How western weapons transformed the war between Ukraine-Russia

Introducing the F-16 fighter jet, an iconic aircraft that has played a pivotal role in the US Air Force since the 1970s. As the years passed, the United States extended the privilege of acquiring F-16s to numerous allied militaries. However, a significant turning point came in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's urgent pleas for these fighter jets added a new dimension to the ongoing conflict. The fervent requests from President Zelenskyy were undoubtedly more than mere diplomatic appeals – they were impassioned pleas for the essential tools of defense.

Yet, despite the gravity of the situation, the US response seemed to differ. The question arose: Did Zelenskyy truly require F-16s at this moment? The answer, surprisingly, was a resounding "no." This might come as a shock, especially considering the substantial military aid that the US had provided to Ukraine in recent times. In fact, the US had extended a staggering $47 billion in military assistance to Ukraine over the past year alone – an amount that far surpassed the aid given to even some of its closest allies in the preceding year. To put it in perspective, this figure was more than four times the aid provided to Afghanistan's army during the height of the US-led war there. This unparalleled level of support was nothing short of historic, resembling the assistance usually spread across decades in US foreign relations.

However, the refusal to dispatch F-16s to Ukraine raised critical questions about the underlying motivations. The arsenal of weapons sent – and perhaps more importantly, not sent – to Ukraine has profoundly influenced the progression of this conflict. Each weapon sent, or withheld, has had a profound impact on the unfolding phases of the war.

Stepping back to the initial days of the conflict in 2014, Russia's annexation of Crimea and its incursion into eastern Ukraine underscored the dire state of the Ukrainian armed forces. The troops were severely ill-equipped, suffering from years of neglect. The situation was dire – uniforms were scarce, hot meals were a luxury, and the Ukrainian military found itself in a vulnerable state. When Ukraine sought assistance from the United States, the response from President Barack Obama was to provide protective gear and supplies, rather than direct weaponry.

In 2018, President Donald Trump approved the shipment of a limited quantity of anti-tank missiles called Javelins. However, these weapons alone were insufficient to counter an escalated conflict with Russia. The dire circumstances prompted the Ukrainian army to appeal for more substantial support, including advanced weaponry like F-16s and main battle tanks. Their request fell on the ears of President Joe Biden, who responded with a sizeable arms package. However, the package primarily consisted of smaller, less sophisticated armaments, such as additional Javelins, ammunition, guns, and anti-aircraft missiles called Stingers. Similar weaponry was sent by several US allies, such as Germany's shipment of 1000 anti-tank missiles and 500 Stingers, and Belgium's contribution of 2000 machine guns.

Yet, the absence of advanced battle tanks and fighter jets in these shipments raised eyebrows. The pivotal question at the start of the conflict was not merely about the weapons to be sent but rather the determination of the Ukrainian forces to fight. The Ukrainian soldiers, however, proved their commitment, skillfully deploying anti-aircraft missiles to neutralize Russian aircraft and employing guns, ammunition, and anti-tank weaponry to halt the Russian advance. Despite these successes, the US hesitated to provide more advanced equipment.

This hesitation was rooted in concerns of potential escalation. The US apprehensions revolved around the possibility of Ukraine employing advanced weapons like fighter jets or long-range missiles to target Russian territory, inadvertently triggering an escalation of hostilities. These concerns heavily influenced the nature of the support extended to Ukraine.

In the spring of 2022, the conflict entered a new phase characterized by intense artillery exchanges. Russia launched a staggering 60,000 artillery rounds daily, dwarfing Ukraine's capacity of approximately 6,000 rounds. Recognizing the urgency, the US eventually expanded its support to include artillery, sending crucial HIMARS rocket launchers that could strike targets up to 80 kilometers away. While these rocket launchers couldn't reach Russian territory, they enabled Ukraine to target Russian supply depots and command posts, weakening the Russian front lines. As a result, Ukraine successfully captured the Kharkiv region and the major city of Kherson.

The shifting dynamics led to a new phase in the conflict during the winter of 2023. Both sides were planning strategic offensives, with Russia aiming to advance further into Donetsk and Luhansk, and Ukraine seeking to regain territory, particularly in the south. Achieving these objectives necessitated rapid troop movements, which, in turn, demanded armored vehicles like tanks. Ukraine's appeals for advanced tanks met with hesitation from the US, with the US awaiting action from Germany in sending Leopard battle tanks. This interplay of strategic considerations resulted in a delicate game of diplomatic "chicken."

In January 2023, the UK and the US agreed to send their advanced tanks, finally prompting Germany and other allies to follow suit. This move marked a turning point, as these advanced battle tanks, like their predecessors in the form of anti-tank missiles and HIMARS launchers, were intended to propel Ukraine toward decisive victories.

Amidst these developments, the question remains: Why the persistent focus on F-16s? These fighter jets could provide a crucial shield for Ukraine's tanks against Russian aircraft, significantly enhancing their offensive capabilities. Furthermore, Ukraine's request for long-range missiles called ATACMS highlights its aspiration to strike deep within Russian positions. Despite the readiness of certain allies to support these requests, the US has been cautious, considering issues of training readiness and concerns over the extent of Ukrainian missile deployment.

While no decision to send these weapons has sparked Russian escalation so far, the evolving situation has had an impact on public opinion in the US. A recent Pew Research poll indicated a growing belief that the US had provided excessive aid to Ukraine, particularly within conservative circles. As President Biden faces mounting pressure from within his own party and from Republican contenders gearing up for the 2024 election, the continuation of this aid becomes more complex.

Furthermore, the challenge extends beyond political considerations. An analysis has revealed that certain supplies are approaching the minimum levels necessary for US war planning. Consequently, the US is exploring strategies to ramp up domestic and allied weapons production, including within Ukraine. However, establishing these manufacturing facilities could entail years of effort.

As the Ukrainian army evolves into a formidable force, the shifting landscape of the battlefield and US politics presents new questions. The spotlight is now on Ukraine's ability to wield its available resources effectively and the extent of future US support it can anticipate. The stakes are high, with the outcome shaping not only the course of the conflict but also the broader geopolitical landscape.

Like what you read? Consider liking and subscribing for more! :)