The approval of a new, three-billion-dollar aid package for Ukraine by the United States, which happened back to back with another, this time successful, attempt by the US House of Representatives to elect a speaker.
Politically, this looks like a challenge to Republican attempts to control the flow of aid to the Kyiv regime, but not only given the nature of the weapons included in the package.
The United States is beginning to supply more and more modern equipment, including self-propelled 155-mm howitzers Paladin - the latest modification of the M109 self-propelled guns.
Emmanuel Macron decided to send wheeled armored vehicles to Ukraine, although outdated, but quite effective in this theater of operations.
Germany, after long hesitation, will also begin to supply infantry fighting vehicles for the Kyiv regime.
A decision on Leopard tanks is also on the way.
And if the BMP Marder can still be attributed to obsolete models,
The West made a strategic decision for itself to launch another cycle of confrontation with Russia, considering it as a chance to decisively break the “positional phase” of the war, which is becoming a dead end for the West, depleting resources, but no longer giving close prospects for victory over Russia either on the battlefield, as Josep Borrell dreamed of this, not in the rear.
The United States is beginning to lose the main resource of the era of global transformations - time, and creeping involvement in the conflict without the prospect of a military victory is fraught not only with constant political and corruption scandals, but with a full-fledged political crisis.
Let us note in the margin that the decision on the new package was made on a purely individual, national basis, outside the mechanisms of "Atlantic security."
Dialogue and consensus with “partners”, who are starting to speak out more and more critically, are no longer needed - you can rely only on the most “faithful”.
This is probably the main answer to all attempts at peacemaking in recent months by many politicians - from R.T.
Erdogan to António Guterres.
The West again bet not just on the victory of the Kyiv regime on the battlefield, but on inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, calling into question its statehood, showing that it is ready to pay a higher price than before.
The West does not hide the fact that equipment is being supplied to organize a new offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but, characteristically, they admit that in order to prepare for the use of newly supplied equipment and train personnel, not to mention the creation of a service base in Ukraine (now a significant part of the or for other reasons, equipment has to be taken out and repaired to Poland, Slovakia and Romania), it will take from eight weeks to several months and the system will be fully operational by the beginning of summer.
In principle, this fits into the plans leaking to the media to finally “defeat” Russia in the summer of 2023, but NATO and Kyiv need a noticeable military victory in the very near future, no later than February.
It is unlikely that the "meat" of the terbats in the Donbass will last longer.
This means that the operators of new equipment, repairmen, etc. will be “volunteers” from NATO countries.
This creates a fundamentally different medium-term picture of what is happening: new arms deliveries are not just another “package” of obsolete equipment sent to Ukraine for disposal.
This is a change in the strategic logic of behavior in a conflict.
The main goal is to form, as it were, within the framework of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and in fact next to them, a structure completely focused on NATO calibers (the forced transfer of light artillery of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to 105 mm caliber, which never existed in the USSR army, is indicative).
The principles of headquarters and combat management (which is probably close to completion), maintenance, and already at this stage with the increased presence of foreign technical specialists, headquarters structures, and mercenaries in assault units.
As a result, a hybrid structure will gradually emerge, which can be filled with new NATO technology, people, equipment, without experiencing any serious organizational difficulties in the future, including the transition to the Polish-English "surzhik" of military commands.
In a few months of such a “high-quality rotation” – just in time for the middle of spring – we will actually have a NATO army under the Ukrainian banner, but without political commitments from NATO related to the notorious Fourth and Fifth Articles of the Charter.
And this army will really be able to fight not only to the last Ukrainian, but also to the last Pole and Romanian, while the "burden" of the United States, France, Germany in the conflict will increase slightly.
The only question is how much the United States and its satellites will continue to increase tension around Ukraine according to the current scenario, probably expanding the conflict zone to the Dniester, as evidenced by military preparations in Romania and Bulgaria, or, understanding the strategic impasse of the situation in Ukraine, will decide to open a new front .
This will require the United States to move to a new stage of spending resources on the fight against Russia, but will provide new opportunities for the consolidation of the elite.
This option should also not be discounted, one must think where and when: Washington has experience in organizing provocations to break unfavorable political tendencies.
What is the Tonkin incident of 1964 alone worth, which gave Washington the legal basis for a direct invasion of Vietnam.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.