How Corruption Cripples America's Military

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Eric Zuesse,

America’s military budget is roughly 7.2 times that of Russia ($610 billion compared to $84.5 billion), but even Western news-accounts are saying that the weaponry produced in Russia is superior overall to the weaponry produced in the United States.

Compare the top-of-the-line fighter jets of the two countries: that's the F-35 fighter-jet produced by the U.S. corporation Lockheed Martin, versus the Su-35 fighter jet produced by the Russian government (its wholly owned Sukhoi Company). The F-35 costs around $100 million per plane. The Su-35 costs around $65 million per plane.

The weaponry-expert David Majumdar headlined on 15 September 2015, “America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's Su-35: Who Wins?” He concluded: "Basically, an F-35 pilot should avoid a close in fight at all costs. It is highly unlikely that a U.S. Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC) would assign an air superiority mission to an F-35 unit if alternatives were available. But given the tiny fleet of [F-22] Raptors and dwindling F-15C fleet, it is possible that the JFACC could be forced to use the F-35 as an air superiority asset.”

In other words: the U.S. had stopped production of the better planes, the F-22 and the F-15C, which might stand a chance against the Su-35. The U.S. stopped production of those planes in order to replace them with the inferior and far costlier (and more profitable) F-35.

Earlier, on 6 December 2014, Majumdar had bannered, “Killer in the Sky: Russia's Deadly Su-35 Fighter.” He wrote:

One U.S. Navy Super Hornet pilot — a graduate of that service’s elite TOPGUN school — offered a sobering assessment. “When taken as a singular platform, I like the Su-35’s chances against most of our platforms, with perhaps the exception of the F-22 and F-15C,” the naval aviator said. “I suspect the F/A-18E/F can hold it’s own and F-35 has presumed stealth and sensor management on its side.”


But one Air Force official with experience on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter said that the Su-35 could pose a serious challenge for the stealthy new American jet. The F-35 was built primarily as a strike fighter and does not have the sheer speed or altitude capability of the Su-35 or F-22. “The Su's ability to go high and fast is a big concern, including for F-35,” the Air Force official said.


As an air-superiority fighter, its major advantages are its combination of high altitude capability and blistering speed — which allow the fighter to impart the maximum possible amount of launch energy to its arsenal of long-range air-to-air missiles. …


Another highly experienced veteran fighter pilot added that much about the Su-35 and the capabilities of the Russian military remain unknown.

Among these unknowns were the effectiveness of the Russian plane’s “electronic attack” capabilities. Here’s how that was described:

The addition of the electronic attack (EA) capability complicates matters for Western fighters because the Su-35’s advanced digital radio frequency memory jammers can seriously degrade the performance of friendly radars. It also effectively blinds the onboard radars found onboard American-made air-to-air missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM. …


Said another senior Air Force official with experience on the F-22 Raptor, “So, while we are stealthy, we will have a hard time working our way through the EA to target the Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”


The Su-35 also carries a potent infrared search and track capability that could pose a problem for Western fighters. “It also has non-EM [electro-magnetic]sensors to help it detect other aircraft, which could be useful in long-range detection,” the Super Hornet pilot said.


Another of the Su-35’s major advantages is that it carries an enormous payload of air-to-air missiles. “One thing I really like about the Su-35 is that it is a high-end truck: It can carry a ton of air-to-air ordnance into a fight,” the Navy pilot said.


On paper, that makes the Su-35 an extremely capable platform, but as one highly experienced F-22 pilot pointed out: “Whether they can translate that into valid tactics remain[s] to be seen.”

What, then, about that electronic-attack unknown?

On 13 September 2014, Voltairenet described on the basis of a 30 April Russian report, an incident on 12 April, in which the USS Donald Cook Aegis Class destroyer, loaded with missiles, entered the Black Sea, to threaten Russia, and a Russian Su-24 flew overhead, carrying a device that can turn off all electrical systems. Voltairnet said:

As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer. In other words, the all-powerful Aegis system, now hooked up — or about to be — with the defense systems installed on NATO’s most modern ships was shut down, as turning off the TV set with the remote control.


The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft — unarmed — repeated the same maneuver 12 times before flying away.


After that, the 4th generation destroyer [Donald Cook] immediately set sail towards a port in Romania.


Since that incident, which the Atlanticist media have carefully covered up despite the widespread reactions sparked among defense industry experts, no US ship has ever approached Russian territorial waters again.


According to some specialized media, 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved from active service.

Later, on 31 March 2015, Ben Hodges, the Commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, issued, to Defense News, an incoherent statement against Russia, that:

the volume of artillery and rocket ammunition that has been expended [by Russia] is eye-watering. The quality of the electronic warfare [EW] capability that Russians have employed in eastern Ukraine, this is not something that you can create in the basement of your home. So when President Putin says, well these are just coal miners and tractor drivers, it is an obvious lie.

Despite Hodges's attempt to bury in an insult to Putin, reference to electronic warfare capabilities on Russia’s part, that were “eye-watering” for Hodges,Defense News made clear what brought these tears to his eyes, when it reported on 4 August 2015:

Ukrainian forces have grappled with formidable Russian electronic warfare capabilities that analysts say would prove withering even to the US ground forces. The US Army has also jammed insurgent communications from the air and ground on a limited basis, and it is developing a powerful arsenal of jamming systems, but these are not expected until 2023. ...


Hodges acknowledged that US troops are learning from Ukrainians about Russia's jamming capability, its ranges, types and the ways it has been employed. He has previously described the quality and sophistication of Russian electronic warfare as "eye-watering."


Russia maintains an ability to destroy command-and-control networks by jamming radio communications, radars and GPS signals, according to Laurie Buckhout, former chief of the US Army's electronic warfare division, now CEO of the Corvus Group. In contrast with the US, Russia has large units dedicated to electronic warfare, known as EW, which it dedicates to ground electronic attack, jamming communications, radar and command-and-control nets.

Of course, Hodges hadn’t said that about “Russian electronic warfare,” he had actually said it about "the volume of artillery and rocket ammunition that has been expended.” But he never publicly objected to the news-media’s tacit acceptance of what had really  brought tears to his eyes. Everyone knew it. And it wasn’t "the volume of artillery and rocket ammunition that has been expended.” So, Hodges had dealt with his tears by insulting Putin, instead of by thanking him for having given the U.S. this harmless warning shot across the bow. (Would Hodges have preferred that this capacity continue to be hidden by the Russian side?)

Everybody in the know knows that the U.S. wastes on corruption most of the money it pays, for military, just as it does for health care, and for education, and for other governmental functions. The higher the governmental level is (such as in the White House, and in the Pentagon), the bigger the percentage of waste is, because the skimming is monumental at those higher levels. And for recent U.S. Presidents, they and the foundations they set up suck in billions of dollars, as delayed ‘compensation’ for the favors that the former President had thrown to the ‘donating’ billionaire.

The BBC headlined on 25 January 2016, “Putin Is Corrupt, Says US Treasury,” and three days laterReuters headlined, “White House Backs Treasury’s View that Putin Is Corrupt.” (Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury Secretary himself is deeply corrupt, even if not as much as recent U.S. Presidents have been.)

The next day, January 29th, Britain’s Independent  headlined, "Russia’s ‘Rustbucket' Military Delivers a Hi-tech Shock to West and Israel,” and reported:

It is this military might that is underpinning President Vladimir Putin’s strategic triumphs. His intervention in Syria has been a game changer and what happens there now lies, to a large extent, in his hands. The Ukraine conflict is semi-frozen, on his terms. The Russians are allying with the Kurds, unfazed by the Turkish anger this has provoked. And, crucially, they are now returning to Egypt to an extent not seen for 44 years, since they were kicked out by President Anwar Sadat.


