To "counter Russia's nuclear blackmail," the Atlantic Council confidently asserts that "NATO must adjust its nuclear sharing plans." This includes transferring atomic bombs to Eastern Europe and establishing a network of intermediate-range missile bases across the continent.

The think tank praised Washington's recent decision to send Tomahawk missiles to Germany as a "good start," but insisted that it "does not impose a high enough cost on Russia."

What the Atlantic Council has never disclosed is that this would not only greatly increase the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war but that the weapons they specifically recommend come directly from the manufacturers who initially funded them.

The bombs were assembled by Boeing, which, according to its latest financial report, provided tens of thousands of dollars to the organization. The Tomahawk and - were produced by Raytheon, which recently provided six-figure funding to the Atlantic Council.

Therefore, their recommendations not only put the world at risk but also directly benefit their funders.

Unfortunately, this significant conflict of interest that affects us all is common in foreign policy think tanks. News investigations into the funding sources of U.S. foreign policy think tanks have revealed that they receive millions of dollars in annual funding from arms contractors.

Last year, weapons manufacturing companies donated at least $10 million to the top American think tanks, which in turn produced numerous reports advocating for more wars and increased military spending, significantly boosting the profits of their sponsors. In this closed loop system, the only losers are the American public burdened with higher taxes and the millions of people worldwide who become victims of the U.S. war machine.

The think tanks receiving the most tainted funds are, in order: the Atlantic Council, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the New National Security Council, the Hudson Institute, and the Council on Foreign Relations, while the most active arms manufacturers on the street are Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics.

These think tanks directly influence conflicts around the world. For instance, they are among the strongest advocates for providing weapons to Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, despite the latter's genocide in Palestine. A recent report listed a list of American weapons that would aid the Israeli military, including artillery shells, bomb guidance systems, and Javelin missiles. These weapons are manufactured by Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, all of which are major funders of the think tanks.

American weapons are used daily to carry out illegal lethal attacks on Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian civilians, making the manufacturers directly complicit in war crimes.

One example is Israel's recent bombing of a humanitarian zone in Gaza. Israel dropped three one-ton bombs on a refugee camp, resulting in at least deaths. Dozens more are missing.

According to the United Nations, bomb explosions can damage lungs, tear limbs and heads, and rupture sinuses within a range of hundreds of meters.

The bomb was produced by General Dynamics Corporation of the United States and shipped to Israel with the tacit approval of Washington. General Dynamics reaped substantial profits from this massacre; the stock price of this arms manufacturer headquartered in Washington, D.C. has risen by % since [date].

Conflicts and conflicts of interest

Think tanks are an important part of K Street, which refers to the collection of lobbyists, industry associations, and other organizations that seek to influence government policy. Think tanks are groups of intellectuals who come together to discuss and advocate for policies, hoping to influence government policies and public debate. They conduct and publish in-depth research on government policies, help formulate laws, and serve as experts for the media. Many cable news hosts or guest writers for newspaper columns work at think tanks. Therefore, they are major drivers of national political discourse.

They also serve as a source of information for government departments seeking to fill positions. When a political party loses power, prominent former government officials often work at think tanks to weather the storm until their party regains the White House. Thus, they exist like a kind of reserve private government, proposing policy recommendations in the hope that one day they will be able to implement them themselves.

However, all these employees and their luxurious offices in New York or Washington, D.C. are not cheap, and the funding sources are basically only two: government contracts or American corporations. However, these funds come with conditions. The American corporations sponsoring think tanks hope to see their interests advanced. Business lobbies pay think tanks advocating for tax cuts and deregulation, while the defense industry funds the most hawkish groups advocating for increased military spending and more wars.

On [Date], the weapon array of Raytheon was showcased at the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget, France.

Therefore, some people believe that think tanks are not neutral arbiters of good ideas, but actors supported by businesses and governments, pushing agendas while trying to maintain an appearance of objectivity and decorum.

If the groups providing military policy advice to the U.S. government are awash with funds from the arms industry, there is clearly a significant conflict of interest. This study attempts to quantify this conflict of interest. Based on the Global Go To Think Tank Index from the University of Pennsylvania, it analyzes the most influential U.S. foreign policy think tanks and tracks the funding of these organizations to determine how much each receives from the arms industry. A comprehensive funding spreadsheet containing all the numbers used in this study can be found here.

These data are sourced from the websites of various organizations, funding lists, and financial statements from the previous fiscal year. Overall, the arms industry has donated at least $10 million to these think tanks.

However, for various reasons, this number is clearly significantly underestimated. Firstly, according to U.S. law, think tanks are not required to disclose their funding sources, and many do not, meaning the dataset is incomplete. Additionally, those that do disclose often provide vague details about the specific amounts received.

For example, the Center for Strategic and International Studies () noted that groups such as Leonardo Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Huntington Ingalls Industries, and Northrop Grumman Corporation each donated at least $1 million to them in the past fiscal year. However, the donation limit for has no upper cap, meaning that " $1 million and above" could mean $1.5 million, $2 million, or even $1 billion. Nevertheless, this study counted all such donations as $1 million.

Tanks and think tanks

The findings are both concerning and unsurprising, as the study reveals that major arms manufacturers have quietly funded many of the largest and most influential groups that advise the U.S. government on foreign policy. The Atlantic Council alone received funding from weapons companies, with a total of at least million dollars last year. Even organizations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, founded in to reduce global conflicts, have received sponsorship from companies that manufacture war weapons, including Boeing and Leonardo, which donate tens of thousands of dollars annually.

The five think tanks receiving the most funding from the arms industry are: the Atlantic Council, $10 million; the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), $10 million; the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), $10 million; the Hudson Institute, $9.5 million; and the Council on Foreign Relations, $10 million.

