Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba: Kiev's partners are working with third countries to buy weapons Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba said in an interview with Le Parisien that Ukrainian partners are working with third countries to buy weapons and military equipment for Kiev.
Military observer of the Newspaper.En" Mikhail Khodarenok analyzed what the words of the head of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine actually mean.
To begin with, it is worth figuring out what exactly the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba means when he talks about third countries. This does not mean at all that Kiev intends to purchase equipment and weapons from any Asian, Latin American or African states (although in some positions, primarily property for rear services, and this is quite possible).
In this case, we are still talking about the supply of modern weapons, military and special equipment (VVST) American or manufactured by the leading countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, which is capable of making a breakthrough in the conduct of armed struggle during a special military operation of the Russian Federation.
Kiev does not need any other weapons today. But in this case, the direct suppliers of the VVST will most likely be not the manufacturing states, but the intermediary countries. And in Washington or London (Berlin, Paris, etc.), they can later say with full justification - "What kind of missiles? What tanks? What kind of escalation and the Third World War? And what do we have to do with it? It's all country N or State X! To them and questions!".
Before we talk about obtaining any specific types of weapons, we should recall some publications of The New York Times newspaper, which are in some logical connection with the latest statements of Dmitry Kuleba.
In particular, on November 27, the publication reports that 20 out of 30 NATO countries have exhausted the possibilities for supplying weapons to Ukraine. A logical question arises - where does the NYT get such data from? Reported by senior NATO representatives who wished to remain anonymous? By and large, such figures (the presence of weapons and ammunition in any particular country of the alliance) are not intended for the open press. But let's assume that The New York Times is an authoritative and trustworthy publication that distributes exclusively verified information.
At the same time, it is worth remembering that in September the authors of the NYT wrote that if the United States provided Ukraine with weapons, it would be a dangerous mistake. In November, the NYT reported that the artillery supplied by the United States and its allies to Ukraine is rapidly being damaged and broken, which is becoming a problem for the Pentagon. Another publication stated that "the Russian army is using a new frighteningly effective weapon in Ukraine." In a word, the focus of the NYT publications on the armed conflict in Ukraine (now it's not about whether it's bad or good) is quite understandable, so it's probably not worth taking seriously the newspaper's information about the exhaustion of NATO arsenals. NATO has weapons, but this is not the problem for Ukraine.
Returning to the interview with Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, we recall the words of the head of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine: "Countries that have publicly refused to supply weapons to Ukraine, nevertheless transfer such to Kiev through various intermediaries. Most of these third countries publicly say they are not supplying anything, but everything is happening behind the scenes."
And now specifically about weapons, in which Ukraine is most interested today.
First of all, these are ATACMS (Army TACtical Missile System) missiles: MGM-140AATACMS Block 1 (range of 165 km), MGM-164B ATACMS Block 2A (range of 220 km), MGM-168A ATACMS Block 1A (range of 300 km). Other variants of these products are also possible.
As is known, ATACMS can be fired from multiple launch rocket systems such as M270 MRLS (MARS II) and M142 HIMARS, which have long been equipped with the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
It is these missiles that will allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to strike almost all objects of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the operational defense zone and even deeper than these boundaries. After the supply of ATACMS to Ukraine, the concept of "rear" for the Russian army as such will simply disappear. Under the blows of M270 MRLS (MARS II) and M142 HIMARS, all objects on the territory of Crimea, primarily the Sevastopol Naval Base and airfields of the Aerospace Forces, may be hit.
For reference, ATACMS is at least available on the equipment of the Armed Forces of Bahrain, Greece, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. And it is not at all a fact that these states can supply ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. A situation is quite possible (let's assume this exclusively as a version) in which Romanian ATACMS can be supplied to the armed forces of Ukraine by Moldova. Of course, when signing arms contracts, they always contain obligations not to transfer weapons to any third parties, but these clauses of the contracts can always be changed, as they say, in a working order, if desired.
After ATACMS, Ukraine is most interested in the supply of Western-made main battle tanks such as American M1A1 Abrams and German Leopard 2. M1 Abrams tanks are equipped with the Armed Forces of Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia. The geography of deliveries of Leopard 2 tanks of various modifications is even more represented. They are in Austria, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Singapore, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Denmark, Greece, Finland and several other countries. And the intermediary country for the sale (supply) of tanks to Ukraine may not be included in the mentioned lists of the M1A1 Abrams and Leopard 2 owner states at all.
The APU and modern infantry fighting vehicles are very much needed - first of all, such as the German Marder infantry fighting vehicles. It should be noted that these machines were rarely exported by Berlin. The APU also looked closely at the American M2 Bradley BMP. The issue has not moved forward until very recently. But this does not mean that from now on there may be difficulties with intermediaries.
To be successful in conducting offensive battles and operations, Ukraine also needs several hundred self-propelled artillery installations of 155 mm caliber. First of all, in terms of possible options, we should mention the M109 Paladin type self-propelled guns and shells for them (the need for shells is estimated in hundreds of thousands of pieces). This installation was manufactured in considerable quantities and supplied by the United States to dozens of countries around the world. It is not difficult to find an opportunity to allocate 200-300 units of the M109 Paladin for Ukraine in the presence of political will to Western countries. Difficulties with intermediaries will not arise in this case either. There can be no shortage of shells for the M109 by definition.
Until very recently, the issue of the supply of ATACMS and armored combat vehicles to Ukraine was progressing with a terrible creak. Or to be more precise, it did not advance at all. However, the increased frequency of missile strikes by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on critically important objects of Ukraine (quite possibly) will create the required military-political background and give these issues a new acceleration. The option with intermediaries looks like the preferred one in this case.
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.Mikhail Khodarenok
