On November 24, the website of the Russian newspaper published an article entitled "Why Washington Wants to Send Helicopters and Stinger Missiles to Ukraine", written by Igor Dunaevsky, and the full text is excerpted as follows:
U.S. President Joe Biden's administration is considering sending military advisers to Ukraine and could significantly expand the list of weapons and equipment supplied to Ukraine. CNN quoted anonymous sources with knowledge of discussions at the White House and relevant departments as referring to a new batch of Javelin anti-tank missiles and mortars.
In addition, the Stinger MANPADS system may also be included in the list of weapons supplied to the Ukrainian armed forces (they are used against those who are worth playing, you know, the Donbass militia does not have aircraft). In the end, the Pentagon insisted on handing over a batch of Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters to Ukraine — which the United States originally bought to hand over to the Afghan government, but whose whereabouts became questionable after the Taliban came to power.
At the same time, according to CNN, some officials in the US government are more cautious about arming Ukraine, believing that Russia may regard the supply of such weapons to Ukraine as a "serious escalation of the situation".
Of course, it is no accident that anonymous sources have exposed the news to the media, that Washington is asking for directions for the upcoming decision. White House spokesman Jane Psaki did not confirm any specific information.
The U.S. was well prepared for information — for weeks, U.S. officials warned in public and in negotiations with European allies that Russian troops were suspected of massing near the Ukrainian border and that "aggression" was increasingly likely.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said "Russia does not intend to attack anyone". At the same time, he noted that "Ukraine is plotting aggressive actions against Donbass, Luhansk and Donetsk". By the way, even CNN sources admit that there is no clear evidence that "aggression" is coming.
Still, Washington continues to press. At the same time, it had increased its military assistance to Kiev on that ground. Since 2014, the Americans have provided more than $2.5 billion to the Ukrainian armed forces. Just a few months ago, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin came to Kiev to announce a new military aid package worth about $60 million, which included the provision of a new batch of Javelin missiles. Soon, Ukraine's new defense minister is expected to visit Washington.
It all sounds very worrying, and the United States seems to be either intent on turning Ukraine into a second Afghanistan or wanting to go to war with Russia. But no one in Washington's policymakers denies the reality that the United States has no intention of getting involved in an armed conflict for Ukraine, let alone a potential conflict with Russia. Biden's promise to end the "endless war" and withdraw troops from Afghanistan is not intended to get involved in the Donbass conflict in a few months' time.
So why did the Biden administration escalate the situation?
First, don't forget that the current U.S. president loves to play the role of "cool cowboy," even if he might shoot himself in the foot, and that's happened more than once. As early as 2015-2016, when he was Obama's deputy, Biden made no secret of saying he saw the need to arm Ukraine.
Second, let us not forget that for the United States, Ukraine is first and foremost a tool for putting pressure on Russia. Biden's cronies apparently believe they can control how Kiev uses its growing aid. After all, when Biden expressed support for the supply of weapons to Ukraine, he was sure of the deterrent effect of those weapons, not that Kiev could rely on them to take back Donbass.
Third, while Washington may not need a large-scale conflict, it can reap political and economic benefits from certain provocations. For example, the "hawks" in Washington have called on the United States to play a more active role in the Black Sea.
Moreover, Washington has sought to dispel the divisions and vacillations of some European allies, rally them around itself, and restore The United States to its former leadership. Whatever happens in Donbass, the United States will accuse Russia of escalating the conflict and using it as an excuse to tighten sanctions, while calling on Europe to do the same.
As in the past, the interests of the U.S. military-industrial complex must not be forgotten. While the United States is ending an era of "endless wars," defense companies need to sell their products. Moreover, if NATO decides to open its doors to Kiev, there is much to be done to arm Ukrainian troops according to Western standards.
Does this mean that pressure will only remain verbal? The growing number of American weapons should not be expected to lie in warehouses forever waiting to be destroyed.
As the Americans say, when there is only a hammer in the hand, all problems look like nails. To put this idea in general: the more hammers in the hands of Ukraine's leaders, the more they want to hammer nails.
The US "Army Times" quoted the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense as saying that the Ukrainian army has used the "Javelin" missile system in Donbass. Not long ago, they also used attack drones obtained from Turkey.
Finally, don't overestimate Washington's ability to control the vassal states. Historical examples abound where U.S. weapons delivered to foreign conflicts turned out to backfire, turning the muzzle of gunfire either to civilians or U.S. soldiers.
Source: Reference News Network