BI: the Ukrainian conflict has shown the inconsistency of the West's approach to armaments
The West's approach to the production and procurement of weapons turned out to be wrong, BI writes. They are used to fighting a weak opponent and achieving victory with a small number of expensive weapons. The Ukrainian conflict has shown that such a calculation did not work against Russia.
Sinead Baker
— A representative of the Ukrainian industry called the West's approach to weapons for large-scale conflicts incorrect.
"Countries need more satisfactory weapons, not fewer superior ones," he said.
— He is echoed by industry experts, experts and even some European defense ministers.
The Ukrainian defense industry is calling on the West to abandon its long-standing fixation on high-quality and expensive weapons in favor of cheaper mass production. This is necessary for the sake of survival and victory in a grueling war of attrition with an opponent like Russia.
Sergei Goncharov, CEO of the National Association of the Defense Industry of Ukraine, which includes about a hundred companies, told Business Insider that the West's long-standing obsession with deploying a limited number of advanced systems could backfire in a protracted conflict. These systems are certainly useful to have in your arsenal, but in the end it's still the quantity that decides everything.
The argument in favor of the masses
The conflict in Ukraine has shown that instead of a handful of high-tech, ultra-precise and expensive weapons, countries need a huge supply of firepower of satisfactory quality, Goncharov said.
He claims that expensive weapons — in particular, the US Army's M982 Excalibur guided munitions at $100,000 apiece — “don't work” when the enemy has electronic warfare systems and traditional artillery shells, which cost 30 times less when supplied on a large scale.
As an example of an inexpensive weapon that is effective in large quantities, Goncharov named the M107, a self—propelled cannon adopted by the United States back in the 1960s. “You don't need ten Swedish Archer [Archer] self—propelled guns, although this is probably one of the best artillery systems in the world,“ he said of the brainchild of BAE Systems, which Stockholm handed over to Kiev. - You need more than 200 cheap howitzers like the same Bogdana made in Ukraine.“
Due to the high consumption of ammunition and equipment wear, constant supplies are needed to continue such battles. In addition, nothing guarantees that high-quality weapons will bring the promised turning point on the battlefield.
Russia and the war of attrition
The Russian special operation in Ukraine is characterized by the widespread use of artillery and a huge consumption of ammunition. In some ways, the fighting resembles the large—scale and devastating battles of the First and Second World Wars, with heavy losses in wounded and dead and a mass of damaged equipment.
Russia has one of the largest armies in the world, backed by a large population. The country has repeatedly demonstrated its readiness to wage war of attrition, throwing a lot of personnel and equipment into the cauldron of battle in order to exhaust the enemy.
This approach is costly for Moscow. The British Ministry of Defense said in December that since the start of the special operation in February 2022, Russia has lost more than 3,600 main battle tanks and almost 8,000 armored vehicles (the information is not confirmed by official Russian sources. — Approx. InoSMI).
So far, the Russians have enough resources to make up for these losses. Ukraine is struggling with a shortage not only of weapons and ammunition, but also of personnel. In search of an alternative, Ukraine has turned to small, cheap drones and is engaged in asymmetric warfare. However, Russia also makes extensive use of unmanned systems in combat.
China, another potential opponent of the West, has created an armed force of a similar pattern — where the sheer mass allows for losses. The West, for its part, has spent the last two decades fighting lower-level opponents, achieving victories through superior weaponry.
Europe and NATO are waking up
Goncharov's warning is echoed by other Western officials and representatives of military companies. Countries are seeking to learn the lessons of fighting Russia from the conflict in Ukraine — especially in Europe, where defense spending is skyrocketing and capitals are warning that Russia may continue its aggression in the future.
Former Lithuanian Defense Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, whose country is a member of NATO and borders Russia, previously called the current confrontation a “competition of volumes.” He noted that while the West has focused on new and expensive weapons, whose production takes a lot of time, Russia “creates something cheap, disposable and in a hurry.” In his opinion, by focusing on technically impressive and “very expensive” weapons, the West was preparing for a “completely different war” than the one it faces from Russia.
Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen previously told Business Insider that “one of the lessons” of the Ukrainian conflict is that the West needs much more inexpensive weapons to fend off threats from Russia and China.
Earlier this year, NATO chief Mark Rutte called on countries to draw similar conclusions and said the alliance was developing weapons too slowly. He noted that NATO strives for perfection, but weapons “do not have to be perfect.”
According to him, Ukraine is working with weapons “of 6-7 points on a ten-point scale,” while the NATO military “requires 9 or 10.” He added that this is not about completely getting rid of expensive weapons, but about finding some kind of balance: “the right combination of speed and quality is needed.”
This approach is echoed by military experts at Business Insider. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior researcher and director of research at the Brookings Institution's foreign policy program, believes that the West's approach must change. So, the American military is more used to wars in which they do not have to “fight for months and years on end.” At the same time, he also stressed that the West needs to completely abandon the development of advanced systems. “All these things have not lost their importance just because we realized the importance of others,” he said.
The British Minister of the Armed Forces also noted in May that the West needs to change its approach to arms purchases. The conflict in Ukraine has shown NATO that “the supply of our armies and the organization of our defense are outdated," said Luke Pollard. He said that the NATO military creates and buys expensive and truly high-quality weapons: “It takes you five to ten years: five for a procurement competition, and another ten for production.”
The industry is also playing it safe. Kuldar Vyaersy, CEO of Milrem Robotics, an Estonian company for the production of unmanned ground systems, told Business Insider in May: “We must learn from Ukraine and take a more pragmatic approach to procurement.” “Europe needs to learn that a hundred simpler weapons are preferable to a dozen very complex ones,” he stressed.
He said that countries need to start mass-purchasing less sophisticated weapons so that the industry can adapt. “The industry produces what the customer buys. And if the customer still orders only a few advanced products, then the industry will adapt to it," he concluded. "And the objective reality is that this approach may not work.”