One of the most senior analysts in Israeli military intelligence told The Independent in Tel Aviv last week: “Anyone who wants anything done in this region is beating a path to Moscow.”

If America elects yet another in the now-long succession, since 1980, of corrupt Presidents, it will be terrible not only for Russia, and for the countries such as Ukraine and Syria and Iraq that the U.S. is destroying, but also for the American people.

On 31 August 2015, The Daily Beast bannered, "Petraeus: Use Al Qaeda Fighters to Beat ISIS,” and reported:

Members of al Qaeda’s branch in Syria have a surprising advocate in the corridors of American power: retired Army general and former CIA Director David Petraeus.


The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has been quietly urging U.S. officials to consider using so-called moderate members of al Qaeda’s Nusra Front to fight ISIS in Syria, four sources familiar with the conversations, including one person who spoke to Petraeus directly, told The Daily Beast.

Petraeus had organized the death squads in El Salvador and in Iraq, so he’s a natural for the global aristocracy to rely upon about such things. He’s even a regular attendee at the secret annual Bilderberg meetings.

On 16 November 2015, F. William Engdahl headlined, “Do We Really Want a New World War With Russia?” and he itemized the ways in which Russia’s military performance, in both Ukraine and Syria, has shocked the U.S. and its allies, especially. The main categories were: "Sukhoi SU-34 ‘Fullback’ fighter-bomber,” "New EW technologies,” "Killer Bumblebees,” and, "‘Status-6′,” which latter is "a new Russian nuclear submarine weapons system designed to bypass NATO radars and any existing missile defense systems, while causing heavy damage to 'important economic facilities' along the enemy’s coastal regions.”

Any U.S. President who would continue the effort started in 1990 by President George Herbert Walker Bush, to conquer and grab control of the resources of post-communist Russia, is insane, especially now, after the February 2014 U.S.-run coup in Ukraine crossed the line that Russia had repeatedly warned must not be crossed. If this effort ever stops, the ‘news’ media won’t report the U.S. gang’s retreat from this by-now 25-year-long war against Russia, which those same ‘news’ media have consistently refused to report. But even if they were to report it, no obligation by the West is so important as the obligation to stop  it — the obligation to call off the West’s Saudi-Qatari-Turkish-UAE-Kuwaiti-financed Sunni terrorists, and the rest of the West’s (via NATO, the IMF, etc.) war against Russia and against Russia's Shiite and BRICS allies.

On 28 May 2014, Barack Obama told future leaders of the U.S. military:

Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.  …


It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

If these sorts of lies are all that he can give us, then the Nobel Peace Prize Committee must demand he return his shameful 2009 Prize from them, right now. And why hasn’t the Committee already  demanded he return it?

American Presidents, and we, should leave Russia and its allies (including the BRICS and the non-BRICS such as Argentina) in peace, not pretend to support peace, when all that the U.S. actually spreads is invasions and wars — never-ending wars, and refugees from those wars, which are profitable only for the private investors in those private war-corporations or “contractors.”

Without that corruption, there would be a vastly smaller U.S. ‘Defense’ budget. The Pentagon isn’t even auditable. We have a good idea as to where lots of the real expenses are going. And it’s the opposite of ‘humanitarian’ or ‘pro-democracy.’ It’s arms to hire, or to invest in, by the world’s top kleptocrats — the people who control the lobbyists in Washington, who basically write America’s laws, and fund America’s politics.

Amongst all corrupt aristocracies (and that’s every  aristocracy), America’s takes the cake. But yet what has been a standard description which American leaders apply to the governments (such as Saddam Hussein’s, and Muammar Gaddafi’s, and Viktor Yanukovych’s) they’ve overthrown? It’s that they’re “corrupt.”

The International Criminal Court will begin to have credibility if and when it starts to prosecute American leaders such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but not a minute before that time. Western gangsters lead the world right now, and Western political leaders are their agents — merely fixers, for those elite gangsters.

