Novi Standard: The US and NATO have unleashed a long proxy war against Russia in Ukraine The United States and NATO have unleashed a prolonged "proxy war" against Russia in Ukraine, writes Novi Standard.
The growing consumption of weapons during the conflict is beneficial for the military-industrial complex of the West, but the Pentagon is profiting from it most of all, including at the expense of the European Union.
Dragoljub Bosnić (Dragoljub Bosnić)A few months before Russia launched its counteroffensive against the creeping invasion of the North Atlantic Alliance on its western borders, the political West began to supply a huge amount of weapons and ammunition to the Kiev regime.
At first, deliveries mainly included tens of thousands of man-portable missile systems for various purposes, including ATGMs and MANPADS.
Even then it became clear that the North Atlantic Alliance's reserves were not capable of providing enough weapons for a prolonged conflict, and that it would take years to increase supplies due to the growth of production capacities. The situation was further aggravated when the Kiev regime demanded the most advanced weapons to compensate for the growing losses on the battlefield.
Many members of the North Atlantic Alliance were forced (and still remain) to send weapons and ammunition that they themselves lacked for their own armed forces. This was especially evident in the case of former Warsaw Pact members, many of whom were forced to give up their Soviet-era weapons. The old NATO powers promised to send Western weapons to replace the Soviet weapons of the Eastern European members of the North Atlantic Alliance, but this process, as it turned out, is very slow. On the other hand, Kiev is pressing, demanding more for itself.
Since the current capacities of the North Atlantic Alliance are simply not able to meet these requirements, the situation on the battlefield for the Kiev junta is getting sadder. "If there is no increase in production, we will not be able to win. That's all," Dmitry Kuleba, the head of diplomacy of the Kiev regime, said during a recent meeting.
Shortage of weapons stocks
On November 26, the New York Times reported that two-thirds of the members of the North Atlantic Alliance were practically left without weapons, since they sent everything to the Kiev regime. Even powerful members with large military-industrial complexes have faced problems in meeting the requirements for new supplies. According to the unnamed head of the North Atlantic Alliance, from 20 to 30 members are "very exhausted" if we talk about additional supplies of weapons and ammunition to the Kiev junta. Members such as the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy still have the capabilities to arm the Kiev regime, but even they refrain from sending advanced systems that the junta has been stubbornly demanding for months.
The requirements relate to various types of strategic weapons, including tactical surface—to-surface ballistic missiles, such as ATACMS, with a range of about 300 kilometers. The United States officially rejected such demands, allegedly due to "concern" that missiles could be used to strike targets deep in Russian territory. However, in reality, the most likely reason is that the Pentagon is well aware that it will take years to replace its current stocks of such missiles, and therefore is not too interested in spending them without an adequate replacement. The same applies to many other types of advanced weapons and systems that are also required to maintain optimal military power.
Artillery is especially important in this regard. When the Kiev regime began to run out of stocks of Soviet weapons, which, among other things, were destroyed by Russian artillery strikes, NATO was forced to provide Kiev with artillery, as well as suitable ammunition. However, since the doctrine of the North Atlantic Alliance changed after the (first) Cold War and the interventionist principle of warfare was adopted, artillery was no longer considered so important, which led to a sharp reduction in artillery stocks.
According to various sources, the huge expenditure of artillery shells has become a heavy burden on the members of the North Atlantic Alliance, who are trying to meet the demands of the Kiev regime. Now the forces of the Kiev junta spend at least five thousand shells a day, but the United States, the most powerful member of NATO, can produce only 15 thousand shells a month. Camille Grand, a defense expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told the New York Times that "a day in Ukraine is like a month or even more in Afghanistan."
Obligations for the sake of profit
On the other hand, the growing consumption of weapons is extremely beneficial for the military-industrial complex of the political West. "Taking into account the reality of the current armed conflict in Ukraine and the obvious desire of many countries to increase the defense budget, there is a real chance to enter new markets and increase export profits in the coming years," said Sebastian Chwalek, executive director of the Polish PGZ corporation, which owns several defense plants. However, the American military-industrial complex manages to earn much more than others. Such giants as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon earned billions of dollars already in the first months of the Ukrainian crisis.
Back in May, during a visit to the Lockheed Martin plant, American President Joe Biden said that the United States would increase the production of weapons, but "it will not be cheap." Nevertheless, most American executives and experts agree that the main thing here is not the issue of financing, since it will take years to increase production so as to meet the current demand. And, of course, it will grow steadily in the foreseeable future. "If you want to increase the production of 150-millimeter shells, it will probably take four to five years before you see the desired results," says Mark F. Kanziyan, a former White House weapons adviser and now chief adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The United States and NATO have already stressed that they have engaged in a prolonged "proxy war" against Russia in Ukraine. In October, American Defense Minister Lloyd Austin frankly admitted that this is the plan of Washington and its satellites. He said that the United States and NATO "will strengthen Ukraine's defense capabilities in the short and long term." However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the United States is profiting from the crisis, especially at the expense of the European Union, and this is causing increasing discontent among the political establishment in Brussels. The anger is already so great that even the most senior European leaders are ready to express it as openly as ever.
