for easy transfer details keyboardcosmetics@gmail.com

Mícheál Walsh American Free Press: In 1975, the undignified US evacuation of Saigon was dubbed Operation Frequent Wind. The flight was far from being the debacle it seemed to be. The pull-out occurred only when more profitable opportunities lured the undertakers of civilizations.

Earlier, some corporations were heading toward bankruptcy, but their involvement in the Vietnam war helped make them profitable. Many others earned millions of dollars each year from a war that helped ensure they could continue to be fruitful until new conflicts could be arranged.

The evacuation of Vietnam was named Operation Frequent Wind but was it a tongue-in-cheek prophecy? Did they know something the rest of us were unaware of?

Fast forward to further US conflicts: For just short of 20 years NATO Allies and partner countries had military forces deployed to Afghanistan. This was supposed to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries. In April 2021 the latest frequent wind occurred when NATO hastily withdrew from Afghanistan.

How many more routs can NATO take before they learn that war is not profitable the less questioning will ask. Here lies the crunch: Wars are fought because they are the most profitable enterprise imaginable.

The Ukrainian Embassy reception held recently in Washington DC was sponsored by America’s main weapons manufacturers. 

Ostensibly, the reception was in honor of the 31st anniversary of Ukraine’s armed services. Such events are diaried by Washington’s hobnobbing diplomats, think tankers, journalists, military-complex lobbyists and US officials. Smirking guests had their mugshots – an apt description to be used in evidence – with the Ukrainian ambassador. There to rattle his medals was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley.

It appears that the self-confidence of war profiteers is such that they can blatantly wave fists full of million-dollar notes in taxpayers’ faces without expecting blowback. It is the Press Corp, not the Marine Corp that protects Washington’s Deep State.

The logos of military contractors Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Pratt & Whitney, and Lockheed Martin were emblazoned on the shindig’s invitations. As obvious as a war veteran’s crutches the sponsorship reminders were set below Ukrainian emblems upon which were printed the doomsday words ‘the Ukrainian ambassador and defense attaché request the pleasure of your company.’

‘It’s really bizarre to me that they would put that on an invitation,’ one expert surmised: ‘The fact that they don’t feel sheepish about it, that’s interesting,’ explained another off-the-record academic.

That the Ukrainian elite and the NATO bloc’s military arms complex enjoy such rapport is business as usual. America’s allies and partners around the world bought some $50 billion-plus ‘Made in the United States’ weapons last year. The highest profile four corporations produce missile defense systems and anti-tank missiles that were sent to Ukraine since Russian President Vladimir Putin preemptively struck gathering NATO forces in February.

Explicit sponsorship indicates how intimate major military contractors have become with the Kyiv regime. Simply put, the war is good for business and ending it is bad for business.

President Joe Biden’s administration has invested or promised $100 billion since February. To give an idea of the scale of this investment consider that Russia’s entire military budget is $65 billion.

The military arms lobbyists ludicrously claim that such investment foiled Russia’s territorial ambitions and allowed Kyiv to launch counteroffensives that have retaken much of the territory Russia initially claimed. This rallying cry fails scrutiny but the Press Corp is not allowed to question the official narrative.

When questioned as to the reason for their participation at the Bloodsuckers Ball questions were directed to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense but it remained tight-lipped. Lockheed and Raytheon also refused to comment whilst emails to Northrop Grumman and Pratt & Whitney were ignored.

Is there a reason for such reticence? The NATO vs. Russia conflict – let us call a spade a spade – is likely to be even more profitable than the 20-year deployment to Afghanistan. That war was waged on presumption without evidence that mountain tribesmen were responsible for the audacious 9/11 attack on a state-terrorist level equaled only by the sophisticated sabotage of the Nord Street 2 pipeline. The outcome was that Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed, General Dynamics, and Northrup Grumman won 1,000 per cent increases in profits.

In the current conflict, the biggest winners are Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. Each of their stocks has climbed since Russia’s invasion, with Lockheed alone up about 38 per cent this year.

It is not quite clear which foreign entity Kyiv’s Foreign Minister represents when he impudently claims, ‘No one has enough for Ukraine’. However, a round of applause surely came from the military-industrial complex.

‘Continuing to arm Kyiv’s troops against Russia will restore peace and security in Europe,’ the country’s top diplomat says. Yet, a simple neutrality pact suggested by the Russian side would have saved tens of thousands of lives and avoided calamitous trade dislocation with the European Union.

Clearly America’s military-industrial complex and its myriad of vampire bats take priority. The immediate effect will be the growing isolation of the shrinking Western alliance as 80 per cent of the non-Western Alliance learn the lesson from a jamboree held at a Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC. You can share this story on social media: