Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The USA, in Europe, behaved like true arsonists. Like any arsonist, they studied the terrain, identifying the main points conducive to propagation and combustion, finally, they caused the ignition and, today, like a painter, in the perspective and security that only distance can provide, they enjoy their destructive work. Satiated with their incendiary thirst, they turn away and leave the victims in charge of fueling the fire they so calculatedly created.

The last approval process for the 61 billion dollars, with its difficulties, advances and setbacks, was already the result of this internal tension. The anxiety of exploiting another hotbed of tension in the Pacific that “contains China”, as well as the need to turn to Israel and its pyromaniac on duty, Netanyahu, led to an internal struggle that was responsible for a sharp drop in supplies to Kiev.

If between April 2022 and September 2023, every quarter, the USA sent at least 7.8 billion dollars in “aid”, even reaching 14.7 billion between July and September 2022, already in the period October 2023 As of March 2024, Kiev has only received $1.7 billion. Data from Kiel Institute, Ukraine Support Tracker.

Although the amounts have, in the meantime, risen again, at least until we see it, the truth is that, contrary to what has been said so much in the mainstream media, it is the European Union and its member states that owes the largest share of “help”. Until April 2024, the European Union and its member states have committed 177.8 billion euros, while the USA only contributes 98.7 billion euros.

But this number alone tells us a lot about who is really paying the cost of fueling the fire spreading across the USA. While the USA and the EU member states, bilaterally, essentially send weapons, equipment that must be paid for, in the case of EU institutions, what is sent is essentially money. Either outright or in the form of loans in which Ukraine receives the money and the European Commission pays the interest and provides guarantees that future payments are made. The path things take tells us who will bear this payment.

Furthermore, these figures do not include expenditure on refugees which, between Germany and Poland alone, exceeds 50 billion euros in subsidies, housing and other types of support. Even in terms of armament, although the USA, when it comes to some types (howitzers and MLRS) takes the largest share, when we go to tanks, air defense and infantry vehicles, it is the Europeans who send the most, many of these systems supplied despite the lack of protection of its own defenses, which, as we know, does not happen with the USA. Europe helps to defend Ukraine, without needing to defend itself. This is the level of commitment reached.

If these data alone already show us who is bearing the Ukrainian burden on their shoulders, the numerous statements by government officials in Washington, who urge Europe (read the European Union) to take greater responsibility on the issue Ukrainian, there are other signs that point to the fact that the U.S. is about to assume a commanding stance, entering when necessary and only if, strategically, this is justified.

The Heritage Foundation, a very important conservative Think Thank, responsible for 64% of the measures that Trump applied during his first year in office, as president, has already prepared it Mandate for Leadership, in this case for 2025, in which it lists a vast government strategy, starting in 2025, under Trump. Although, as we know, in matters of defense and foreign policy, there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans, or between Biden and Trump. If Trump says he will end the war in Ukraine, Biden, between promises of unconditional support, in practice and in actions, without ending it, leaves the burden to the Europeans.

The Mandate for Leadership 2025 points to the following premises, with an impact on the war taking place on Ukrainian soil:

• “By far the most significant danger to the security, freedom and prosperity of Americans is China”, with Russia being a real, but not decisive, threat;
• “Prioritize building U.S. conventional force planning to defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan before allocating resources to other missions, such as simultaneously fighting another conflict ”;
• “U.S. allies must assume much greater responsibility for their conventional defense”;
• “Make burden sharing a central part of U.S. defense strategy, not just helping allies advance, but strongly encouraging them to do so. ”

And now the grand finale:

• Transform NATO so that U.S. allies are able to mobilize the vast majority of conventional forces needed to deter Russia, while relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrence, and select other capabilities while reducing U.S. force posture in Europe.

With Trump, certainly, but everything points to the fact that even with Biden, this will certainly be the U.S. military strategy for the coming years. The U.S. sees itself mainly dealing with the deterrent component, supported mainly by the nuclear triad. It is also an economic issue. At a distance, like a Supreme Commander, Washington intends to deliver the more expensive, costly and exhausting fight of attrition to what they call “allies”, reserving the fillet mignon for themselves. mignon.

Nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, bombers and other strategic means, of greater value and greater return to the American GDP, but also of greater strategic significance, which is valid for scaring enemies and containing allies. All of these services are under the responsibility of the imperial headquarters. The allies retain the artillery, medium and short range means and everything that concerns to a tactical and operational dimension.

But don’t think that the U.S. doesn’t have a say in these dimensions too. Once again, let’s return to the Mandate for Leadership:

• “Prioritize the U.S. and allies under the “domestic end product” and “domestic components” requirements of the Build Act America, Buy America ”;
• Manufacturing components and end products domestically and with allies stimulates factory development, grows American jobs, and builds resilience in America’s defense industrial base.

In other words, if we add to this the deepening of “interoperability”, as well as the “onshoring” of production, U.S. also finds itself producing to sell to “allies”, or placing “allies” to produce under license or in close cooperation and supervision (friendshoring). Eventually and if successful, the Europeans will no longer have their own weapons or, those that they do have, will be produced under North American license, as they incorporate components whose industrial property belongs to them.

It is important to say here that what many fail to identify when they criticize the difficulties of interoperability and standardization within NATO’s armament. This reality has constituted, over the years, a line of defense, on the part of European countries, against the seizure, by the U.S., of the sectors the represent the greatest added value of their military industry.

When this last barrier is overcome, nothing will prevent the full implementation of the American strategy for Europe. Europe buys, they sell, Europe produces, they authorize, Europe fights, where they rule. The “allied” countries will be transformed into mere expeditionary forces that function according to Washington’s strategic designs.

But it is not only these gains that the North American strategy for Ukraine was made from. Ukraine served as a driving force for groups such as the Centuria group, a neo-Nazi, which today has more than 25,000 members in the various NATO countries in Western Europe. This type of groups guarantees that, leaving the most operational terrain, the U.S. will be able to maintain the strong Russophobic nature of Western military forces, guaranteeing the continuity of friction with the Russian Federation.

On the other hand, after securing the best Ukrainian assets, having exhausted the source, the U.S. gives Europe an internecine struggle, which not only weakens or, at least, keeps Russia occupied, but also prevents Europe from having access to the cement that makes economies competitive: cheap energy and raw materials. By promoting confusion between NATO and the European Union, they also guarantee that the dreams of the European army and strategic autonomy will come to an end. They guarantee that any and all decisions of defensive or offensive interest, which matter to the European Union, also matter to NATO and, by extension, come under the control of the U.S.

Finally, a European Union that coincides with NATO and hands over its strategic defense plan to the U.S., guarantees that the desired European project, from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which would guarantee a self-sufficient Europe from an energy, food, mineral and technological point of view remains postponed sine die and captured by divisive Atlanticism.

This way, the U.S. is free to focus on “containing China”. And for those who traditionally believe that Washington is not interested in the Sino-Russian union, it is essential to appreciate this premise in light of current reality. The fact is that, by not being able to separate the two, at this moment, for the U.S., the Sino-Russian union may have its advantages. Living up to the principle that in a crisis there is an opportunity, the U.S. knows that the best way to guarantee Europe’s distance from China lies in its attachment to Russia. The closer and more involved in the Ukrainian conflict Europe is, the greater rejection it will feel towards China. In other words, a Europe that is more antagonized towards Russia, as is in the interests of the U.S., will also be a Europe that, increasingly, will look with greater distrust towards China and its Union towards its Russian enemy.

This way the U.S. will be sure that it can leave the burden of fueling the Ukrainian conflict to Europe, at the same time as it decouples from China and allows the U.S. to build a world in two blocks, a new cold war. Thus, we can say that, at least tactically and in the short-medium term, the Sino-Russian union could come in handy for the White House.

And seen things like this, it will be very simple for anyone to be able to have a perspective of North American pride, when they look at their work from afar and see in it the fundamental pillar of maintaining their global hegemony. And even more so when all of this is paid for and well paid for by the European Union, the member states and the European peoples, who, with greater or lesser resistance, are still happy to fuel a fire in which we will all burn.

Let us hope that the clouds that are foreseen with the victory of the CDU in Germany and the words of its leader Friedrich Merz, when he mentioned that “the time has come to put an end to the conflict”, translate into a strategic reversal and are capable of containing all the destruction desired by Washington.

Otherwise, we will still pay to watch our own death. This is the burden that the USA has placed on all of Europe. It is up to the Europeans to remove it as soon as possible.