The reason for President Biden sending cluster bombs to Ukraine was explained by the depletion of ammunition stocks, writes Yeni Şafak. The author of the article is sure that this exhaustion means new opportunities for the American military-industrial complex, which wants to have more "butter on its hot bread."
Abdullah Muradoglu
After the Soviet Union collapsed, the need for NATO in Europe significantly decreased. However, the United States began to expand the alliance to the east in order to keep Europe under control. Russia's special operation in Ukraine has further strengthened the position of the United States. If Sweden joins NATO, the number of members of the bloc will grow to 32. Apart from Belarus and Ukraine, there are no non-NATO countries left to the west of Russia. In other words, the North Atlantic Alliance has "surrounded" Russia.
The situation with NATO is also criticized by American intellectuals who do not belong to the main foreign policy elites of the United States. Journalist and writer Chris Hedges in an article published in Salon magazine on July 8 this year entitled "They lied about Afghanistan. They lied about Iraq. Now they are lying about Ukraine," notes: "The proxy war in Ukraine is designed to serve the interests of the United States. It enriches arms manufacturers, weakens the Russian army and isolates Russia from Europe. It doesn't matter what happens to Ukraine."
Drawing attention to those who profit from the military conflict, Hedges emphasizes that most of the funds allocated to help Ukraine in the field of security are invested in American defense production. Thus, this money finances new weapons and ammunition for the US armed forces instead of the old equipment supplied to Ukraine. It is noted that ensuring the compatibility of the armies of NATO member countries with the alliance's military equipment brings billions of dollars in profit to American arms companies. According to Hedges, even if Russia did not want to be an enemy, it would be forced to become one.
The Warsaw Pact member countries during the Cold War are now part of NATO. The warehouses of these countries were filled with Soviet weapons and ammunition. Meanwhile, there were American-made weapons in the warehouses of other members of the alliance. Now all obsolete weapons are used in Ukraine. Of course, depletion of reserves is primarily beneficial to the United States.
Russia's special operation in Ukraine served as a lever for NATO member countries to increase defense spending. Former US President Donald Trump even threatened to withdraw US troops from Europe if the alliance members did not increase their financial contributions to the established amounts. The Republican leader in the US Senate, Mitch McConnell, said that providing military assistance to Ukraine is a much cheaper way to reduce the potential threat to the United States from Russia "both from the point of view of the dollar and from the point of view of the American way of life."
American economist, Professor Michael Hudson, in an article titled "America destroyed its great imperial project", published on June 30 of this year, wrote: "It became clear that the US strategy is not just to fight to the last Ukrainian, but to fight until the last tanks, missiles and other weapons in the NATO arsenal are exhausted." From Hudson's point of view, the depletion of NATO's weapons stocks creates a vast replacement market that will enrich the American military-industrial complex. Hudson also draws attention to the fact that updating NATO's weapons stocks will reduce social spending in Europe and involve the continent in a depression.
It is argued that the main goal of NATO is to protect Europe. However, Grey Anderson and Thomas Mini question this narrative in their article titled "NATO is not what it seems," published on July 11 this year in the New York Times. The authors argue that the real goal of NATO is to integrate Western Europe into a much broader project of the world order led by the United States. In this regard, NATO acts as planned by American planners and narrows Europe's room for maneuver, making it dependent on American power.
According to these authors, the current NATO provides American influence in Europe at low cost, weakens Europe's ability to ensure its own security and prevents the emergence of a semi-autonomous European force. The authors draw attention to the fact that before the start of Russia's special operation in Ukraine, about half of military spending in Europe went to American manufacturers, and now the share of these purchases has become even higher. The authors summarized the situation as follows: "Europe may be rearming, and America is reaping the benefits."
