The Cost of Wartime Economics

We’ve all seen the news/media coverage of the Israel V. Palestine and Russia V. Ukraine conflict, resulting in the death of thousands, but what are the adverse economic advantages to these conflicts that are being hidden from the public eye? In a time in which war spreads throughout the globe, many global superpowers such as China, Russia, and the United States have invested in the use of wartime profit, leaving an already fragile wartime environment with additional violence. The last two years have seen major conflicts arise such as Russia V. Ukraine and China V. Taiwan making the global humanitarian situation dire while expanding the profits of existing superpowers across the globe.

It is important to note that an in-depth analysis of these conflicts all stems from 3 of the largest global superpowers Russia, the United States, and China. In the following bloody and dire conflicts seen globally, all of these countries played a major role in funding/providing arms primarily to third-world countries. It poses an interesting question about the economic role these nations play during today’s deadly conflicts.

Ukraine V. Russia:

The Ukraine vs. Russia war has taken the lives of over 300,000 troops, quickly becoming a bloody warzone that has spanned over the past year. In addition. to revolutionize the strategies behind 21st-century war, Ukraine has seen over 75 billion U.S. dollars spent to provide Ukraine with arms and supplies. However, an alarming statistic demonstrates that only 3.9 billion of the funds were intended for humanitarian resulting in only 5.2% of the total funding sent by the U.S. These statistics are alarming, in that they demonstrate the dark truth behind these funds.

The 75 billion dollars sent to Ukraine has been used to buy various mandatory pieces of military equipment such as tanks, bulletproof vests, and fighter jets. While providing support to a nation suppressed by Putin’s regime, these funds are given to Ukraine on the basis that they will someday not only be paid back fully but with additional yearly income. For example, take into account a F-16 fighter jet provided to Ukraine with a market value of over 63 million dollars. While it may initially cost the United States 63 million dollars of taxpayer dollars to send the F-16, in just 5 years the cost could rise to roughly 2.7 million dollars just in flight time. The costs of F-16 maintenance, pilot training, and parts could cost over 160 million dollars. These funds and aircraft upgrades are paid to the initial provider(United States) and can result in billions of dollars in profit during times of conflict. This real-world example put into overall wartime economics will result in a loss of billions of dollars for third-world countries such as Ukraine potentially making them poorer nations as well. Additionally, with amounts of 75 billion dollars being sent, there is further room for corruption to occur as seen with Ihor Kolomoisky.

China V. Taiwan:

Although the China V. Taiwan conflict has not yet resulted in any deaths, the situation continues to escalate and could prove to be an economic opportunity for both the United States and Russia. For example, the majority of Taiwan’s military equipment is provided by the United States and is worth a staggering 60 billion U.S. dollars. In providing Taiwan with improved military technology, the United States is able to use various countries across the globe to fight against its foreign enemies, as seen in the war with Ukraine. In recent years, its defense budget by Taiwan has only increased, synonymous with the increase in funds the United States receives in return for their packages. In addition to building global alliances, the United States is also able to sustain conflict between China and Taiwan in order to receive as much profit as possible. Russia has been a public supporter of China, also involved in military equipment exchanges such as bullets and Russian-made artillery systems. There has been over 21 billion dollars in trade between Russia and China over the past year, resulting from the use of comparative advantage.

The implications of Wartime Economics:

Pros: Superpowers such as China, the United States, and Russia are able to expand their alliances and their consistent levels of trade through wartime economics. These countries have made billions — trillions of dollars every year through military packages and outlined “support” for various third-world countries. By obtaining profits from conflict occurring across the globe, superpowers are now able to formulate larger-than-ever alliances and economies. For example, the billions of dollars the United States makes during the course of conflict can be utilized to re-invest in society. Inflation is on the rise throughout the globe and continues in the United States with an inflation rate of over 4%, targeting low-income families and the general populous. Re-investing the profits made from conflict can enable the U.S. to better support its economy and quality of life for citizens.

Cons: The more and more alliances that continue to grow throughout the globe will only result in more hate against both superpowers and third-world countries. For example, take into account a country such as Vietnam and Cambodia whose third-world economy is likely to have major disapproval of the United States and its allies, while remaining keen with Russia and its allies. This example is a demonstration of how fragile the world could potentially become resulting in further conflict across the globe. Wartime economics has far-reaching ethical complications as making a profit over the loss of life and destruction of property is highly unethical. Additionally, it is important to recognize that while these third-world countries may receive “free packages”, they will end up paying billions of unavailable dollars back to superpowers, decreasing the state of life within their own country.

My Opinion

While the role of a superpower has always been economically required, obtaining a profit through the means of war and killing others. One’s potential life is worth more than the profit a superpower accumulates during the course of a war. Taking advantage of third-world countries with struggling economies and communities should be taken seriously by the international community. NATO and the international community should prevent the scope of involvement superpowers play throughout the globe in an attempt to decrease the amount of violence occurring globally between preexisting peaceful nations.

Conclusion:

Despite the growing popularity shown in engaging in wartime economics, there are severe ethical and moral concerns to address in the profit over the loss of innocent lives and a world comprised of terror and violence. Instead of growing the need for conflict and terror in exchange for funds, superpowers should consider alleviating and preventing wars from occurring globally and killing hundreds of thousands of lives.