*  *  *

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
stant's picture

" how far up river you going Capt Willard ?"

Took Red Pill's picture

I'll repeat an previous comment;

If you want to really cut the military, this is the candidate to do it. She gets like zero media attention;

Which 50 percent of the military would Stein cut? Two places she named that she would start with are foreign bases (she’d close them) and the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Stein told me, “but we want to be clear that we are putting an end to wars for oil – period.

Ignatius's picture

"Catch 22," Yosarian asked?

"It's the best there is."

TBT or not TBT's picture

The euro weenies and UN pussies get to hold court in the Netherlands and New York thanks to the USA.  

Latina Lover's picture

Remember when Rumsfeld announced that 2.3 TRiLLION was missing from the Pentagram/Pentagon.?

Remember the date of his announcement:

Sept. 10th 2001,  One day before the Twin Towers were supposedly hit by Saudi Terrorists. How fucking convenient!


Stuck on Zero's picture

We may have inferior armaments but we have the largest number of highly paid consultants and contractors ever assembled on the planet.

Silky Johnson's picture

Another overlooked fact is that weapons such as the F-35 are not designed to fight other superpowers, they are only meant to be good enough to pound ground forces of 3rd world shitholes.

any_mouse's picture

A10 Warthogs FTW! But then the MIC would not get richer.


lakecity55's picture

MRAPS vs. Russian Tanks.

But, Bath House built MRAPs to invade the US.

MalteseFalcon's picture

In WWII USA weapons were inferior to German and Japanese weapons.  The USA's advantage was it outproduced its enemies and overwhelmed them with quantity.

So now they could just crank up the factories and .....


skinwalker's picture

The Russian method of procurement seems to be: good enough, and lots of it. 

Refuse-Resist's picture

Or Sherman vs Tiger.

Cheap, quickly produced in large numbers, inferior -- vs-- expensive, complex, superior tech, and inferior numbers due to the previous 3 factors.

Sherman FTW.  So what if they called them 'Ronsons' for their propensity to catch fire when struck by enemy shells. We made 30k of them, vs about 3k Tigers IIRC.

We are the new Nazi Germany in many more ways than one. Hell even our new kevlar helmets look strkingly similar to what the Wermacht was wearing 70 years ago.

The biggest difference between us now and them then, is that they, even on the  verge of defeat, were still developing top notch tech.

We on the other hand have outsourced,back room dealt, and affirmative actioned our tech advantage away.

In short, against a real opponent, the USMIL is goign to get its ass whipped, at least initially.

The fem force and gay blade divisions are going to get their asses handed to them by a real army.

stant's picture

From D-day to VE Day facts . US ,Sherman kill ratio 3.6 to 1. First encounter with a tiger m4 sherman won. Number of tiger mark 6 engagements(3) us armoured personnel that were in a tank 50,000. Killed 1500. 1/3 of those were doing something outside the tank when Kia . Most Sherman's were taken out by PAC 88 guns , panserfaust. Mines or artillery . Most shermans that were hit was repaired put back in service. . Tigers were rare on the battlefield . Us tankers saw every German tank as a tiger.

Excursionist's picture

Disagree about armament inferiority.

I'm actually surprised the Voltairenet article still gets airtime..  The U.S.N hardened its ships against EMPs and other electronic warfare decades ago (think back to 1950's era pictures you may have seen, in which nukes are detonated a few miles from ships), and we're to believe an Su-24 has a magic raygun that turns an Aegis class ship into an 18th century vessel?  Complete rubish.  If you believe that, then I have a bridge somewhere for sale..

Stuck on Zero's picture

I meant "armaments" in the plural. If we can't afford to build them because of immense cost then we have an inferior force with which to fight battles. The USSR can field 10 Su-24s for the price of a single F-35 and their lead times are half of ours.  Asymmetric warfare is deeply meaningful in the event of all-out war efforts.

Refuse-Resist's picture

I bet the Russians are shaking in their boots at the thought of facing off against our female Army Rangers and Marines.

