Western arms in Ukraine: Tactical edge or mere symbolic support?

Does Western military equipment actually give Ukrainians an advantage over Russians? In terms of technical attributes, many models of Western armaments appear to outperform their Russian counterparts. However, solely comparing spec sheets is a naive way to draw conclusions.

A few days ago, reports emerged about the Ukrainians' withdrawal of Abrams tanks from the front. These American vehicles sometimes hailed in the media as a superweapon, were found to suffer unsustainable losses — including from a propaganda perspective — under Ukrainian war conditions. As a result, a decision was made to withdraw them from combat temporarily.

No tank is indestructible — there are only those that are not hit properly. The Abrams, by making the elimination of a tank from combat slightly easier (ammunition stored in the turret bustle, in a high and exposed position) — primarily safeguards the crew's lives.

Storing ammunition in the hull, as with Russian tanks or some Western models, marginally reduces the risk of the magazine being hit, but when it does happen, the risk of crew fatalities and the complete destruction of the tank increases.

The Western tanks supplied to Kyiv were delivered without an element that has become standard on currently ordered vehicles, namely, an active protection system and jammers, widely employed in Ukraine. Consequently, these tanks are susceptible to drone attacks, and because of the propaganda impact of destroying each one, they have become a prime target for the Russians.

Equally significant is the paltry number of modern Western tanks, which primarily includes the Abrams, Challenger 2, and just 21 Leopard 2 tanks (tanks in the Leopard 2A6 version).

It's essential to note that the Leopard 2A4 offers a level of protection and technical capability dating back nearly 40 years — it's a machine built in the mid-80s. A bit younger is the Stridsvagn 122, or the Swedish Leopard 2A5 with enhanced armour.

The real impact on the war's outcome isn't the few dozen modern tanks delivered in stages over many months, but rather hundreds of older tanks or infantry fighting vehicles - donated, for example, in 2022 by Poland or the Czech Republic.

The heavily mythologised by the Ukrainian authorities F-16s might face the same fate as the Abrams. New fighter jets are crucial for Ukraine because almost all of its air force has been destroyed, and their provision is one of the prerequisites for continuing effective resistance against the invader.

Believing that a handful of older F-16s (for they will be jets in the F-16AM/BM variant, albeit – perhaps – with updated radars) will alter the course of the war might be overly optimistic.

This is especially true since the capabilities of these aircraft in Ukraine will be limited due to being removed from the NATO ecosystem: Ukraine will be less efficient in using the donated weapons than, for instance, the Netherlands or Norway, which benefit from NATO reconnaissance, technical support, and even aerial refuelling tankers.

Probably more crucial than the aircraft themselves will be the weapons integrated with them and provided to Ukraine.

So is the Western weapon and the technical edge it provides insignificant? The honest answer is that it depends. The war in Ukraine has seen several instances where Western weapons genuinely influenced the course of the battles.

One such instance was in the summer of 2022 when the delivery of just a dozen HIMARS launchers to Ukraine led to the prolonged disruption of Russian logistics and the severing of supply chains. This forced the Russians to relocate their own depots dozens of miles from the frontline and created chaos that enabled Ukraine to launch a successful summer offensive.

Another piece of Western equipment of immense significance is the Starlink satellite internet. Regardless of opinions about Elon Musk, his product has given Ukraine – particularly in the early months of the war – an informational edge over its adversary.

Utilising Starlink, a system was devised to manage artillery fire and relay information about targets spotted by drones. In a situation where military communications were compromised – on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides – being hard to jam and operational in areas without infrastructure made Starlink an invaluable asset. Unfortunately, the Russians are now also using it.

A weapon of extraordinary importance has been the Storm Shadow missiles. Their deployment – alongside naval drones – resulted in the remarkable scenario where a nation lacking its own navy and air force was able to effectively break a naval blockade, force enemy warships out of Sevastopol, and finally push the Russian Black Sea Fleet back to bases on the eastern shore of the water body.

Weapons that did not afford Ukraine an advantage in the war but allowed it to hold on also include various air defence systems from Soviet-era equipment that replenished Ukrainian stocks through old Gepards, effective against drones, to new, Western systems capable of defending against Russian hypersonic weapons.

Although there are too few effective anti-aircraft weapons to safeguard both the fighting forces and major urban and economic centres, they enable Ukraine to protect its critical infrastructure and, by defending cities, help to prevent the morale of the defenders from collapsing.

In evaluating the effectiveness of Western weapons in Ukraine, it's also vital to recognise that largely, these are not modern, state-of-the-art weapons with which NATO would engage in combat today. There are, of course, exceptions, such as certain artillery systems – Polish Crabs, German PzH 2000s, French CAESARs, or Swedish FH77BW Archers. Their technical supremacy over Russian systems is undeniable – they offer a firing range several miles longer.

However, this does not always equate to a combat advantage: utilising the longer firing range requires effective reconnaissance, which, given Russian air superiority and highly effective jamming that hampers drone operations, is not always feasible.

Much of the aid consists of old weaponry that does not technologically surpass Russian equipment. Leopard 1 tanks, M113 transporters, old M109 howitzers, or VAB reconnaissance vehicles may not offer a technological edge, but their abundance and availability enable Ukraine to continue the conflict.

Therefore, when reviewing tables of technical data published – including by the Ukrainian side – showcasing the advantages of one piece of equipment over another, it's important to remember that little of this matters. Technical superiority is significant, but its importance shouldn't be overstated.

Significant Western support is not the sporadic supply of a battalion of new tanks but long-term financial aid, expansion of domestic arms production, the establishment of repair facilities, and the creation of an efficient training system. By making some of these resources available to Ukraine, Kyiv can defend effectively and maintain its sovereignty, whether with Abrams, Leopards, or merely old T-72s on the battlefield.