The Ukrainian military has made impressive use of weapons provided by NATO members before the invasion and in recent weeks, including portable rocket-propelled grenades and artillery. Despite Russia’s superior armament, Ukrainian forces have been able to exploit the ill-conceived planning and tactical blunders of Russian forces on many occasions to maintain control of most large population areas. However, the Ukrainian government has requested additional weapons, especially fighter jets, to continue to hold on to Russian forces, which NATO as a whole has so far refused to provide. Poland had offered fighter jets to the Ukrainian government last month, but the plan was canceled after the United States intervened to stop it. The new US commitment is to include some aircraft, Reuters reported on Thursday, though not the fighter jets Ukraine is seeking to repel Russian aircraft. In contrast, 11 Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters, originally intended for US forces in Afghanistan before last summer’s chaotic departure, have been deployed in Ukraine. Although not as agile as fighter jets such as the MiG-29 or F-16, some variants of the Mi-17 can be equipped with anti-tank missiles and other weapons to attack Russian ground and air forces. The United States has already supplied five Mi-17 helicopters to Ukraine earlier this year. Powerful weapon systems such as projectiles – essentially portable long-range cannons that can fire long-range missiles, including precision-guided ammunition – are also aimed at Ukraine, along with armored personnel carriers and other vehicles. variety of other defense systems and protective equipment, are also intended for Ukraine. The Pentagon on Sunday confirmed to Vox that arms shipments were already under way, although a spokesman did not provide details or answer questions about the helicopters in particular, including the model that the United States would send to Ukraine.
New weapons offer new advantages and challenges
“They are getting a lot of what they need,” Rita Konaev, deputy director of analysis at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, told Vox on Sunday, despite repeated calls from Ukraine for fighter jets to confront the Russian air force. “It’s unprecedented. We have not seen so much [weaponry] of this caliber, so fast “. The artillery, in particular, as well as the armored vehicles, are on the wish list of weapons that the Ukrainian armed forces desperately need to deter Russian forces as fighting concentrates in the southeast, in the Donbas region. “This equipment represents a significant increase in capabilities as Ukraine tries to repel Russian forces,” John Spencer, a civil war expert at the Madison Policy Forum, told Reuters. “You need these bigger, more powerful weapons… to match what Russia is bringing to try to occupy eastern Ukraine,” he said. Russia is expected to intensify fighting in Donbas in the east in the coming days and weeks, making the rapid delivery of new weapons and equipment vital. A Russian victory seems imminent in Mariupol, which Russian forces bombed and cut off access to basic necessities and humanitarian aid for weeks, and could use the same brutal tactics to claim other cities and towns in Ukraine. With that shift in mind, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Wednesday that the Pentagon was sending the new weapons package as soon as possible. “You’ve seen us go back in time from the moment the president approved the withdrawal until the first missions start landing in the area, it may be just four to five days,” Kirby said. “And after two more days … after they get there to be processed and in fact in the hands of the Ukrainian front line forces,” Kirby told reporters, noting that although they will have to go through some procedural bureaucracy on the new package, “we will not wait, we will start getting these articles on the road. So, we will start literally immediately. “ Because some of the weapons systems – namely, shells and switches – are new to Ukrainian troops, there will be a learning curve in the midst of a very active conflict. However, Kirby told reporters on Thursday that he did not believe the training of Ukrainian troops in the new weapons would be very important. In fact, some Ukrainian troops have already been trained to use the Switchblades, according to the New York Times. “While some of these systems, radars, sniper rifles, will require some familiarity and some basic training … it is not excessive,” he said. “It will not take long. It will not require a large group of trainees. We will solve it. We will try to have opportunities for a small number of Ukrainians to become familiar with these systems. But we do not think it will be a burdensome project or long-term in time or resources. “ However, the Biden administration’s new commitment, both in arms and in timely delivery and training, has drawn criticism from Russia, according to the Washington Post’s Karen De Jiang on Thursday. “We urge the United States and its allies to stop the irresponsible militarization of Ukraine, which has unintended consequences for regional and international security,” an official diplomatic note issued by the Russian embassy at the Foreign Ministry warned. The Post reported that the note could mean that Russia intends to launch an attack on arms supplies coming to Ukraine. So far, Russian forces have not done so, although they consider arms escorts to be legitimate military targets. It is also not out of the question of the possibility of attacking weapons depots outside Ukraine, according to George Beebe, a former CIA director of analysis for Russia. “There was an assumption on the part of many of us in the West that we could feed the Ukrainians really without limits and not pose a significant risk of retaliation from Russia,” he told the Post. “I think the Russians want to send a message here that this is not true.”
Can new weapons make a difference?
A more positive turn in the note comes from a senior US official, who told the Post that Russia’s warning was an indication that US and NATO arms missions to Ukraine were working as planned. “What the Russians are telling us privately is exactly what we have been saying to the world in public – that the huge amount of aid we are providing to our Ukrainian partners is proving to be extremely effective,” he said. While US and NATO weapons have certainly played an important role in Ukraine’s defense – and these new weapons are likely to prove effective in this new phase of the conflict – there are complex factors to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of the new crypto weapons aimed at Ukraine. First of all, while shelling and radar equipment in particular will help Ukraine’s armed forces achieve something close to parity with Russian forces in terms of armaments, that is quite specific to this theater, Konaev said. “As the fighting has shifted beyond the urban centers and into ‘open-air, open-air environments,’” he said, “material could be more important.” Ukrainian forces are losing the defensive advantage they had in urban environments, and so the ability to locate and attack Russian weapons systems more effectively could offer an advantage. But again, this advantage is relevant, and although Ukrainian troops will receive some sort of training on how to use the new weapons, it is unclear what kind of maintenance support they will receive. “We are talking about quantity and type,” Konaev said. “We are not talking enough about the survival of the equipment.” Things like repairs, spare parts and critical software upgrades are vital to ensure that the equipment is durable and can be used sustainably in a war that has no expiration date. Less exciting than drone ammunition, landmines and ammunition – but perhaps just as crucial – is the US defense equipment. Despite heavy losses, Russia could theoretically continue to replenish its troops in Ukraine if it decides to do so. “We do not know what the Ukrainian bench looks like. “They do not have the ability to replenish forces,” Konaev told Vox. Keeping Ukrainian troops alive and capable of fighting will be a crucial part of ongoing assistance. But the biggest questions – what are the desired and realistic consequences of this conflict and what should be a long-term strategic partnership to support Ukraine in this war – have not yet been answered. Apart from the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism, specific, measurable strategic goals of US support have not been clearly articulated. In other words, said Konaev, we do not know if the goal is Ukraine, “to win? Never? How? And at what cost? “ Sending weapons is vital for Ukraine to defend itself against an unjust and destructive Russian invasion. this is indisputable. But it serves only an immediate need, and is narrow in scope. Defense support does not address the great humanitarian catastrophe that Russia is causing in population centers as part of its military strategy. The United States and its allies have pledged humanitarian and financial assistance, which should be part of their long-term support for Ukraine. Immediately and in the long run, weapons are not the only critical need. Food, shelter, medication and medical care are undoubtedly equally important for …
