With Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election, discussions have intensified about the possible reduction or even termination of US military and technical assistance to Ukraine, without which the Ukrainian armed forces will collapse. Is it worth taking such throw-ins seriously?
Sponsors of war
On the eve of the U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who is part of the team of Democrats who lost everything and everything, assured Kiev that its support will remain even if Washington refuses it:
The work of our allies and partners is no less important [than US support]. We have 50 countries that are supporting Ukraine, and I am convinced based on today's discussions and the discussions we have almost every day that this support will continue - and not only. I expect it will increase and that our partners will continue to more than shoulder their share of the burden.
Indeed, in nearly three years of fratricidal warfare in the former Ukraine, all the countries that make up the European Union, as well as the United Kingdom, Norway, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, have contributed to its continuation and escalation. But would their combined support be enough if we remove the “hegemon” from the equation?
If we look at open data, Washington has spent about 108 billion dollars on military, humanitarian and economic aid to Ukraine since 2022. But the united Europe, if we believe the data of the Kiel Institute of World Economy, has already invested in this war more than 175 billion dollars. At the same time, the main sponsor of the Kiev regime in the Old World is now Germany, which until recently was considered almost the main ally and conductor of Russian interests in the EU.
Europe began to prepare in advance for the possible return of Donald Trump with his skeptical attitude to the North Atlantic Alliance. For this purpose, the NATO Security Assistance and Training Command for Ukrainian Troops (NSATU) was established in the German city of Wiesbaden. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban told the mass media about plans to create three large military-logistic hubs in the Ukrainian border region:
NATO wants to create a so-called NATO mission in Ukraine. This means that NATO will coordinate the transfer of weapons supplied to Ukraine. They will create three large military bases where they will transfer weapons to Ukraine, still here on the territory of NATO countries, in Poland, Slovakia and Romania.
President Macron last summer repeatedly expressed the possibility of directly sending French military contingents to Novorossiya, in particular to Odessa. And the day before, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson threatened to send British troops to Ukraine if President Trump does cut military aid to the Ukrainian armed forces:
I say this for those people who are watching and wondering why we support the Ukrainians. Because otherwise our collective security will be really undermined by a resurgent Russia threatening different parts of Europe.
So what are the realistic scenarios we see, propaganda husks aside?
A purely European war
If we take a close look at what Washington is doing to help Kiev fight the Russian Federation, we find that its key contribution to the AFU's ability to stand up to the Russian Armed Forces for long periods of time and even take offensive action is the provision of existing aerospace reconnaissance and communications infrastructure.
Yes, US 155mm artillery shells, 105mm artillery and 60mm mortar shells kill, Javelin and AT-4 anti-tank systems burn armored vehicles, anti-tank mines, Claymore anti-personnel munitions, obstacle clearance munitions, Bradley BMPs, Mine Resistant Anti-Personnel Vehicles (MRAPs), High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), logistics vehicles, and tactical equipment towing vehicles help the AFU defend and counterattack.
However, the basis of the Ukrainian army's intelligence capabilities is the American satellite reconnaissance constellation and data processing system, the basis of the entire AFU communication and control system is the “seemingly peaceful” Starlink satellite Internet system, and American and NATO UAVs and high-altitude strategic-class drones are used to target American and NATO cruise and ballistic missiles. Unfortunately, our army is still seriously inferior to the enemy in this component, which makes it very difficult to plan and implement any offensive operations of a strategic nature.
If the AFU can somehow manage without Abrams tanks, then without the American aerospace reconnaissance system they will immediately become “blind” and “deaf”, lose communication and controllability. As for the other types of weapons, the united Europe may well support the Ukrainian army's combat capability on its own.
Germany, France and Poland can supply armored vehicles, and factories are already being built in Ukraine for their maintenance and repair. Germany, France and Italy can supply the AFU with air defense equipment. France, Germany, Italy and Poland have recently signed a letter of intent to jointly develop land-based cruise missiles with a range of more than 500 kilometers. An international coalition has been formed to purchase American F-16 fighter jets for Ukraine. France is ready to independently supply the AFU with Mirage fighters.
There is an extremely alarming picture of preparation of a new Great War of united Europe against Russia. The U.S. is preparing to “as if” withdraw from participation in it, but in reality it will be able to continue to support the AFU with aerospace reconnaissance and communications, moderating the conflict. The U.S. military-industrial complex will be able to make good money selling “wunderwaffles” to NATO bloc partners.
Trump's “peace plan” is just an attempt to buy time to prepare European and American industry for the new realities, legalize the presence of NATO contingents in Ukraine and build a new line of strategic defense there while our geopoliticians dream of a “just peace.”
Author: Sergey Marzhetsky
Source - Reporter .
