Modern armed forces depend on a robust productive industry.

The statements made by high-ranking Brazilian military officers are astonishing, as they claim to be nationalists yet adhere to neoliberal and privatization principles. These officers, who occupy high positions in the new government, see no problem with the deindustrialization of the country and its submission to a unipolar order inspired by US geopolitics, in which each country within its sphere of influence must adapt to a specialization in the global economy, controlled by the financial system.

Brazil is relegated to the role of exporter of primary biological and mineral commodities, in addition to carbohydrates (oil and gas). In other words, food and natural resources.

This means relegating the national industry, which has grown since Getúlio Vargas to become one of the most powerful, diversified, and modern in the world, to a secondary position.  

Since Temer's presidency, Brazil has been undergoing an accelerated process of deindustrialization, and everything indicates that a violent privatization scheme, including the denationalization of several industries, is just around the corner. The accelerated erosion of the domestic market is already creating enormous idle capacity in the manufacturing sector, and many companies are considering withdrawing their production plants from the country or abandoning new investments. 

One example is the abandonment of the new steel mill that CSN intended to install in Minas Gerais, for the production of steel pipes for the production chain that would be generated by the pre-salt oil reserves. With the project almost ready, after investing billions, the company abandoned the project, which would have been located near the immense iron ore deposits situated in the heart of Minas Gerais.

This scenario of deindustrialization is strangely accepted with a sense of normalcy by the Brazilian military. This is surprising because one would assume that the training of Brazilian officers is of a high standard. 

If this assumption is true, they will likely learn that modern wars between developed and developing countries are industrial endeavors. Without a strong, modern, and diversified national industrial base, there are no world-class armed forces anywhere on the planet.

This finding comes from studies done on the First and Second World Wars and the Cold War.

The example of the Second World War

According to British historian and economist Adam Tooze, who taught at Cambridge and now teaches at Columbia University, Germany entered World War II practically defeated. He presents his thesis in the book "The Price of Destruction," in which he demonstrates, through an extensive study of comparative economic data, that the German industrial economy was weaker than that of its main adversaries. According to Tooze, projections indicated that the advantage favoring the Allies tended to increase over time, which in fact occurred.

The first victories of the Nazi armies were due to superior training, greater availability of modern equipment at the beginning of the conflict, and revolutionary tactics that came to be known as Blitzkrieg. Interestingly, the Germans learned these tactics from the Red Army in the interwar period, when the Weimar Republic established an agreement with the Soviets to train its armies and test new equipment on Russian territory, circumventing the Treaty of Versailles. There they learned the principles of Deep Operations, conceived by Marshal Tuchachevski. But that's a topic for another text.

Since the First World War, conflict between powers of the same level tends to be lengthy (except in the case of a nuclear war, which can be resolved in a few minutes).

That's what happened in the Second World War. Germany defeated France, which strangely surrendered, even though it still possessed enormous potential to continue fighting (the great French historian, Marc Bloch, who fought as an officer in the conflict, defends this idea in his last book: "The Strange Defeat").

In any case, with France defeated, it was not possible to obtain the surrender of the United Kingdom, which put its industry back into full operation, relying on the help of the Empire and the British Commonwealth, as well as an informal alliance with the United States. 

By this point in the conflict, in 1940 and 1941, the situation was already quite unfavorable to Germany, which became dependent on supplies from the Soviet Union, under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, to keep its industry running.

The United Kingdom was strengthening and increasing its production, while German industrial levels remained stable.

The attack against the Soviet Union was suicide from the start. 

The only chance of victory would be to inflict a decisive and swift defeat on the Red Army in the first few months of the war. The German General Staff expected the operation to be completed before the onset of winter, so much so that they had not planned for the use of uniforms and equipment suitable for cold weather.

As history records, this expectation was not fulfilled. Contrary to popular belief, historians of military affairs determine that the German defeat occurred at the Battle of Moscow, in the first year of the conflict; and not in the corrosive clash of Stalingrad. 

The defeat of the armies commanded by General von Bock, just a few kilometers from the Russian capital, meant that the war continued, and then the importance of industry began to matter.

On all fronts, the German armies were being crushed by the sheer numbers of their adversaries. 

In North Africa, the mediocre Sherman tanks from American workshops began to proliferate. Each Panzer 4 or the early Panthers were capable of destroying four or five enemy tanks. However, the United States industry could field 10 or 12 Shermans for every German tank. The same occurred on the Eastern Front, from the second half of 1942. The Russians deployed enormous quantities of the magnificent T-34 tank. They were superior to any German equipment, but their crews lacked training at that stage of the conflict. Thus, the Germans could destroy three or four enemy tanks. But the Soviets fielded more than 10 vehicles for every German tank.

The same pattern was observed in the air. The British, American, and Russian aircraft that initiated the conflict, such as the P-40, were technically inferior compared to the German ones. However, they were built in much larger quantities and, throughout the conflict, improved the performance of their designs, which continued to leave Allied factories in immense numbers. The German industry never managed to keep up with this escalation in numbers.

Therefore, what determined the outcome of the Second World War was the industry of the belligerent countries.

The same thing happened in the Cold War. The conflict between the US and Soviet empires was decided without the armed forces of either country firing a single shot. What occurred was the inability of the Soviet economy to maintain an industrial effort capable of keeping pace with American production in the 1980s. 

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COUNTRIES AND PROTECTORATES

No modern armed force has the capacity to independently confront current conflicts without an industrial base. This can even occur with small countries that are, in practice, protectorates of larger powers. This is the case of Israel, a country that is totally dependent on equipment supplies from the United States and, to a lesser extent, from Germany and France. To keep the examples in the same region, Syria has also succumbed to a situation of Russian protectorate.

Other countries, such as Venezuela and other Latin American nations, as well as African countries with the exception of South Africa, have a very underdeveloped industrial base and are forced to enter the sphere of influence of the major powers.  

On the other hand, there are countries that, even while maintaining good relations with hegemonic powers, prefer to be masters of their own destinies and choose to establish the foundations of sovereignty. This latter group includes: Sweden, France, Germany, China, India, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Russia, India, and Iran.

Countries that value their sovereignty, even when purchasing equipment abroad, strive to maintain a modern and diversified industrial base capable of producing state-of-the-art weaponry that can be quickly converted to military production, as occurred in the US during World War II. At that time, automobile factories began producing tanks, construction companies built ships, and appliance industries began to dedicate themselves to a wide variety of products.

The example of the US in World War II teaches us that simply having a defense industry is not enough. Germany had that, and it wasn't enough. Strength lies in the size of the industry, its flexibility, modernity, and diversification.

What kind of country do Brazilian military personnel prefer?