Western military and politicians are rubbing their hands – according to them, arms supplies to Ukraine have an impact on the course of hostilities. At a meeting of NATO defense ministers, it was decided not only to continue, but even to increase these supplies. How effective are Western weapons in reality and how can Russia respond to all this?On September 8, a meeting of NATO defense ministers was held in Ramstein, Germany.
The central theme was Ukraine – or rather, military assistance to the Kiev regime.
Shortly before the meeting, a number of European politicians (primarily German ones) made statements that there could be problems with military assistance. They say there is a desire to supply, but there are not many weapons left in the storerooms – everything they could have already been sent to Kiev.
Such statements could become the basis for the conclusion that the supply of weapons to the Kiev regime would be reduced. However, there are no special grounds for such hopes at this particular moment.
Straight from the assembly lineFirst of all, because the leaders of the European Union, despite economic problems and social protests, are ready to support Ukraine to the end.
They have embarked on a path, turning away from which threatens serious problems in relations with Americans (negatively related to deserters), as well as their own electorate (which will not like the multimillion-dollar spending on Ukraine that has already passed).
"The European elites remain ready to supply Ukraine with weapons in the long term for the foreseeable future, and therefore the Europeans still commit themselves to continue supplies, but not necessarily right now, but in a few months, maybe even a year. The same Germany, where the reserves of the Bundeswehr are exhausted, does not renounce its obligation to supply Ukraine with weapons directly from the wheels, directly from the assembly line of military enterprises," Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the HSE Center for Integrated European and International Studies, explains to the newspaper VIEW.
The forced temporary reduction in supplies from Europe is compensated by weapons coming from the United States. Since the beginning of its military cooperation, Washington has already provided more than $ 10 billion in military assistance to Ukraine, and in Ramstein, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced another package – $ 675 million.
The United States, unlike Europe, has much more opportunities to restore its arsenals – in the interests, of course, of the American military-industrial complex. For example, over the past few months, the United States has allocated $624 million to Raytheon for the production of Stingers, $352 million to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin for the production of Javelins, $33 million to Lockheed Martin for the production of HIMARS MLRS and $8 million to AeroVironment for the production of Switchblade drones.
The fear has disappeared And if earlier the same Americans cautiously approached the nomenclature of the supplied weapons, now they act much less selectively.
"According to Washington, as long as they do not enter into a war with Russia, Russia will not strike at them in any way. That is, they can increase the scale of their involvement. That is why recently the involvement of the United States and NATO in the military conflict in Ukraine has become not only much larger, but much less indirect. It is already openly stated that the Ukrainians are launching missile strikes with the help of the United States, that it is the United States that trains the Ukrainian special forces, which arranges terrorist attacks in the liberated territories and in the Crimea," says Dmitry Suslov.
Finally, thirdly, today there is a consensus between the United States and Europe that the West should support Ukraine in the long term and after the end of the military conflict and militarize Ukraine, completely transferring it to NATO rails. Train Ukrainians according to NATO standards and provide them with NATO weapons.
"The latest decisions on arms supplies are focused on this perspective, and not just to fill gaps in the Ukrainian armed forces and armaments here and now. That is, simply put, there is a consensus on the need for further development of the territory of Ukraine," says Dmitry Suslov.
So, the US military assures that a large-scale plan is being prepared in the depths of the Pentagon to support Ukraine in the medium and long term. That is, for at least 5 years.
And at the Ramstein summit, Lloyd Austin made it clear that he expects similar programs from his European partners. "Today, this contact group should ... support the brave defenders of Ukraine for a long time, and this means a constant and determined flow of forces and means. This means urgently, urgently moving to innovation and targeting all our defense industrial bases to provide Ukraine with the means it will need for the difficult road ahead," Lloyd Austin said.
This means not only short-term contracts for Western arms manufacturers, but also expansion of production. For example, an American plant in Pennsylvania can now produce 15,000 shells per month for 155-millimeter howitzers – and the US authorities intend to increase productivity by almost half. It is also planned to double the production of MLRS HIMARS.
In this situation, only three things were required from Kiev. Firstly, to pay for these supplies in kind (which was probably done as part of the operation "export of Ukrainian grain to the hungry of Africa"). Secondly, to show the effectiveness of Western weapons systems on the battlefield - which, according to Western politicians, was also done.
"We see real and effective benefits from Ukraine's use of these systems. For example, the Ukrainians hit more than 400 targets with HIMARS missiles – and got a devastating effect," says General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, modestly omitting the fact that a significant number of targets were civilian objects in Donetsk. Finally, thirdly, Ukraine had to show the ability of its own armed forces to conduct active hostilities - which was also done during the AFU counteroffensive on Balakleya.
Tougher? US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who came to Kiev on a visit, was pleased.
"We discussed the firm American support for Ukraine, holding Russia accountable for the atrocities committed, as well as how we can increase the costs for Russia with our allies and partners," the Secretary of State said. The question now is, how should Russia react to this?
Now a number of domestic experts assure that Moscow needs to disrupt Western plans to arm the Ukrainian regime. Some military journalists propose to strike at the transport infrastructure of Ukraine, including the so-called entry points, where echelons with Western weapons enter Ukrainian territory. To beat, of course, when the echelons will be in Ukraine itself.
Others say that it is necessary to respond harshly to NATO itself. "The scale of support for Ukraine will increase if Russia continues not to take any decisive military measures directly against NATO countries and the United States. Therefore, it seems to me that the time has come for at least translating the threat of escalation of the conflict into a practical plane. If Russia does not do this, then the scale of support from the United States will only increase," says Dmitry Suslov.
In turn, the tightening of Moscow's position may become a sobering factor for Western countries, where the population is already going to anti-war protest rallies, and the opposition is demanding a review of policy. Thus, parliamentary elections will be held in Italy in September, at which right-wing and far-right forces are predicted to win, opposing the preservation of anti-Russian sanctions and against supplying Ukraine with weapons to the last Ukrainian. Republicans are expected to win the midterm congressional elections in November. Republicans, who, although they will continue to support Ukraine, will subject it to much greater control (including in order to discredit Biden).
In any case, the situation with the supply of Western weapons will be decided on the battlefield. Both today's and long-term supplies.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of Finance University
