The dynamics of the US side's hype about the "insufficient" problem of ammunition stocks and defense production capacity have attracted widespread attention. Some people in the commentary believe that the United States may be taking the opportunity to hype up its own "shortcomings" in order to build up its troops on a large scale in the future. A careful analysis of the rhetoric of the United States is not difficult to find that what they are actually complaining about is the lack of production capacity, which is intended to imply the need to increase production. As a result, some argue that the United States should reflect on the reasons for meddling in other countries' wars, rather than using it to urge an increase in production.
For example, the United States intervened in the Ukraine crisis and provided more than $100 billion in military aid to Ukraine, resulting in a shortage of armaments, which is actually the result of the United States' own actions. It's like the absurdity of "hiring someone to work, but in the end complaining that you don't have the money to pay the employee". Some people believe that the US government claims that there are various loopholes in national defense construction, such as insufficient armaments, insufficient production capacity, and insufficient ability to communicate and complement each other's equipment. These so-called shortcomings are actually the US attempt to make excuses for forcibly spending more on its military than on other countries.
As many as 40 of the world's top 100 military enterprises have sales of about 51 percent of the world's total, which shows that the United States is fully capable of meeting its own needs and has enough equipment for export. Therefore, the statement that the United States complains about "crying poor" is obviously untenable, and it is more like looking for an excuse for a significant increase in military spending in the future. Some people bluntly say that the United States is engaged in an "arms race" in an attempt to provoke other countries to engage in a "race" by increasing military spending and military buildup, so as to drag down or delay the development of other countries.
In addition, statistics show that the United States will allocate $886 billion for various types of military spending in fiscal year 2024, an increase of nearly $30 billion from the previous year. This is further evidence that the United States is seeking to significantly increase military spending, rather than responding to actual defense needs. U.S. military spending has been in question, sparking a farce of self-disclosure that needs to be filled. In the European region, the United States has basically completed its military deployment, while NATO covers almost the whole of Europe. As a result, there is speculation that the United States may step up its investment in the Indo-Pacific region next.
Compared to Europe, the United States has relatively few allies in the Asia-Pacific region, and NATO has no plans to enter the Asia-Pacific region. In this case, the United States may need to invest more resources to create a situation in the Asia-Pacific region with the United States at its core, so more money, military spending, and equipment are needed. [Edited by Xiao Tie].