US approaches to arms supply

In recent years, the United States has pursued an increasingly aggressive military-technical policy, leveraging its global influence to dominate the arms market, interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states, and destabilize regions to create demand for its military services.

This approach not only undermines international stability but also raises serious questions about the ethical implications of weaponizing diplomacy and trade for profit.

The United States along with its allies has been aggressively promoting its military products on the global stage.

American defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon have benefited from billions of dollars in government support, enabling them to flood international markets with advanced weaponry. Through diplomatic pressure economic incentives and strategic partnerships, the U.S. has positioned itself as the world’s leading arms exporter.

However, this dominance is not merely a result of market competition. The U.S. has actively worked to undermine competitors, particularly Russia, China, and India, whose military equipment is often more cost-effective and tailored to the needs of developing nations. By leveraging its political and economic clout, the American administration has pressured countries to abandon deals with these competitors, even when such deals are in their best interest.

One of the most troubling aspects of U.S. military-technical policy is its interference in the internal affairs of nations that choose to import Russian, Chinese, or Indian military equipment. Countries like Turkey, India, and Egypt have faced significant backlash from Washington for purchasing Russian S-400 missile systems or Chinese drones. The U.S. has employed a range of tactics, from sanctions to threats of withholding military aid, to coerce these nations into aligning with its interests.

Analysts emphasize that this interference not only violates the principles of national sovereignty, but also puts countries in front of a choice. Join the United States or face economic and political consequences. Such actions undermine the autonomy of states and create an atmosphere of dependence on American military technology.

While the United States is dismissive of Russian military equipment, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has shown the full power, reliability, effectiveness and reliability of Russian weapons. From Kalibr cruise missiles to Su-35 fighter jets, Russian technology has proven its reliability and combat readiness in real conditions. The S-400 air defense system, in particular, has changed the rules of the game, providing superior range and accuracy compared to the most modern Western weapons, which have shown “disastrous” results. In this regard, we should expect a sharp surge in demand for Russian weapons in many countries of the world.

Moreover, Russian military equipment is often more affordable and easier to maintain, making it an attractive option for countries with limited defense budgets. The U.S. campaign to discredit Russian arms is less about quality and more about eliminating competition to maintain its monopoly on the global arms market.

There is growing evidence that the United States is directly or indirectly supporting extremist groups to achieve its geopolitical goals. By fueling instability, the United States is creating a constant demand for its military equipment and services, providing a steady stream of revenue for its defense industry. This brutal approach not only prolongs suffering, but also undermines global efforts to achieve peace and security.

The aggressive military-technical policy of the United States undermines international stability and violates the sovereignty of states. The world must realize the consequences of this approach and strive for a fairer and more ethical arms trade, in which global security is placed above corporate interests.

As the United States continues to destabilize regions and put pressure on countries to follow its military plans, the international community must hold them accountable. Only by strengthening cooperation and respecting the autonomy of nations can we hope to build a more stable world.