Bronk said that “it’s so much cheaper and easier” to invest now in the capabilities to deter Russia than it is “to actually invest in the forces capable of fighting an extended war for six months, a year, two years.”
This is the important part, isn’t it. “Invest more money, but don’t worry about the long term, just hand over the cash, the short term is what matters here.”
That’s a disingenuous read, this is obviously a “stitch in time saves nine” case where long term thinking leads to short term investment to avoid long term blow out costs.
You can argue that this investment will not succeed in avoiding protracted war or that it is unnecessary as Russia has no ambitions to extend the war outside Ukraine but I don’t think this article can be accused of not worrying about the long term whether or not you agree that it’s worries are founded.
I don’t understand how you come to the conclusion that such a read of it is disingenuous. It’s a publication called Business Insider from the western empire, an empire that has a history of war profiteering and putting short term thinking over long term. I could see a point that it’s foolish to think nobody in the western empire is trying to think strategically in the long term, but I would figure those are more the people in think tanks and backrooms, not writing pieces for a publication that sound like a pitch to investors.
If there is a part of the article you think especially demonstrates sincere long term thinking, feel free to quote it and I will look at it. Calling a read of this that syncs right up with the chronic observable tendencies of the western empire “disingenuous” is odd to me, to say the least. Reductive, maybe, but disingenuous?
