The abrupt shift of the United States from being a leader in the democratic world to becoming a friend of Russia poses significant risks to global security as a whole, and particularly to the security situation in Ukraine. The attempt to bring the victim to the negotiation table with the aggressor while making unilateral concessions to the aggressor, to force Ukraine to pay for virtual protection and non-existent security guarantees in advance, and the desire to portray Kyiv as a debtor unwilling to repay fictitious debts... All of this is just a part of what is being emotionally debated in the information space.
At the same time, one of the painful issues for Ukraine in light of the potential deterioration of relations with the U.S. is weaponry. Can we expect that the U.S. will continue to support Ukraine, and is Europe adequately equipped to fill the gaps in American assistance? UNIAN asked Igor Lutsenko, a commander of a UAV unit in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and co-founder of the Center for Air Reconnaissance Support.
Igor, in the U.S. there are talks about cutting the defense budget. Considering the political turbulence surrounding assistance to Ukraine, as well as our dependence on partner support, particularly from the U.S., could this mean that we might be left without American weapons?
I think this is not the final situation yet. Of course, in a worst-case scenario, we will have less American weaponry. But what constitutes American weapons, aside from air defense and equipment? When it comes to the core of our warfare—drones—we primarily produce them ourselves. Yes, we use American components, but there are equivalents available. For instance, if we consider the premium segment of reconnaissance UAVs, European manufacturers dominate in supplies over American ones and are very adaptable to the current war.
The most important asset that the U.S. provides for drones is "Starlink." For now, there is no talk of forcibly disconnecting Ukrainians from "Starlink." However, we should consider that possibility and actively seek alternatives.
Don't you think that in a time when global relations are becoming more strained, cutting defense budgets seems illogical?
The story of cutting defense spending in the U.S. is just Donald Trump's first move. What the second move will be is still to be seen.
Indeed, there is currently a trend towards escalating tensions worldwide, and Trump has recently championed increasing defense spending. It appeared that the U.S. wants to sell defense solutions for money, maximizing short-term financial gains. Therefore, when the rhetoric changes so drastically, we need to observe how the situation develops.
First, nothing happens as quickly as stated. A large country like the U.S. has inertia. Second, the military-industrial complex and its representatives, as well as the opposition within the U.S., still have a say.
How is this potential problem for Ukraine being addressed with the help of the EU and Britain?
Theoretically, the EU could effectively ensure that we do not even notice the moment when the Americans, God forbid, stop providing us with assistance.
The fact is that when it comes to "classic" weaponry—armored vehicles and artillery—Europe is, in my opinion, ahead of the U.S. For instance, the Bradley APC is a great vehicle, but the Swedish CV-90 is equally good and, in some aspects, even better. The same can be said for comparing the Abrams and the Leopard. The types of armored personnel carriers that the Europeans possess simply do not exist in the U.S. There are no self-propelled mortar systems with automatic targeting like the ones the Europeans have. Most NATO-caliber 155 mm self-propelled guns are also not American...
Moreover, when it comes to the reduction of U.S. government defense spending, it does not mean that government or private spending by Europeans on American military-industrial complex should also decrease. On the contrary, I believe that Trump is pushing for an increase. And perhaps Europe will simply start ordering more from the same American defense contractors.
But there is another problem. What if the U.S. does not allow Europe to transfer weapons purchased from the U.S. to the Ukrainian army?
For us, the question remains open: will Ukraine be able to receive (for money) the excellent Himars missile systems, or their equivalents from the EU in the future? And will Europeans be able to transfer American weaponry to us, such as Patriot systems and the like?
However, after such actions—an absolute rejection of previous values—there may be a shift in the world's attitude towards the U.S. This could be seen as a covert transition to the enemy's side—Russia. Such a position of "neutrality" would be extremely beneficial for Putin.
Secondly, this would be a significant blow to the military-industrial complex of the U.S. itself. And not merely in the context of missing out on profits when they could have been supplying Ukraine with weaponry and earning from it. But in the context that, in the future, any U.S. ally, even with money, will not be able to count on American weaponry.
In simple terms, in the event of such prohibitions that we are discussing, the U.S. would certainly lose its status as a global hegemon and would be relegated to the ranks of ordinary countries, with all ensuing consequences—for the economy, the military-industrial complex, and everything else. However, such a development should not be ignored. We must understand that the new administration in the White House is capable of even such actions.
Overall, will Ukraine have enough to fight? What is the most problematic aspect for us in this context?
Overall, yes, we will. We have fought before, and we will continue to fight. As for the most problematic aspect, as I mentioned, we need to prepare regarding "Starlink." In my opinion, for our UAVs, the disconnection of "Starlink" would not just be a painful step, but would be very close to a catastrophe. On the other hand, the Russians somehow manage to fight without "Starlink." While the likelihood of its disconnection is bad for us, we will also find a way.
Tanya Polyakovskaya