Eisenhower’s warning that US policy would be captured by a scientific-technological elite supplies a specific reason the US sustains the Ukraine war: Ukraine has become a unique, live-fire laboratory for AI warfare at scale
In his January 1961 farewell speech, Dwight Eisenhower cautioned Americans about the “acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” warning that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” More than six decades later, these cautions have been echoed with unfortunate clarity. American democracy is fragile, while the military-industrial complex, now entwined with Silicon Valley, dominates US foreign policy against popular opposition.
The objective is clear: maintaining American supremacy, which means the unchallenged control and privileges of US elites, free from challenge by other nations or coalitions. Practically, this translates to Wall Street, defense contractors, Silicon Valley, and Big Oil steering US foreign policy to maximize elite interests, securing global assets, supply routes, and strategic chokepoints. The rest of the globe is expected to comply.
To enforce control over foreign governments, the military-industrial complex employs a toolkit described as “regime control.” This includes tactics such as erecting or lifting trade barriers; regulating technology access; imposing or lifting economic sanctions; manipulating overseas media; interfering in elections; orchestrating political assassinations, color revolutions, and CIA-supported coups; instigating foreign bank runs and offering conditional emergency loans; freezing and unfreezing foreign assets; targeting officials with corruption accusations, extradition, or kidnappings; and if none of these suffice, resorting to outright warfare. These US wars of choice, essentially campaigns for regime control, continue indefinitely and financially benefit defense industries, although the deep state generally prefers other nations to capitulate without conflict.
Geopolitical Pivots and American Primacy
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard (1997) candidly outlined the objective of regime control. He explained that Eurasia represents the crucial domain for securing US global dominance. The strategy requires the control of “geopolitical pivots,” countries that might not be valuable by themselves but serve to weaken major rivals. Brzezinski identified key pivots, placing Ukraine as paramount. He repeatedly asserted that without Ukraine, Russia loses its great power status. Iran was highlighted as another vital pivot, essential for controlling the Persian Gulf, Middle Eastern oil, and Caspian region. This explains why the US is involved in conflicts in both areas.
The US does not want security with mutual respect. It wants primacy, which is an altogether different thing.
This frame helps explain the persistent Ukraine policy pursued by six different presidents. Bill Clinton pushed for NATO expansion to include Ukraine and other Russian border countries, betting that Russia was too weak to oppose. Successive administrations expected Russia to accept diminished influence, NATO’s presence along its borders, and a subordinate role exporting raw materials within a US-controlled Eurasia.
Clinton spearheaded NATO expansion in the 1990s despite warnings from George Kennan that this was “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold-War era” and contrary to US promises to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would advance “not one inch eastward.” George W. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty and committed NATO in 2008’s Bucharest summit to accept Ukraine and Georgia, crossing what William Burns termed “the brightest of all redlines” for the Russian elite. Barack Obama’s administration supported the 2014 Maidan ouster of Ukraine’s elected neutral government (revealed in Victoria Nuland’s intercepted call discussing choosing the next prime minister) and backed the new regime’s NATO ambitions. Donald Trump sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine to fight separatists in Donbas during his first term. Joe Biden dismissed Russia’s December 2021 security proposals without negotiation and derailed the near-agreement between Russia and Ukraine at Istanbul in early 2022, prolonging the conflict still ongoing.
Trump’s Vacuous Anti-War Campaign Promises
Donald Trump ran in 2024 on pledges to end America’s endless wars, a promise proven hollow.
The start of 2025 included dramatic moments such as the Oval Office’s public reprimand of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in February, a dismissive claim that Ukraine had “no cards,” and a week-long pause in US intelligence sharing with Kyiv in March. This pause demonstrated two facts: first, that the conflict is fundamentally American, as Ukraine’s ability to conduct precision strikes and maintain situational awareness declined sharply without US intelligence; second, that White House pressure focused on compliance from Kyiv, not peace with Moscow. The flow of US military aid soon resumed, leading to a major escalation of American involvement since 2022, masked by a series of summits and calls.
In June 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14307, titled “Unleashing American Drone Dominance,” directing the revitalization of the drone sector and instructing the Pentagon to “procure, integrate, and train using low-cost, high-performing drones.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth showcased drone capabilities and removed restrictions to accelerate military drone superiority in July. That same month, Trump reportedly asked Zelenskyy if Ukraine could strike Moscow with longer-range weapons, according to later Financial Times reporting.
