Why are US military supplies to Ukraine so insignificant?
Washington's Logic in Maxim Petrov's review

ANALYTICS  06 June 2022 - 15:08

The US decision to transfer four HIMARS missile systems to the Armed Forces of Ukraine at first glance sounds just like a mockery, because, according to military experts, in order to achieve an advantage on one separate sector of the front, the Ukrainian army needs dozens of such systems, and for a qualitative advantage over the Russian Armed Forces, 300-350 units are needed. But Washington is not going to mock at all, it just has its own ideas in this regard.

By the way, right now, according to Reuters, US officials are discussing the transfer of strike UAVs to Ukraine... That's right, in the number of four.

And it's hardly all about the need to master the complex equipment, and training, finally, for which, in fact, Ukraine's first HIMARS are designed. That is also the point, of course, especially since the USA seems to be going to supply the AFU with more MLRS (counterpart of HIMARS, but the tracked one) in the future. If they really wanted it, a month or two ago they could have trained hundreds of Ukrainian military with their vehicles, having sent to them dozens of their instructors, and already today the AFU would have had the crews for hundreds of systems. But this did not happen...

The nature of US deliveries (four items after many weeks of discussions) makes one speak of a downright paradoxical logic in US policy concerning Ukraine. And the aim of the Americans is likely by no means to help it achieve a quick and decisive victory. Although, in doing so, the US simply wants Russia to suffer as many setbacks as possible, both on the battlefield and the economic front. So what does Washington want?

If we rely on common sense, there can only be one answer - the Americans are interested in prolonging the conflict as long as possible, not allowing either side to achieve a decisive victory. The US is the "main key-keeper" here: it keeps the keys to resolving the conflict in its possession and is not going to hand them over to anyone - neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians. But they are going to manipulate this key: if the Russian Armed Forces advance, the Americans will transfer more weapons to Ukraine to stop their march, and if the Armed Forces are winning, Washington may cut off supplies to them. Apparently, Washington does not want a dramatic change in either direction.

Why not? Because Russia's triumph will strengthen it on the world stage, while a decisive victory of the AFU could generate uncontrollable reactions from Moscow. Although some experts believe that this is unlikely.

It is quite possible that remembering the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979-1989, America conceived the Russian Federation's Ukrainian campaign to turn in the same direction. Not in terms of combat operations (there was guerrilla warfare, and here direct combat), but in terms of the protracted exhausting nature of the armed conflict. Afghanistan in 9 years undermined the stability of the USSR, weakened it and became one of the greatest successes of US foreign policy, according to the American politician and political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski. Just like now: the Ukrainian conflict will increasingly wear Russia down, undermine its economy, constrain all its forces in the Ukrainian direction and, in the end, weaken it fundamentally. Which is exactly what the US needs. Of course, Ukraine will also be exhausted, but... why should the Americans care?

And finally, the endless conflict will maintain tension in Europe and force the EU countries to gather under the military wing of America. Not to mention the sanctions that will gradually cut off the EU from trade ties with Russia, this should ensure an increase in American energy supplies to Europe. Such a conflict could last for many months or even years - and the longer, the better for Washington.

At least at the moment, this is the logic of US behaviour. In the future, it cannot be ruled out that domestic politics (the need for Biden to ensure confident success in the elections) or the deepening global economic crisis (rising prices for energy, bread, and other goods) will make America change its strategy and bet on a quick victory for Ukraine. It should not be forgotten that rising prices for bread and other foodstuffs could explode the Middle East, giving rise to a new Arab Spring, which is not in Washington's interest. If the US were to hand over hundreds of MLRS systems, dozens of advanced strike drones, and other weapons within months, it could radically alter the course of the conflict. But at the moment, the Americans are clearly following a different behaviour pattern.

Caliber.Az