The Truth Behind Western Weapons Sent to Ukraine

Introduction:

The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia has prompted Western countries to provide military assistance to Ukraine. However, the effectiveness of these Western weapons has been called into question. Let’s take a closer look at the weapons supplied by France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, and whether they truly make a difference in the conflict.

Ineffective French Armored Vehicles

France, one of Ukraine’s major supporters, has provided a large number of AMX-10RC armored vehicles to Kiev. However, these vehicles are considered outdated and unsuitable for direct combat. The Ukrainian soldiers themselves have admitted that these vehicles are “not suitable” for fighting on the front lines. The French military began phasing out these vehicles in 2021, a year before Russia launched its military campaign in Ukraine. Despite their inadequacy, France still transferred these outdated armored vehicles to Ukraine, leading many to believe that their purpose was to get rid of obsolete weapons and justify the purchase of more modern systems.

Old-School Tanks from NATO Members

There has been a significant debate among NATO members regarding the type of tanks to be provided to Ukraine. While the United States and the United Kingdom, along with some Eastern European countries, have advocated for the supply of the most advanced Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) from Western inventories, other NATO members have mainly provided Ukraine with outdated tanks from the Soviet era. Poland and several other European countries have transferred their old T-72 and PT-91 tanks to Ukraine. However, these weapons have not brought significant changes to the conflict, as Russia possesses more advanced systems. The Ukrainian military’s improper maintenance of these tanks has also contributed to technical issues, rendering them ineffective in combat.

The Ineffectiveness of F-16 Fighter Jets

To truly give Ukraine a fighting chance against Russia, they would need advanced fighter jets like the F-16. The Netherlands has announced plans to send 12 F-16 fighter jets to provide an additional layer of defense for Ukraine. However, it is important to note that these jets belong to an older generation and are nearing the end of their service life. Deploying them in a frontline scenario against a nuclear-armed adversary would not guarantee Ukraine’s victory. In addition, operating these jets effectively, especially in combat, would require well-trained maintenance crews, appropriate infrastructure, and standardized airfields. While Ukrainian pilots have received training to operate these aircraft, it would still take considerable time to fully utilize them in combat. It is clear that these F-16s are outdated compared to Russia’s fifth-generation fighter jets.

The “Dumping Ground” of Western Weapons

According to Brandon J. Weichert, an American political analyst, NATO’s assistance has not been truly beneficial to Ukraine. The conflict appears to be unfolding unfavorably for Kiev, as the weapons provided are too few in number and too outdated to make a significant difference. Instead of encouraging Ukraine to negotiate and resolve the conflict early on, Western countries have urged Kiev to continue fighting. However, after two years, it seems that Ukraine is on the path to defeat. Western countries are prolonging the inevitable by dumping their outdated equipment into Ukraine’s arsenal.

Conclusion:

The weapons sent by Western countries to Ukraine may not be as effective as initially hoped. The French armored vehicles, outdated tanks from NATO members, and older-generation fighter jets are unable to match Russia’s more advanced military capabilities. Western countries need to reassess their support and provide Ukraine with modern weaponry to level the playing field. Only then can Ukraine have a better chance of defending itself against Russian aggression.

To know more about the latest developments in finance and economics, visit Business Today.