At least one weapons manufacturer has provided funding to major U.S. think tanks. The most "generous" among them are Northrop Grumman ($1 million), Lockheed Martin ($1.8 million), General Atomics ($1 million), Leonardo ($1.2 million), and Mitsubishi ($1.1 million).

When seeing these findings, David Swanson, author of "War Is A Lie" and a peace activist, seemed repulsed but not surprised. Swanson described the role of think tanks funded by the arms industry as follows:

They must establish such notions through endless repetition and debate within their peculiar parameters: that war is victory, war is defensive, nuclear weapons can deter war, the enemy is beyond dialogue, military spending is a public service that the state should provide to the utmost, while depriving funds for human needs, and similar absurd nonsense.

tax-paying people who

The groups that receive the most funding from the arms industry are often the most hawkish and pro-war factions in the world, which is no coincidence. Just like any company, the arms industry donates not out of goodwill, but in pursuit of a return on investment.

Influential think tanks like this one truly deliver value for their sponsors, consistently advocating for increased military spending and more wars around the world, regardless of the consequences.

The year saw the belief that Russia's invasion of Ukraine presented a unique opportunity to "transform and rationalize" European defense, pushing for a significant increase in military spending. It warned that swift action was necessary, as the timing for doing so might be "fleeting," and Europe must "avoid piecemeal" development of its military, not "continuing to rely on the United States for defense." The following year, it deemed the NATO target of % military expenditure too low. Instead, it proposed doubling military spending across Europe to %. However, it did not mention that this would be a tremendous boon for its arms industry supporters.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies also insists that for the sake of "global democracy," European countries must "play their part" within NATO, transforming their societies into ones as militarized as the United States.

Meanwhile, Eliot Cohen, the holder of the Strategic Studies Chair, wrote in The Atlantic that the West should increase its involvement in Ukraine. "We need to see large numbers of Russians fleeing, deserting, shooting their officers, being captured, or dying. Russia's defeat must be an unequivocal, massive bloodbath," he wrote, adding, "For this, the West should provide Ukraine with all possible assistance with the utmost urgency."

This includes long-range missiles and - and - fighter jets.

However, neither Cohen nor The Atlantic noticed that the weapons he requested to be purchased and shipped to Ukraine were manufactured by General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, both of which provide direct funding.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, like the Atlantic Council, it also advocates for the retention of U.S. nuclear weapons across Europe to avoid the need for rapid deployment.

The dovish voices within the think tank are, at best, few and far between. In fact, a study by the media watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting on the organization's commentary articles and quotes in The New York Times over a year found no instances of the organization advocating for cuts or cautious development of U.S. military policy.

On [Date], after delivering a speech at an event in Washington, Philippine President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr. stepped down from the podium, where he emphasized the threat posed by China.

However, the call for war is not limited to. In fact, every think tank that receives substantial funding from the military industry maintains an overtly hawkish stance. For example, the Atlantic Council monitors European countries' spending within NATO, attempts to force them to purchase more weapons, and advocates for the United States to establish a new "Indo-Pacific Intelligence Alliance," which would exacerbate tensions with China. Meanwhile, it is claimed that America's silent response to "Chinese provocations" has undermined its "credibility" on the world stage.

When discussing the achievements of think tanks, Swanson told:

They have normalized the idea of measuring war expenditures in economic percentages and the notion that there is no excess. They have normalized the belief that there is only one solution to all problems, even those caused by the solution itself, which is war. And they endlessly promote "the defensive alliance NATO," yet no one notices that NATO's wars are blatant invasions.

A majority of Americans are skeptical of war. Surveys indicate that two-thirds of Americans want Washington and Ukraine to engage in direct diplomacy with Russia, even if it means ceding Ukrainian territory. Most Americans also oppose sending more U.S. troops to the Middle East, even for the purpose of "defending Israel."

Despite continuous media coverage, they still adhere to their stance. A study by the Quincy Institute found that % of all think tanks cited by major media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal when discussing Ukraine issues received funding from the military-industrial complex. The most notable among them are the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Atlantic Council.

Kill to get rich

Edwin Starr ( ) claimed in his 1970 hit song "War" that war is "the friend of the undertaker." But war is also good news for arms contractors. Over the past five years, General Dynamics' stock has risen by %, Lockheed Martin by %, and Northrop Grumman by %.

Thanks to the actions of a country obsessed with conflict, shareholders in the arms industry have reaped substantial investment returns. Since the United States declared independence, it has been at war for years. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a U.S. government agency, the United States conducted foreign military interventions in the years to , with alone accounting for . These interventions included special operations, assassinations of foreign leaders, military coups, and direct invasions and occupations of other countries.

Over half of federal discretionary spending goes to the military, which has an annual budget close to $1 trillion. U.S. military spending is comparable to the combined military spending of all other countries. The U.S. also maintains approximately 800 bases worldwide, with nearly 500 of them located near China.

This feeds the insatiable appetite of arms manufacturers, thus giving them more money to buy influence and lobby the government for more policies that favor their wars and confrontations. One of their strategies is to fund think tanks in Washington, D.C.

For companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, it's a smart business investment. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to fund think tanks like the Atlantic Council means billions of dollars in orders for tanks, ships, and aircraft.

By the year, the United States simultaneously bombed seven countries. However, since then, militarism and the threat to the Earth have only increased. The United States is currently preparing for potential wars with Russia and China—two of the largest and most populous countries on Earth, both possessing significant nuclear arsenals. Going to war with either country could potentially trigger a doomsday scenario.

However, this is good news for the military-industrial complex, as they are raking in the profits. That is why they must be stopped; it is a matter of life and death for all of us.