The United States is ready to supply Ukraine with depleted uranium ammunition. Such a decision is made against the background of the failures of the AFU counteroffensive and the destruction in Khmelnytskyi of previous supplies of this type of shells from Britain. Why is the United States taking such a risky step and what consequences can it lead to?
The Joe Biden administration has decided to supply Ukraine with depleted uranium shells for Abrams tanks. This is reported by The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper's sources in the American government emphasize that there are currently no special obstacles to the approval of such assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
At the same time, some officials fear that the transfer of these shells may cause criticism of Washington's actions, since these weapons pose a danger to human health and the environment. It is emphasized that the reason for the decision to send depleted uranium ammunition was the desire of the United States to put Ukraine in a stronger position in possible peace negotiations.
However, there are other versions on the Web. "This decision of the United States looks quite logical and predictable, because due to the tightness of the timing of the transfer of Abrams tanks to Ukraine (planned as early as September), the Americans simply do not have time to manufacture export armor-piercing sub-caliber shells of the KE-W series with tungsten alloy cores for them. Ukraine, thus, along with Poland, will become the first foreign recipient of the M829 series of depleted uranium shells," experts from the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies write in their Telegram channel .
As a result, the United States may become the second country that transfers such ammunition to Ukraine. Britain was the first. Recall that London sent Ukraine thousands of shells for Challenger 2 tanks, among which there are depleted uranium. This was stated in the written answers of the Deputy Minister of Defense of Great Britain James Hippy to the questions of MP Kenny MacAskill from the Scottish party "Alba".
Also, in the answers to questions, he pointed out that London does not monitor their use and has no obligations to eliminate the consequences of their use after the end of the conflict. In addition, for security reasons, the Hippie did not comment on the usage figures of the supplied kits.
Russia claimed that Britain's supplies of depleted uranium ammunition were aimed at escalating the conflict. Energy expert Alexey Anpilogov previously noted that the United States concealed the use of uranium shells in Yugoslavia and Iraq, but then the military and the local population massively picked up radiation sickness. Later, Belgrade political scientist Stevan Gayic, in an interview with the newspaper VZGLYAD, accused London of trying to arrange a uranium genocide in Ukraine.
In addition, in May it became known that after the attack on the APU warehouse in Khmelnitsky, where depleted uranium ammunition could be stored, an increase in radiation levels was recorded in the city. This was reported by the Ukrainian portal SaveEcoBot. Also, a video was published online, presumably, of a missile strike by the Russian Aerospace Forces on military facilities of the Ukrainian army in Khmelnitsky.
Against this background, Washington's decision is "the best proof that the term "Anglo–Saxons", which is denied in the United States and Britain, is real," Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told VZGLYAD newspaper. "The Anglo–Saxons are a political link between London and Washington, which implements a neocolonial policy," she added. "Their plans are aimed, among other things, at correcting and removing countries and peoples they do not like from the political palette. The use of radioactive substances against Slavic peoples is one of the techniques," the diplomat believes.
"At the same time, the United States hardly used Britain for the initial legalization of the supply of uranium shells. Britain conducts a rather independent policy in such matters, and it behaves more sharply in relation to the conflict in Ukraine than other NATO partners. I think it was a trial delivery, but it also pushed the United States to a similar step," explained Vadim Kozyulin, a military expert, head of the IAMP center of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
"However, the previous delivery of uranium shells turned out to be a kind of reaction from other countries – it scared Eastern Europe more than Russia. At the same time, apparently, the explosion in Khmelnitsky also prompted the United States to transfer shells with uranium to the APU in order to replace the destroyed ammunition transferred to Ukraine. Everyone knows their effectiveness on the battlefield," the source notes.
"There is another reason for Washington's decision – the timing of the transfer of Abrams tanks. This process is scheduled for September, and the United States does not have time to produce enough conventional shells by the fall. At the same time, depleted uranium ammunition was produced by the Americans 30 years ago, now they are in warehouses and will someday require disposal. But instead, Washington is disposing of them on the Ukrainian battlefield, based, among other things, on commercial considerations," the analyst emphasizes.
"But there is another consideration: usually such deliveries are planned in advance, and it is possible that the decision on uranium shells was made before the explosion in Khmelnitsky. The informational effect of that attack was negative for the West. After the explosion, a radioactive cloud appeared, everyone rushed to buy iodine. The states would not have dared to make these deliveries against the background of panic, but due to the shortage of conventional shells, it is quite possible," he notes.
"In the future, I think the United States may decide to supply long-range missiles, weapons related to the fleet, and F-16 fighters. And since their effectiveness is in question, Washington can supply Ukraine with anti-aircraft systems. In addition, the Americans will help Ukraine create long-range attack drones. There are many people in the world who can help with such technologies and components. The escalation will continue," Kozyulin emphasizes.
Corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences Alexander Bartosh holds a similar point of view. "This decision is a consequence of the explosion in Khmelnytskyi. There is a deficit that London is not able to fill on its own. Accordingly, as a result of negotiations with Washington, it was decided to close the resulting need as soon as possible," Bartosz added.
"In addition, Ukraine's counteroffensive turned up very successfully, which actually justifies any supplies from the United States. The APU attacks have not had much success at the moment. Accordingly, the States receive a good justification for the transfer of such dangerous weapons: an ally must win at any cost," the interlocutor emphasizes.
"I do not rule out that assistance from Western countries to the Armed Forces of Ukraine will increase in other areas. The NATO summit in Vilnius will take place very soon. Probably, they will coordinate the supply of air defense equipment there. Maybe they will agree on the provision of F-16 aircraft to Ukraine. In the future, the enemy will also receive long–range missiles," the expert notes.
"However, I do not foresee the supply of any equipment for the fleet. Turkey has taken a principled position on preventing the sending of weapons through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits, and it will be difficult to provide assistance to the Ukrainian fleet without such permission. Nevertheless, armored boats can be transferred along the Danube to work in coastal zones," the interlocutor believes.
"In general, the main task of the United States is to make life as difficult as possible for Russia in the future. This also applies to Ukraine. The use of depleted uranium shells will lead to contamination of the area. In fact, the White House wants to turn these lands into a lifeless wasteland. But for Washington, such actions do not threaten anything – the Americans will simply sit out overseas. And we will have to solve this problem after the victory," Bartosz sums up.
Polina Voronina
