El Ciudadano
Original article: Estados Unidos: Armas, monopolio e injerencia
By Pablo Jofré Leal, Journalist and International Analyst.
The United States, regardless of whether the government is Democratic or Republican, seeks to achieve hegemony across various domains, including a global monopoly on arms sales. This ambition underscores its control and influence over numerous international relations.
This situation has opened a small window for America’s closest ally, which often shares its imperial ambitions, to access arms markets freely. I’m referring to the U.S.’s proxy, the Israeli regime.
European allies also gain access to a few crumbs of the market, but they face numerous restrictions, including compliance with Washington’s prohibitions on the sale and transfer of arms containing U.S. military-industrial complex technology (1).
The control over arms sales by Washington is evident in its response to the ongoing war in Ukraine, where the United States and NATO use the Ukrainian regime as a proxy against Russia. Ukraine serves merely as an excuse for intervening in the internal issues of states that have chosen to establish defense relations and military ties with Russia.
Importantly, the U.S. habitually threatens any nation that does not operate submissively to the dictates of the White House on economic, military, and political matters, whether they are friends, adversaries, or outright enemies.
This reality, which became starkly clear since Donald Trump’s second administration, reflects a blatant disregard for international law—an increasingly obvious point to state given Washington’s actions.
America consistently attacks Russia and countries that purchase arms from it, shamelessly threatening to impose sanctions under Section 231 of the so-called «Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act» (2), or CAATSA. If that proves insufficient, the U.S. then escalates to destabilizing policies or outright aggression.
In previous years, the strategy was revealed whereby Washington sought to prevent Russia from selling arms in markets it claims are exclusive or which threaten its so-called «national security»—euphemisms that mask its ideology of dominance rooted in a supposed Manifest Destiny (3).
During Trump’s first administration, his Undersecretary for International Security and Nonproliferation, Christopher Ford, announced sanctions against a NATO ally, Turkey, due to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s decision to purchase arms from Russia to diversify its military. Specifically, this involved the S400 missile system, with pressure placed on Turkey’s government to deny access to loans and export licenses.
“In recent years, we have utilized the threat of such sanctions (CAATSA) to deprive the Russian defense industry of potential foreign customers. The Kremlin’s arms trade provides Russia with funds used to position itself against the U.S. and its allies. This arms trade also helps Russia forge relationships with foreign clients to gain strategic advantages” (4).
The search for ways to undermine Russia has taken various forms. In 2023, the U.S. sponsored a tour by former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz aimed at reducing dependency on Russia, seeking geopolitical alliances against China, and securing lithium supplies, but… included in the agenda was also a mission to transfer Soviet-era weapons in the possession of Latin American armies to the Ukrainian regime.
Governments in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru received, prior to Scholz’s visit, a ‘recommendation’ from U.S. Southern Command chief Laura Richardson to donate their military equipment purchased from Russia to Ukraine. The tour was a failure but showcased Washington’s manipulation of naïve leaders like Scholz, representative of an Europe devoid of dignity and sovereignty (5).
Washington also began pressuring the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to transfer their Russian military equipment to Ukraine, offering replacements in the form of U.S. equipment to reduce reliance on Russian arms. But this effort yielded no results.
In response to these continuous provocations by U.S. governments, Russia has maintained a condemning stance while still pursuing opportunities to expand its markets despite the pressures and chronic threats that characterize the U.S. political landscape. Both Democrats and Republicans exhibit the same arrogant, hegemonic behavior with which to contend, reflected in these sanction laws targeting not only Russia but also Iran and North Korea.
The U.S. regularly employs the aforementioned CAATSA to deter nations from purchasing Russian military material: aircraft, missile defense systems, electronic surveillance systems, and even to destabilize contacts and contracts for using advanced aerospace technologies that Russia provides for launching satellites.
This law was signed in August 2017 by President Trump after being passed by a Congress that often tears its garments over trade freedom and the rights of nations—always provided it does not conflict with U.S. global interests. As a result of this sovereignty-violating law, purchases of Russian arms by countries decreased from 31 in 2019 to just 12 in 2023.
Even before February 2022, when Russia initiated its special operation for the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, the U.S. had already succeeded in halting Ukraine’s arms purchases from Russia, as well as from Georgia and Syria. Policies imposing restrictions on governments lead to a reality that Russia is trying to counter.
I recall the remarks made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who previously pointed out a blatant example of Washington’s illegal conduct, referencing the fact that the government of former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador had begun negotiations to evaluate the possibility of purchasing helicopters from Russia. The plan was to supply up to 50 Russian-made helicopters, primarily Mi-17 and Mi-8 models, managed by Rosoboronexport (6).
Immediately, a government official from former President Biden’s administration, then senior advisor to the Office of Western Hemisphere Affairs, economist Hugo Rodríguez, threatened in the U.S. Congress that Mexico could face sanctions under CAATSA. His exact words were: “At the Washington level, we have raised this path of sanctions with our counterparts in Mexico City regarding the Russian helicopters.”
