This past week, Russia’s confrontation with the main powers of the I’LL TAKE suffered an escalation of important proportions and unforeseeable consequences with the shipment to Ukrainian territory of Leopard II tanks, of German origin, and, M1 Abrams, of American manufacture.
The transfer of armored units not only opens the possibility for more countries to actively join the conflict (as would be the case of Poland), but also favors the intervention of modern combat aircraft belonging to the Atlantic alliance.
But the escalation that is taking place must not only be interpreted in terms of new weapons and military equipment. The pressures that several governments in the region are currently beginning to perceive to contribute their part in the shipment of arms have created an unprecedented scenario since the beginning of the conflict that will soon be one year old.
Indeed, and in a multi-pronged play, NATO intends, at the same time, to provide weapons to Ukraine and to displace Russia from the regional arms market. Meanwhile, in political terms, it would seek to provoke a new front of conflicts between the nations that would either choose to align with the request or, instead, would choose to maintain their neutrality and, above all, their dispensation in the face of the distant conflict.
For the NATO military leadership, one of the main problems facing Ukrainian fighters is their low level of knowledge about the handling of the weapons system currently used in the alliance nations.
Hence, given the lack of time to train the soldiers and the concrete possibility that Russia will face a more successful offensive in the coming months, the new supply of war machinery manufactured in Russia became a necessity, with which the Ukrainians are much more familiar.
In sum, it is believed that Russian-sourced weapons systems currently in use in Central and South America could be used by the Ukrainian military almost immediately. And it is also known that some of these countries would have significant reserves.
Finally, it is assumed that for certain governments it could be profitable, economically and politically, to get rid of this war material to, instead, provide themselves with arms and military vehicles manufactured in the United States, in a compensation policy that, precisely, aims to displace the Russian military presence in the region.
The first call came from the Chief of the Southern Command, Laura Richardson, when on January 19 he admitted at an Atlantic Council conference that the Pentagon was in negotiations with six Latin American governments for the transfer of arms to Ukraine, without going into further detail on the subject.
Obviously, the three countries in the region that have the closest military ties with Moscow, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, and that, as in the case of Russia, are also subject to various types of economic and military sanctions, would be ruled out.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, there would be about seven governments in the region with significant stocks of Soviet or Russian-made weapons: Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay and Argentina.
Of the latter, the most striking case due to its level of purchases in recent decades has been Perueven under the pro-American dictatorship of Alberto Fujimori. On the other hand, heThe current ruler Dina Boluarte could become one of the main suppliers of weapons of Russian origin in order to ensure its survival until a new government comes into office in Peru in 2024.
So far, the most accurate response to NATO’s request has come from the Colombian government. In the framework of the recent CELAC summit held in Buenos Aires, President Gustavo Petro stated that he “did not pull” the proposal from the North. And to leave no room for doubt, the Colombian ruler stated that “no Russian weapon, even useless in our land, will be used in the Russian conflict.”
But the pressures to incorporate Latin America into the conflict have not only come from the United States.
In recent days, there have also been eloquent signs from the German government in the same direction, in what could be a combined strategy between the two powers that have made the most military and economic contributions to Ukraine between the past and the present year. Germany’s offer would materialize within the framework of the tour that Chancellor Olaf Scholz is currently making through various countries in the region.
In this sense, and according to the newspaper Newspaper, President Lula da Silva rejected a request from the German government for Brazil to supply ammunition for the tanks that Berlin will send to Ukraine to fight Russia. According to this medium, the government would have received 5 million dollars for a batch of ammunition for its Leopard 1 tanks. For his part, Lula rejected the offer, arguing that “it was not worth provoking the Russians.”
About, Argentine President Alberto Fernández also expressed his rejection of the initiative of the German government, after his meeting with Chancellor Scholz. In this sense, he affirmed that “Argentina and Latin America are not thinking of sending weapons to Ukraine or to any other country where there are conflicts.”
Scholz’s tour continued through Chile and will culminate in Brazil. Without concrete results, the chancellor insisted on his policy of resupplying weapons in Chile, above all, due to the existence there of some thirty units of the Leopard I tank. Similarly, Scholz takes into account that in Brazil there are Cheetah anti-aircraft tanks, also German-made, whose ammunition has become more precious by the day.
It is thus clear that, as the conflict in Ukraine The interest of the great NATO powers will grow in adding different Latin American governments to their own anti-Russia alliance.
Consequently, the interests at stake, the margin of action and the ability to maneuver of the rulers of the region will remain to be seen in the face of all the pressures and initiatives that go against the notion, which emerged at the Celac summit in Havana, in 2014, which establishes Latin America as a “zone of peace”.
