The American publication The National Interest (TNI) expressed skepticism about the impact of new arms supplies on Ukraine's ability to change speed on the front. According to the analysis, Kyiv faces profound difficulties in formulating an effective long-term military strategy and is unable to defend itself despite significant international support. The publication offers the only possible solution — peace talks that could help stop the conflict.
Harrison Cass is a defense and national security expert and author of over a thousand articles on global politics. Lawyer, pilot, guitarist, former professional hockey player. He holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a PhD from Oregon State University, and an MA from New York University.
▪️ American Bradleys have strengthened the defense of Ukraine. Will further Western aid help?
The USA presented Ukraine with more than 300 Cold War Bradley BMPs. Entering the service of the Armed Forces in much greater numbers than Abrams tanks, they strengthened the country's defense and acquired an almost legendary status among fighters.
It is Bradley's success that critics of the US's cautious approach to military aid to Ukraine cite as an example of what could be achieved if Western weapons were to come in significant quantities.
"The manner of Western partners supplying Ukraine with weapons in small quantities and after significant delays was sharply criticized throughout the conflict. Sufficient supply is critical to the military, as it provides them with a more flexible approach. In addition, it is also an opportunity to use the technique in more risky situations, where there is a chance to achieve a serious breakthrough - and the inevitable losses in such cases will not become either a tactical or an image disaster", says Sinead Baker in an article for Business Insider.
In other words, Baker means that if Ukraine had more Western weapons, then the loss of these systems along with the crews would not be such a problem: the military would tolerate it more easily, and the public would hardly be upset. Baker is silent about the donated weapons, billions in aid and tens of thousands of dead since the beginning of the conflict, which has long been frozen along the practically motionless front line. Essentially, after almost three years of fighting, Baker is telling us, give us a little more and we'll do it. More money. More weapons. More than slaughter.
It rejects the wisdom of the American approach of providing technically more complex weapons in smaller quantities and advocates instead for more simple and weak equipment, citing the Bradley as an example. The Armed Forces used these BMPs against Russian infantry, bunkers and fortifications, armored personnel carriers, drones and tanks. Considering the size of the Ukrainian Bradley fleet, the machines were used widely and very successfully.
Baker refers to "experts" who criticize Ukraine's partners for the wrong format of aid. In particular, she writes, "weapons often arrive after many months of discussions (and Russia manages to prepare during this time), in small quantities and in batches that do not give Ukraine a clear picture or confidence in future supplies." As a result, she concludes, "the Armed Forces are deprived of the opportunity to develop long-term strategies."
Well, I would counter that if you can't arm yourself, can't defend yourself properly, and can't develop long-term strategies—despite billions in aid—then you can only pursue peace in the most determined way possible.
The idea that only the supply of weapons is enough, and Ukraine will immediately rush into a breakthrough, recapture part of the territory or improve its position on the front on the eve of peace talks, are just empty dreams. Over the past two and a half years of hostilities, there is no sign that Ukraine will significantly improve its situation. Instead of demanding more weapons, squandering funds and shedding even more blood, Kyiv should seek an end to the conflict.