The same policy has been imposed even on NATO and European Union allies, to whom Washington frequently threatens with tariff increases, the withdrawal of American bases from European territory, and consequently the nuclear shield that has been provided to that continent, alongside the weapons of mass destruction held by France and Great Britain, unless they raise their defense budgets from 2% to 5% of GDP.
Despite Europe’s efforts to achieve autonomy in defense, transfers between European countries represent only a fifth of the total within the continent. This scenario explains the massive arms purchases made by Europe from Washington, which stem from U.S. pressure on its European partners to purchase weapons intended for the neo-Nazi Ukrainian regime, in addition to strengthening their military capacities amidst a persistent political and media campaign portraying Russia as a threat.
Under this doctrine of demonizing the Russian Federation, removing markets through undue, illegal pressures that violate national sovereignty, and processes of destabilization—such as those witnessed in Syria, for example—the expansion of interference in the internal affairs of nations has resulted in the U.S. military-industrial complex reaping multi-million dollar profits. This includes not only that Europe lacking sovereignty but also monarchies in the Persian Gulf, Latin American nations, and Asian countries.
Herein lies the approval of the CAATSA law and the pressures from Washington and its cadre of European puppets, which have curtailed the potential for continuing established agreements with Russia or advancing contracts with potential customers of Moscow, such as the case of the 50 MI-18 and MI-7 helicopters for Mexico.
Data for 2025 indicates that the main buyers of Russian arms remain concentrated in Asia, led by India, which accounts for three-quarters of the sales, followed by China and Belarus.
Although the Russian Federation has lost ground globally (now holding 7% of the market) for the aforementioned reasons, it retains these key partners while its presence diminishes in other regions where Washington and its allies have intensified their chief behavior.
Russian arms exports fell by 26% between 2021 and 2025 compared to the previous five years, as indicated by the latest study from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) (7).
Under this aggressive policy of pressures, threats, and blackmail, during the same timeframe mentioned, global sales of U.S. arms have surged to more than double those of Russia, the second-largest exporter (7), with the United States absolutely taking the lead in military spending, accounting for 40% of total world military expenditures according to the 2025 budget.
This policy includes the so-called sectoral sanctions and export controls announced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Former Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen stated on official pages: «The Treasury Department has repeatedly warned that companies providing material support to Russia’s war will face significant consequences, and the U.S. is imposing them today on nearly 300 targets» (7).
This means that Washington restricts access to key components in Russia’s arms industry: explosive materials, microelectronics, and so-called dual-use technologies, which raises costs and delays production.
In light of this reality, the Russian government, led by President Vladimir Putin, understood the need to use these pressures as a catalyst for greater domestic innovation, thus supplying these needs through national production while also enhancing relations with those countries that are currently Russia’s main customers: China, Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Vietnam, India, and various African nations, among others.
Conscious of Russia’s innovative capabilities, the U.S. then implements another series of sanctions directed at attacking the military-industrial base of the Russian Federation. This entails imposing restrictive measures on dozens of entities tied to the defense sector in Russia and companies associated with it in third countries, all part of the military industry, impacting established contracts and new ones, as well as financing, insurance, and logistical needs.
It is evident that the restriction on global arms sales to the Russian Federation is yet another hypocritical attempt by the United States to dominate the global arms market entirely. Moscow defends its sovereign right to export arms as part of its economy and strategic alliances, intrinsic to agreements between nations, with no prohibitions beyond those established by international treaties.
Washington applies a double standard when imposing selective sanctions while maintaining its own arms industry as the largest in the world, alongside monopolistic attempts characteristic of a regime striving to uphold a hegemony increasingly challenged by growing violations of international law—disregarded by Trump when convenient, despite his appeals to these laws for attacking Russia and the global South.
Pablo Jofré Leal – Article for Hispantv
NOTES
- Military-Industrial Complex. Defined as the military-industrial oligopoly, it accounts for over 75% of total military billing. The military-industrial complex consists of the web and revolving door between the defense industry, military high command, politicians, and financial groups that benefit from defense contracts. https://web.centredelas.org/
- CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) is a U.S. federal law enacted in 2017 that imposes economic and political sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Its aim is to punish the aggressions of these countries while limiting their military and energy capabilities, as well as the cooperation of third countries with them, especially in defense. It imposes secondary sanctions, meaning that the U.S. can sanction any person or company from any country that conducts «significant transactions» with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors.
- A notion popularized by journalist John L. O’Sullivan in the first half of the 19th century, it argued that the «divine mission» of the United States was to expand its territory and its «democratic ideals». Initially used for the annexation of Texas and later for the war against Mexico, which usurped half of its territory, the idea was subsequently employed to justify America’s arrogant and hegemonic policy against the entire planet. It serves as the ideological facade for a chronically militaristic and expansionist policy.
- https://www.hispantv.com/noticias
- https://vovworld.vn/es-ES/noticias
- https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario
- https://www.sipri.org/sites/
- https://home.treasury.gov/
La entrada United States: Arms Monopoly and Interference in Global Affairs se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.
🔥 Ver noticia completa en ElCiudadano.cl 🔥