They'll have to time their battle plans to avoid 'that time of the month', or else.

And those dudes wearing the red high heels also strike fear into our enemies.

Excursionist's picture

Last I checked, a bullet flies the same regardless of the gender pulling the trigger.

Trogdor's picture

Remember when Rumsfeld announced that 2.3 TRiLLION was missing from the Pentagram/Pentagon.?

I think that number is kind of outdated.  Last I heard they were "missing" something in the 6-8 trillion range. 

I have a friend who was over in Iraq - his job was paying (cash) the "no-bid" contractors (KBR, CACI, Titan, et al).  He used to get hand-written receipts totaling in the millions of dollars and was forbidden (by his civilian boss) from asking questions or trying to verify anything (like whether there was actually a contract) - he was just told to count out the money, put it on a pallete and they'd drive away with it.

stant's picture

Chief says catcha 22 . Can't afford to keep a empire ,but can't afford to lose a empire.

Cycle's picture

Closing foreign bases and bringing the troops back home is an excellent idea, but closing down the nuclear weapons program, at this point in history, would not. 

bunnyswanson's picture

Disarming your country in the initial phases of WW III is never a good idea.  Bringing the troops home, however, wise move.  As there is a hellish war going on So of the border, assigning military might to dealing with the miserable drug "lords" so their people can assume a normal life makes sense to me.  Isolationism between Canada, US and Mexico would be my next suggestion in this global resource grab by those special ones hiding behind the curtain.  Americans, Mexicans, Canadians should give this some thought.  It's a win win if freedom is the hope, and US military members who have had realization this show the MSM is feeding the viewing audiance is a facade, and destroying America through passive aggressive measures at every level, is underway and that includes individuals who have gained an ear in their communities.  Police as well are in danger if they are pro USA.  It's a goddam coup and it is wrapping up at this point in time.  Last call for the Middle class.  Every NATO nation seems to have visual proof of chemtrails to show us on Youtube.

lakecity55's picture

If we are determined to "take over" other countries, I would do Mexico.

Proctologist's picture

Sounds like a good start.

I'd be curious what Ron Pauls take is on her ideas.

any_mouse's picture

About as much chance as Ron Paul has in this election. Which is the same chance he had in previous elections and any future elections.

JFK fired Allen Dulles, wanted to dismantle the CIA, and take money printing away from the FED.

As the cliche goes, "if voting really mattered, they would not let you do it."


Stlouiemike's picture
Wow, I am impressed, I know thru the years people have said that 3rd parties can't win or even if they did nothing would get done.  This year many prognosticator's have said will be the year of the third party, all it would take is for 1 to get in and highlight the hypocrisy so it becomes a flood. We have to start somewhere and it is early enough if the right candidate comes along, I urge you to take a look at this article and maybe the next step of going to their website.  If you like what you see start passing the word. Remember an individual's vote is much more powerful then a few billionaire's dollars!
barroter's picture

Only the Americans would build a place like this in the middle of the jungle...only the Americans would want to.”

lakecity55's picture

"We took another guy just like you up here 6 months ago. He never came back."

- - - - - -'s picture
- - - - - - (not verified) Feb 3, 2016 8:34 PM

 $610 billion!!!!!!!!

Chupacabra-322's picture

A Billion here, a Billion there. Who's counting, that's Chump change? I am. Who about those 2.3 Trillion Dollars War Criminal Rumsfelf declared missing the day before the 911 False Flag.

snodgrass's picture

 The International Criminal Court? How naive can you be that it would be an improvement?

dumbStruck's picture

The US isn't a signatory of the icc I don't think the icc can even prosecute Americans if it wanted to.

TheFulishBastid's picture

Lol what?


Don't bring a fighter jet to a drone fight.

matermaker's picture

at the rate our miltary exponentially expands its spending and budget?   in 25 or 30 years, the entire budget will build one plane.  It will be shared by the Navy and Air Force.  3 days one week, 4 days the next.   except on leap year when the Marines get a crack at it.

