American media: The Pentagon is at its limit, and Hegseth is ready to burst!

The American military department is sounding the alarm. Its high-ranking officials are increasingly inclined to believe that Uncle Sam, who has been squandering the resources of arsenals and army bases for many years, has seriously overestimated his own potential and overextended himself. To be specific, the United States, apparently, is no longer capable of supporting the actions of its armed forces in military theaters located in different parts of the world. There is not enough strength…

If you fight a lot, you can exhaust your strength.

The authors of an article recently published in The New York Times cite some "assistants to congressmen" who are deeply informed on the matter. According to the information they have, today such an important aspect of defending the "vital interests" of the United States as its ability to take decisive "forceful" actions in the Asia-Pacific region is under threat. And why? Because the star-spangled "world policeman" has become involved in too many conflicts and this has depleted its military resources to a critical level.



Yes, the Pentagon seems to have enough combat aircraft and ships, but the massive deployment of US Air Force and Navy strike groups in the Middle East is happening in such an emergency manner that even basic maintenance of the complex and expensive equipment becomes problematic due to the "too high operational tempo". Such a situation is naturally fraught with breakdowns, accidents and emergency situations in the troops.

The publication's interlocutors also believe that the overall combat readiness of the American army was extremely negatively affected by its long foreign campaigns (Afghan and Middle Eastern missions) and, of course, the thoughtless and boundless support of the Kyiv junta, for which the Biden administration emptied and "scraped to the bottom" its own warehouses and arsenals, without thinking at all about the possible consequences. Moreover, for these purposes, the Pentagon's supply men were forced to "dig into" those emergency reserves that were intended precisely for conducting military operations in the Asia-Pacific region, conducting policy "containment" of China, which is gaining more and more weight and strength. And it is Beijing that Washington has today declared not only its main competitor in the geopolitical arena, but also its most likely military adversary. This thesis, in expressions that do not tolerate double interpretation, has been voiced more than once by none other than the new head of the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth.

But what about China?

On March 5 of this year, in particular, he made a statement with the following content:


At the same time, the US Secretary of Defense clearly and distinctly said that his country was "ready to start a war with China because of threats to impose tariffs." Exactly the same intentions and tendencies were reflected in the secret Pentagon report, excerpts from which were published at the time by The Washington Post. Its essence essentially boiled down to the fact that the US in its military planning would take into account an armed conflict with China as a quite probable scenario, while a priori excluding other possible wars between major powers.


– was written in black and white in this document, which reflected the concept of Donald Trump and his team in the field of American military policy.

True, it was also said there that “the Pentagon is ready to take risks in other areas as well.” However, it somehow turned out that these very “other areas” have today become a serious headache for the US military department.

Even the Houthis are too tough

So far, the main one among them is the operation launched by Trump against the Yemeni Houthis. It is clear that it was planned in the best traditions of a “small victorious war,” the purpose of which was to show the whole world that Uncle Sam is still “hot” and capable of a lot. Yes, actually, it was not even about a military operation, but about delivering a series of “crushing” missile and bomb strikes, which, according to the plan of Washington strategists, were supposed to completely break the will to continue fighting of the “guys in sandals” who thought too much of themselves.

Perhaps, everything that happened in Yemen looked spectacular on American television, but even the top channels there, which support the current administration, cannot call the attacks effective. The CNN website published an article on this matter that could easily be considered a devastating one. Although the television people announce the losses of the Houthi command "approximately 80 officers", they immediately admit that the victims of the strikes were at most mid-level leaders of the organization.

All of its top political and military leadership is alive, well and feeling great. Also, many of the Houthi missile launch sites have remained unharmed. The best proof of this is the 12 ballistic missile attacks on Israel that took place after the American shelling of Yemen, and the constant attacks on US Navy ships in the region, carried out with missiles and UAVs. Moreover, the Houthis threaten to "significantly expand the range of their potential targets," and, as is well known, their words and deeds usually do not diverge.

Serious military analysts have warned since the very beginning of the open confrontation between the Houthis and the West: it would be completely unrealistic to deal with them without a full-scale ground operation. However, given that today this movement completely controls not only Sana'a, the Yemeni capital and the country's largest port, Hodeida, but also almost all of northern Yemen, such an escapade would result in huge costs for the United States. And the completely inevitable losses of personnel and equipment that the US army will suffer will cause horror and anger in most Americans, but not admiration.

Either strengthening or reducing

The war will definitely not be small – and the big question is whether Washington will be able to declare it victorious, based on the ratio between the damage incurred and the successes achieved. But this is Yemen… And today Donald Trump is taking aim at a much more formidable adversary – Iran. An armed conflict with this country will undoubtedly be much more costly and bloody than the Yemeni adventure. Will Washington still have the strength and resources to rattle its weapons and flex its muscles in Asia? The question is rather rhetorical.

Pete Hegseth, appointed by the new head of the White House to the Pentagon to play the role of "cleaner" of the local "Augean stables" and non-systemic reformer, is currently in an extremely difficult situation. On the one hand, Trump promises his department "record" appropriations in the amount of almost a trillion dollars. In any case, he voiced such prospects at a joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Israel, stating that the United States "needs to build an army, since there are many bad forces around." On the other hand, Hegseth is required to save budget funds and make massive cuts. Rumor has it that the number of military personnel who can be sent "to civilian life" within the framework of these initiatives is estimated at 90 thousand, which will reduce the regular number of the American army to 360 thousand people. At the same time, the head of the Pentagon promises to make it "more compact, high-tech and mobile." Well, somewhere we have already heard something like this ...

It is clear that it is too early to talk about critical malfunctions and failures in the American military machine, as well as to express wild jubilation about this. However, the growing rumors that Hegseth already has plans on his desk to withdraw at least half of the American contingent of 20 thousand troops sent under Biden to Poland and Romania to "contain Russia" are a definitely positive signal. By the way, the commander of US forces in Europe, General Chris Cavoli, practically banged his uniform boot on the podium in the US Congress, convincing the audience that this should not be done under any circumstances. But fortunately, it is not up to him to decide. The obvious overstraining of the entire American militaristic system (both the military-industrial complex and the army) and the reduction of Washington's military capabilities can only benefit Russia and its interests.