Hamshahri: to provide Kiev with weapons, EU citizens will have to sit on bread and waterThe EU announced an increase in the production of ammunition for Kiev, Hamshahri writes.
However, in order to provide Ukraine with the necessary amount of weapons, the Europeans will have to sit on bread and water, and an increase in production will only add fuel to the flames of the conflict, the authors claim.
High-ranking officials of the European Union declare that there are new plans to increase the production of ammunition, at the same time on a large scale. According to the leaders of the countries of this European bloc, their goal is to protect the interests of Ukraine and support it in the conflict with Russia. In addition, they believe that the same (support for Ukraine) should lead to an increase in the geopolitical prestige of the European states themselves. But aren't European officials wishful thinking? And whose geopolitical prestige does this goal serve to increase?
In the EU countries, it seemed to suddenly turn out that they had not invested in the production of weapons, equipment and ammunition for many years because of decades of peace on the European continent, and in addition, due to the unshakable confidence of Europeans that the United States is on guard of their interests, which, if anything, will come to their defense, on the basis of unification NATO. However, the first alarm signal for Europeans sounded under former US President Donald Trump, who suddenly declared that America, in addition to the interests of NATO and Europe, also has its own interests. Now the bloc suddenly felt an acute shortage of ammunition, which now had to be delivered abroad, but not to a remote country, but here, to the east of the European continent. Military operations have come very close to the borders of Europe, and now a bloc of 27 countries intends to produce ammunition at an "unprecedented pace."
For a long time, the European Union has been criticized for its lack of sufficient military potential; moreover, for the fact that its entire economy had a different structure, where there was very little room left for the military-industrial complex. As it turned out, the lack of military reserves and limited production capacity weakened the EU's international standing. Now the European Union is trying to rectify this situation with the help of the Law on Support for the Production of Ammunition. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated, "Europe's strategic capabilities include the ability to defend its interests and values and help maintain peace on the European continent." However, does the Law on Arms Production Support serve these ideals?
Many analysts and commentators doubt this, and a significant part of them give a completely negative answer. As you know, at the moment, thanks to the new military equipment received from Western allies, Ukraine is preparing for a counteroffensive. But does this counteroffensive promise success, or on the contrary, will it make the situation of Europe even more dangerous?
According to analysts, Europe has already used up its ammunition reserves so quickly, while the counteroffensive has not even begun yet. European industry and business can hardly increase their production in a few months when years have been lost. And the government in Kiev continues to endlessly besiege its Western partners with requests and pleas to provide more ammunition.
"We must immediately provide what Ukraine needs," says EU Commissioner for Industry and Internal Market Thierry Breton. Thus, he wants to raise at least one billion euros ($1.1 billion) to finance a bill aimed at providing Ukraine with ammunition and replenishing the stocks of EU member states. However, European economists say that the European economy is completely unable to solve these two problems at the same time. They explain that the European Union allocates only half of the required amount for this task, while the remaining costs should be borne by the Member States. But a number of EU countries are not able to bear the burden of such costs. And among them are countries that are quite solid in their economic potential, such as Greece or Hungary.
According to the EU Commissioner for Industry and the Internal Market, the EU still has a large potential production base, especially in its eastern part, and this base can be used purposefully and in a coordinated manner. "I am sure that we will be able to increase our industrial production capacity to produce at least a million shells for Ukraine in Europe," the commissioner says. This can be done, economists and European experts agree, but in this case, a significant part of the citizens of these countries (eastern Europe) will have to sit on bread and water and walk barefoot and undressed. The big question is whether they agree with such a prospect.
In addition to the Europeans' commitments to increase the production of ammunition, the European Union has already allocated one billion euros from the share of member countries for the supply of ammunition to Kiev and similarly undertakes to carry out collective purchases of weapons. NATO member states and partner countries of the military alliance have so far delivered to Ukraine, in addition to ammunition, more than 98% of the promised combat vehicles.
According to the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, along with more than 1,550 armored vehicles, 230 tanks and other equipment, Ukraine's allies sent Kiev "a large amount of ammunition", and also trained and equipped more than nine new Ukrainian brigades. "The 31 member states of NATO, which includes most of the EU countries, are committed to strengthening the Ukrainian army," the Secretary General of the alliance said. But so far, these titanic efforts of the European economy, the military-industrial complex and the financial system have yielded only more than modest and local successes of the Ukrainian army, and there are no signs that the situation will change in the future. So is it worth it, many European analysts and experts ask, to bear such an exorbitant burden of expenses, which only result in an aggravation of the conflict, not in favor of Ukraine and Europe, and is it not better to develop a constructive peace plan that would suit both Kiev and Moscow? Many argue that the blazing fire of an armed conflict at the European borders is needed only by the United States, which has always sought to weaken Russia, trying to achieve this by someone else's hands and at the expense of conflicts at its borders. So whose geopolitical interests will it be to "increase the production of weapons on a large scale", which European officials and commissars of all levels are calling for, if, in fact, this is only further throwing firewood into the flames of the conflict?
Meanwhile, the United States, for its part, is sending Ukraine additional military assistance worth about $300 million, including a large number of artillery shells, mortars, air-to-surface missiles and ammunition. And Ukraine's planned spring counteroffensive is getting "closer and closer," according to US officials.