It's the phenomenon of complexity and exponetial growth of militaries.  It happened to Rome.  The moment you don't have new lands and treasuries to conquer[to pay for things], you're screwed.

Clowns on Acid's picture

Matchin' and mixin'

fact and fiction

Eric Zuesse ain't Dr Seuss.


Clowns on Acid's picture

Thanks for the down vote Zuess, you lyin' piece of shiite.

cpgone's picture

MIC stocks holding up during this downturn

SDS and SQQQ ,GOLD and Lockheed

ThisUsernameFollowsTheRules's picture

The United States overall has essentially ensalved the rest of the world for no money. Won't we be fine when things implode?

Omega_Man's picture

the answer is simple... US should buy Russian military equipment.. 

animalogic's picture

Maybe wrong here but hasn't the US lost a lot of its former ability to manufacture many of its military COMPONENTS ? So, in effect, maybe the US buys much of its weaponry from China

lakecity55's picture

Who puts back doors in all the chips and gives the code to the Russians, who can hack the chipsets.

Ace Ventura's picture

That is correct. We already buy TONS of sub-components which have been manufactured in China. The logistics agencies tasked with supporting DoD are constantly trying to avoid buying chinese bearings, computer chips/circuit cards, etc.......but are largely forced to procure them anyway, because there is insufficient domestic support (thank you NAFTA, etc). Recall our F-22 front line fighter force had MAJOR issues with their computer-controlled oxygen system, which was causing pilots to become hypoxic in flight. That's the one big example that made the news, but the modular circuitry in that and many other systems is almost 100% sourced overseas (aka China).

Refuse-Resist's picture

A country that is not self sufficient in its armament production, is simply put, fucked if it has to go war against any country capable of cutting off its supply lines.

The US has become, in that way, Japan of 1940.  The US could be brought to its knees by simply cutting sea lanes. Because we've allowed so much of our domestic manufacturing capability to leave our shores for a quick profit for a select few.

If China decided to cut off exports here, or if Russia found a way to deny shipping, they could put the US in a real bind real quick.  What would the USA look like if all overseas imports stopped suddenly? How long before the American people felt the effects?

Our leaders, both private and pubic, have had and still do have a bad case of myopic greed.

As a result, the strategic position of the United States is greatly weakened and this will show itself immediately upon commencement of war with a country possesing a real military, such as Russia.




lakecity55's picture

"Vlad, I just made a 5 Billion dollar arms deal!"
"With who, Medvedev?"
"I don't know. The equipment is to be delivered to a deserted island in the Pacific."

GeorgeHayduke's picture

The best military equipment that lobbyists and profits can provide. Enjoy!

DaveA's picture

The best part of this is that, thanks to our military's ongoing diversity efforts, in our next confrontation with Russia, all the white Christian straight men will be on the other side. It's only fair, the deviants have taken over our country, let them now fight for it!

(If you wish to know who rules over you, ask who you are not allowed to criticize, or refuse to bake a wedding cake for.)

PADRAEG's picture

80% of those Russian Christians are drunk half the time. Putin has rendered them losers, and if they die in Ukraine, cremates them there rather than send the body parts back home! 

No doubt USA makes a big mistake not making more F22s, but the amazing thing is F22 is NOT the best American fighter! Putin knows his time is limited to Obama's reign!


lakecity55's picture

I don't know. The Lesbian PMS "Weightlifters" Division and the Fighting 69th "Gay Blades" Division might be hard to handle.

Also, while laughing and distracted by the dresses in the 96th "Tranny" Division, a bomb might fall on the enemy, rendering them useless.

Milestones's picture

Sounds like Mexico could give us an ass wuppin. My my how the mighty have fallen. Thanks Israel for all the great people help you have given the USA.


new game's picture

one su 35 plez, will you accept dolla payments? we buy your russian women and treat them very very nice.