US Doles Out Weapons to Ukraine to Prolong the War

The War the US is Dosing Out: Why It's in Their Interest for It Not to End

The Ukrainian army is not receiving all it could. Each aid package arrives drop by drop, measured. This is the thesis put forward by a geo-strategy expert in an interview collected by ABC: Washington has an interest in a "balanced situation" on the ground. That is, for Russia to fare poorly, but not so poorly that the conflict ends. The idea is not new: it has been applied for decades under different names and with interchangeable sides.

The "Balance of Incompetence" Tested Between Iran and Iraq

Between 1980 and 1988, Iran and Iraq bled each other dry in an eight-year war. According to the reconstruction of those years, the US filtered satellite information to the side that was losing at any given moment: to the Iranians when Iraqi forces were encircling Khorramsar, and to the Iraqis when Iranian offensives threatened Fao or prepared Kerbala X. Military analysts of the time dubbed it the balance of incompetence. Keeping the scales so even that neither side could win.

The parallel was summarized by Henry Kissinger with a phrase cited as defining the doctrine: "It's a pity both sides can't lose." The same Kissinger who, six years earlier, in 1984, saw Ronald Reagan send Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam Hussein. Later, Saddam himself became the Hitler of the Middle East for invading Kuwait. That double standard has a name: Iran-Contra.

What Reagan Forbade and Did in Secret

Reagan solemnly forbade everyone from selling military equipment to Iran. And immediately after, according to the account of the scandal, he organized these sales himself to finance the Nicaraguan Contras. The ingredients of then—hydrocarbons, Russia, and a rival to ruin—remain on the table forty years later. Only the packaging has changed: now it's called support for Ukrainian sovereignty.

Gas, Nord Stream 2, and the Bottom Line

There is an economic interest that needs no sarracena compass. If the war ended soon, Germany could reopen the Nord Stream 2 tap, and US liquefied gas—from fracking, transported by ship and at a premium price—would lose its clientele willing to pay for it. Every month the conflict drags on is another month of energy sales and European military spending. Who benefits from the front moving slowly?

150,000 Russian Soldiers and 750,000 Ukrainians: The Numbers That Aren't Published

The truly important figures are missing. Russia attacked with about 150,000 troops, and Ukraine mobilized around 750,000. The deaths are not publicly counted. These are the numbers that condition any forecast on the war's duration, yet they barely appear in headlines. The rest—arms packages, promises, summits—are announced with great fanfare. Boris Johnson, for example, confirmed a new British shipment worth £100 million, about €120 million, while the death toll remains blank.

The Other Take: Moscow Also Has an Interest in This Lasting

Not everyone buys the narrative of cold calculation. Part of the analysis holds that the interest in prolonging the conflict is not exclusive to Washington: Russia had the means to raze the country and has not used them. And regarding the rationing of weapons, some point to a much less Machiavellian motive, related to not crossing certain red lines. This hypothesis has as many proponents as detractors and does not resolve the fundamental question.

How many deaths would it take for someone to stop being interested in this war? No one has put that figure on the table. Not in a report, not in a press conference, not in a statement. And many months have passed without it appearing.