From mid-2025, the US provided intelligence supporting Ukraine’s long-range drone strikes targeting Russian refineries, pipelines, and power plants, influencing mission planning and, reportedly, prioritizing targets. The Alaska summit in August hinted at diplomacy but coincided with approval of Extended Range Attack Munitions sales to Ukraine funded by European allies. By October, Trump had authorized Pentagon and intelligence agencies to supply targeting data for strikes deep inside Russian energy networks, a move the Biden administration had declined as too escalatory. Simultaneously, Washington pushed NATO nations to do likewise and debated Tomahawk missile strikes reaching Moscow. CIA Director John Ratcliffe maintained a robust agency presence in Ukraine, increased funding, coordinated Ukrainian strikes by sharing intelligence on vulnerabilities, and nudged Trump to endorse the strategy. It became known that the US had invested billions in building Ukraine’s drone capabilities from the onset, supported by the CIA throughout.
Though Trump frequently lies, often out of vanity and carelessness, his deliberate deceit consistently supports the military-industrial complex.
The Laboratory
Eisenhower’s foresight about US policy falling under the control of a scientific-technological elite sheds light on why the US keeps fueling the Ukraine war. Ukraine serves as an unparalleled, live-fire testing ground for AI warfare on a massive scale: millions of drone missions, constant adaptation against a technologically equivalent opponent’s electronic countermeasures, and thousands of combat hours generating the most valuable AI military data worldwide.
Central to this effort is Palantir, established with CIA backing, managing the Pentagon’s Maven targeting program, and deeply integrated into the British security network via a revolving door that has recruited over 30 UK officials, including a former MI6 chief. The company’s CEO openly claims that Palantir’s software executes “most of the targeting” operations in Ukraine. In January 2026, Ukraine’s defense ministry announced Palantir was developing the “Brave1 Dataroom” to integrate real battlefield data into interceptor drone AI; by May, talks between ministry officials and the CEO were underway to expand collaboration on battlefield analysis and military planning, with promises to “transfer the war onto Russian territory.”
The conflict in Iran is closely connected to the Ukraine situation. According to Brzezinski’s strategic vision, the stretch from the Persian Gulf through the Caspian is another crucial prize, with Iran as the pivotal state. Ukrainian interceptor teams have been deployed to Jordan to counter Iranian drones, and systems proven against Russian drones are being marketed in the Gulf region. These two geopolitical pivots share one chessboard and owe their conflicts to the military-industrial complex’s influence.
Kissinger’s Admonition to Friends of the US
Henry Kissinger is famously remembered for his blunt warning to countries used by the US: being America’s enemy entails danger, but being its friend proves fatal.
Ukraine suffers under American influence. Three decades after Brzezinski identified Ukraine as the key pivot for US dominance, the country has been depleted demographically, territorially reduced, its energy network devastated, elections put on hold, and its politics reduced to corrupt infighting. Despite Western media portraying Ukraine’s supposed resurgence, recent upheaval in Kyiv shows Zelenskyy dissolving his government for the fourth time since the war began, sending his prime minister to the Washington embassy to manage the “key partner,” and abruptly removing Mykhailo Fedorov, the widely respected architect of Ukraine’s drone program. Such turmoil is inconsistent with genuine wartime success.
The greatest tragedy is that Russia sought for 30 years a security arrangement with the US based on shared peace, mutual respect, and indivisible security. Yet the US rejects mutual security, craving primacy instead, a markedly different aim. In pursuing this ambition, it sacrifices both Ukraine and Iran. True peace in Ukraine would require the US to abandon illusions of forcing Russia’s surrender and accept Ukraine as a neutral link between Europe and Russia rather than a geopolitical pawn aimed against Russia. Eisenhower foresaw the challenge to peace was the military-industrial complex—not just shaping but defining policy. Until American democracy is reclaimed from the grips of corporations like Palantir, BlackRock, SpaceX, Chevron, and similar entities, these battlefield “laboratories” will remain active, with Ukraine bearing the devastating cost of American “friendship.”
Original article: www.commondreams.org
About the Author
