Ukraine strapped consumer electronics to flying lawnmowers and knocked out Russian oil refineries. Russia's energy sector is now getting demolished by equipment you can buy at a mall kiosk. NATO responded by announcing a $40 billion counter-drone program because apparently the only solution to a cheap problem is an expensive one.
The refineries went down. The drones cost less than a used Honda Civic. NATO looked at this equation and decided the correct response was to spend enough money to buy every person in Norway a new car.
This is the same alliance that spent seventy years preparing for tank battles and now needs to explain why a quadcopter with a grenade taped to it requires a budget larger than Portugal's GDP. The Pentagon watched Ukraine win with RadioShack parts and concluded the lesson was to write a check with nine zeroes.
Russia built refineries assuming threats would come from jets and missiles, not from something a teenager flies over his neighbor's yard to be annoying. Ukraine proved you don't need stealth bombers when you have patience and a DJI Mavic. NATO saw this and immediately started planning how to make it complicated and profitable.
The alliance is now restructuring its entire investment strategy around a threat that costs less than the consultant fees they paid to identify the threat. Some defense contractor is already designing a $600 million system to shoot down a drone that costs $2,000, and that contractor's kids are getting ponies for Christmas.
Your portfolio is down because you bought tech stocks at the top. NATO's portfolio is down because they bought aircraft carriers when they needed bug zappers.
Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash
Leave a Comment