As history shows, in addition to the eye-watering profits of war made by the military-industrial complex, the international banking houses take the lion’s share of war wealth.

Among other things, there is the need to restore a country devastated by war. The hundreds of billions (numbers not bank notes or gold) carry huge amounts of interest which will be paid by taxpayers. Ironically, the latter is the only totally innocent party. And, as the author of an article in The American Conservative warns, they are already eyeing Ukrainian opportunities.

Everyone suffers in the Ukrainian conflict. It is difficult to imagine that anyone can benefit from the current situation, writes a journalist from The American Conservative. However, there are many who make more than a killing, warns the author of the article.

Basically, everyone blamed the American military industry and the politicians who invest in the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) for profiting from the conflict because weapons worth billions of dollars are sent to Ukraine. However, he notes that there are other secret beneficiaries.

The journalist offers to make a short digression into history in order to study who benefits from the devastation of wartime. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson was elected to a second term due to his calls for peace. However, he later changed his position.

A syndicate of American bankers headed by J. P. Morgan Jr. financed the Allied military operations in the amount of $1.5 billion, and the threat of their loss if Britain and France had not defeated Germany would destroy the entire American economy because the entire US GDP was then about $ 60 billion.

The author of the article hints that this fact played an important role in Wilson’s decision to enter World War I. And, of course, Morgan did not miss the great opportunity and, after the war, provided a $10 billion loan to rebuild Europe.

But Wilson still needed to convince the Americans of the importance of supporting the allies. Therefore, his administration formed the Committee of Public Information, which created the perception that the US entry into World War I was necessary to ‘make the world safe for democracy.’ ‘and protect the civilians of the allied countries from the bloodthirsty Huns.’ 

As the author of the article notes, stories of atrocities then became an integral part of media reporting during the war. History repeated itself in World War II. 

Then, from the very beginning, predictions were made that, due to its geographical position, the United States would remain the only industrial and military power that retained its potential. Former world powers, devastated by years of fighting, will desperately need help and will therefore accept American terms. Therefore, even in the initial stages of the war, the Rockefeller Foundation sent funds to launch a project that secretly provided foreign policy advice to the State Department. And from this project was born the post-war concept of the Pax Americana world.

When the European countries began to recover in 1945, the States issued loans to them in order to turn both allies and enemies into ‘reliable trading partners.’ 

For example, England has been loaned over $4 billion. This turned the once mighty British Empire into an indebted junior partner of Washington and the Wall Street banks. British possessions ~ its colonies were transferred to international corporations which of course are financed by the international banking houses.

But it was the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 that became the true centrepiece of American dominance. It made the US dollar the world’s reserve currency, which meant that the dollar would be convertible into gold and other national currencies would have a fixed value against the dollar. 

It created a demand for dollars that, to this day, allows the US to borrow at lower interest rates and have an incredibly large federal debt, all the while funding protracted military campaigns.

So, if we talk about today, then back in 2016, President Obama emphasized that Ukraine is ‘the main interest of Russia, but not of America.’ The author of the article wonders why there was such a turn in politics that Ukraine was given carte blanche. 

There are different points of view. Thus, the US Secretary of Defense spoke about ‘weakening Russia’, President Biden, about the defence of freedom and democracy, and many American analysts warned that Putin wants to challenge the results of the Cold War.

However, the author of the article notes that whatever the intentions of the leaders, one thing is clear: the longer this war continues, the more destruction it will entail.  The restoration of Ukraine will be expensive, no less than the occupation of Iraq, where the States spent more than in Germany and Japan after World War II.

The post-war economic revival of the country is very, very expensive. And the same financiers who are now eyeing Ukrainian markets and natural resources will obviously give money to Ukraine.’ No matter how the conflict ends, big finance will win,’ writes The American Conservative.