Five Takeaways From The New York Times’ Report About NATO’s Military-Industrial Limitations

Five Takeaways From The New York Times’ Report About NATO’s Military-Industrial Limitations

By Andrew Korybko

NATO’s Anglo-American core evidently didn’t expect that Russia would militarily react to their crossing of its national security red lines in Ukraine, instead predicting that it would strategically capitulate. This explains why they didn’t scale up their military-industrial complex in advance nor advise their “junior partners” to do the same in preparation of that scenario.


The New York Times (NYT) published a bombshell report on Saturday about how “U.S. and NATO Scramble to Arm Ukraine and Refill Their Own Arsenals”. This top Mainstream Media (MSM) outlet cited an unnamed NATO official who revealed that 20 out of NATO’s 30 members are “pretty tapped out” after giving the maximum of their military stockpiles to Ukraine. They must now urgently replenish their wares, but this is a struggle since their military-industrial complex’s (MIC) capabilities are limited.

This actually isn’t surprising since earlier reports from other leading Western media already suggested that even the US itself is experiencing similar challenges. That explains why “WaPo Reported That Even Biden’s Getting Fed Up With Zelensky’s Ungrateful Begging” in early October, after which the Democrats launched a psy-op aimed at blaming Republicans for inevitable reductions in military aid to Ukraine. Quite clearly, NATO has been burned out by its proxy war on Russia and can’t keep up the pace or scale.

There are some serious implications to this objectively existing and easily verifiable observation that the average reader might have missed after reading the NYT’s latest article. The present piece will therefore draw attention to that report’s top five takeaways with respect to the Ukrainian Conflict prior to analysing the resultant insight’s significance in the larger context of everything that’s unfolded across the past nine months of this proxy war:

———-

1. NATO As A Whole Didn’t Expect This Proxy War

NATO as a whole was truly caught off guard by the proxy war that its Anglo-American core inadvertently provoked with Russia in Ukraine as evidenced by the fact that its members didn’t scale up their MIC far ahead of time in anticipation of this.

2. The Anglo-American Axis Assumed Russia’s Strategic Capitulation

Despite crossing Russia’s national security red lines in Ukraine through the clandestine expansion of their military infrastructure there under NATO’s aegis, the Anglo-American Axis assumed that Moscow would strategically capitulate instead of militarily react, hence why they too didn’t scale up their MIC.

3. NATO’s Contingency Planning In Ukraine Was Flawed

Nevertheless, the bloc’s contingency planning in the scenario of a Russian military reaction was flawed since they took for granted that their urgent dispatch of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine would stop Moscow’s mechanized advance dead in its tracks and thus quickly compel the Kremlin to withdraw.

4. Subsequent Events Were Opportunistically Exploited

The NATO-backed but Ukrainian-fronted forces’ failure to stop Russia’s advance at the onset of its special operation was opportunistically exploited by the Anglo-American Axis to artificially perpetuate a proxy war for ulterior reasons related to reasserting their declining hegemony over the EU.

5. NATO’s Proxy War On Russia Has Been A Mixed Bag

The Anglo-American Axis successfully manipulated the EU into crippling its economy out of misguided ideologically driven “solidarity” with NATO’s Ukrainian proxies yet their proxy war failed to achieve its publicly stated objective of militarily dislodging Russia from that crumbling former Soviet Republic.

———-

From the above, several conclusions can be made in hindsight about the Ukrainian Conflict and its broader implications for the New Cold War, the most obvious of which is that this proxy war was preventable and arguably seems to have been the result of a major Anglo-American miscalculation. NATO’s two core members evidently didn’t expect that Russia would militarily react to their crossing of its national security red lines in Ukraine, instead predicting that it would strategically capitulate.

This explains why they didn’t scale up their MIC in advance nor advise their “junior partners” to do the same in preparation of that scenario. Had other NATO members like France and Germany realized what those two were up to in Ukraine and how serious Russia was about defending the integrity of its national security red lines there, then they might have unilaterally broken with their “senior partners” to independently explore the possibility of complying with Moscow’s security guarantee requests.

In any case, the Anglo-American Axis ultimately decided to exploit this conflict that broke out as a result of their major miscalculation, ergo why they sabotaged last spring’s peace talks in Turkiye. Despite successfully reasserting their declining hegemony over the EU throughout the course of this proxy war that they’ve artificially perpetuated, they inadvertently unleashed uncontrollable multipolar processes across the world that’ll inevitably accelerate the decline of their global hegemony.



Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.


7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management



Categories: Analysis, Geopolitics, International Affairs

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: