The Illusion Of Technical Superiority. A Harmful Myth About The War In Ukraine

Support SouthFront

Click to see the full-size image

It is a truism that every person has their biases, and journalists are no exception. Yet this does not mean that all journalism is equally biased. Here we are publishing an article which is typical of those that appear in the mainstream Western media; naturally, our aim is not to endorse the arguments, but to demonstrate their limitations, as a guide for the unwary.

The primary problem with the article is that it relies so heavily on the ignorance of its audience to maintain its credibility. Journalists should educate and inform, but that is only possible if the journalists are knowledgeable and honest. The author either does not know, or is hiding the fact, that ‘technical superiority’ as a concept goes far beyond firing range, also encompassing the difference between battle performance and test performance, durability, repairability, ergonomics and other similar criteria. Taking these factors into account, Western weapons are actually inferior. Similarly, much of the author’s argument relies heavily on propaganda that has already been discredited – that the Ukrainian air defense has prevented the erosion of critical infrastructure, and that it has been capable of shooting down hypersonic weapons. Again, at this stage of the war one can only maintain these fictions with ignorance or obfuscation.

The author also performs an interesting sleight of hand. He cannot avoid admitting that Western weapons are indeed being destroyed on the battlefield – that would stretch credulity too far – so he has come up with an ingenious explanation. The weapons are being destroyed because there is a high propaganda value attached to destroying them! The implication is that Russians only destroy them because they try extra hard to do so. Moreover, the author skates over the fact that Western weapons were ill-prepared for the kind of drone-heavy war that is being fought in Ukraine, by hinting that the provided weapons were older versions of more modern varieties that would have been ideally suited to such conditions – if only they had been provided! As anyone familiar with the groundbreaking nature of the Ukrainian war knows, this is certainly untrue.

These are not the only problems with the article – this short introduction does not claim to be exhaustive – but they reveal an important pattern. Western and Russian war propaganda shares a propensity to claim moral superiority, but only Western propaganda has been so heavily reliant on notions of technical superiority. This narrative is now looking very threadbare. It will be interesting to see if it ever breaks down completely, and if this happens, what impact this will have on the institutions that have become so reliant on it for their self-belief, and even survival.

Enjoy the article!

Western equipment destroyed in Ukraine

Written by Łukasz Michalik, journalist for Wirtualna Polska

Does Western military equipment really give the Ukrainians an advantage over the Russians? In terms of technical parameters, many models of Western weapons seem to be superior to their Russian counterparts. However, comparing tables with data, it is easy to draw false conclusions.

At the end of April, the world heard about the withdrawal of Abrams tanks from the front line by the Ukrainians. The American equipment, sometimes portrayed in the media as a super-weapon, seemed to be embarrassingly vulnerable on the Ukrainian frontlines.

How is it possible that one of the most vaunted tanks in the world could not withstand direct confrontation with the Russians? Is a weapon for which Poland has been willing to pay billions of dollars really a piece of junk? Nothing could be further from the truth, and the answer to these questions was given, among others, by General Waldemar Skrzypczak in an interview with Wirtualna Polska journalist Mateusz Tomczak.

Priority target for the Russians

There are no indestructible tanks – only badly damaged ones. In the Abrams, because it is a little easier to take the tank out of combat (ammunition is stored in the turret recess, which is high and therefore vulnerable to a hit), the crew’s lives are protected above all else.

Ammunition accumulation in the hull, as in Russian or some Western tanks, somewhat reduces the risk of hitting the magazine, but once this happens, the risk of crew death and total destruction of the tank increases.

Main differences between the versions of the Abrams tank ©Wirtualna Polska

The Western tanks transferred to Kiev were delivered without elements that have become standard on the most modern vehicles, namely the active protection systems, and electronic jammers, now widely used in Ukraine.

As a result, these vehicles are vulnerable to attack by drones or anti-tank guided missiles, and since the destruction of either has propaganda value, they have become a priority target for the Russians.

Few modern tanks

Equally important is the negligible number of modern Western tanks, which includes mainly Abrams tanks, Challenger 2 tanks, and only 21 Leopard 2 (Leopard 2A6 variant) tanks.

Let’s not forget that the Leopard 2A4 is a tank that represents the protection and technical level of almost 40 years ago – it is a vehicle built in the mid-1980s. This is only a few years younger than the Stridsvagn 122, the Swedish Leopard 2A5 with reinforced armor.

Leopard 2A4, modernized by the Ukrainians, with reactive armor ©Defense Express

Equipment torn from the ecosystem

The same fate as the Abrams could befall the F-16s, to which the Ukrainian authorities have imparted legendary powers. Ukraine needs the new fighters because its air force has been almost completely destroyed, and their delivery is one of the conditions for continuing effective resistance to the invasion.

The belief that even a few dozen old F-16s (since they will be F-16AM/BM variants, albeit – possibly – with a newer radar replaced) will change the fate of the war may be overly optimistic.

F-16AM – shown in Portuguese colors© CC BY-SA 3.0, Pedro Aragão, Wikimedia Commons

This is especially the case as the capabilities of these aircraft in Ukraine will be limited by being excluded from the NATO ecosystem: Ukraine’s use of donated weapons will be less effective than that of, say, the Netherlands or Norway, which have NATO intelligence support, technical assets, or even flying tankers.

Perhaps more important than the planes themselves will be the weapons integrated with them and given to Ukraine.

Advantage through technology

So are Western weapons and the technological advantage that some of them provide irrelevant? The honest answer is that it depends on the situation. The war in Ukraine has provided several examples where weapons from the West have really made a difference in the fate of a battle.

The first can be considered the summer of 2022, when the delivery of just a dozen HIMARS launchers to Ukraine led to a prolonged paralysis of Russian logistics and a broken supply chain. This forced the Russians to move their own warehouses dozens of kilometers away from the battle lines, creating the chaos that allowed Ukraine to launch a brilliant summer offensive.

Ukrainian soldier with a Starlink antenna ©Mil.in.ua

Another weapon, or rather Western equipment, of great importance has been the Starlink satellite internet system. Regardless of Elon Musk’s statements and personal views, his product provided Ukraine – especially in the first months of the war – with an information advantage over the enemy.

On the basis of Starlink, a system was developed to control artillery fire and transmit information about targets detected by drones. Given the weakness of military communications – on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides – Starlink’s hard-to-deactivate, infrastructure-less operation proved an invaluable advantage. Unfortunately, the Russians are now using it as well.

Storm Shadow missiles have also proven to be an extremely important weapon. Their use – combined with the use of maritime drones – led to the unusual situation where a country with no navy or air force of its own was able to effectively lift the naval blockade, drive enemy warships out of Sevastopol, and eventually push the Russian Black Sea Fleet back to bases on the eastern coast of the basin.

Weapons that have not given Ukraine an advantage in the war, but have allowed it to survive, are also anti-aircraft systems of various kinds. They range from Soviet-era equipment that allows Ukraine to resupply itself, to old Cheetahs that do a pretty good job against drones, to new Western systems that allow Ukraine to defend itself against Russian hypersonic weapons.

While effective anti-aircraft guns are too few (and, in recent months, catastrophically few) to be equally effective in defending both combat troops and the country’s major cities and economic centers, they have allowed Ukraine to protect critical infrastructure and, among other things, prevent defenders’ morale from plummeting while defending cities.

Old Weapons Matter Too

In assessing the effectiveness of Western weapons in Ukraine, it is also important to note that, for the most part, these are not modern weapons that NATO would fight with in the event of war. Of course, there are exceptions, such as some artillery systems – the Polish Kraby, the German PzH 2000, the French CAESAR or the Swedish FH77BW Archer. Their technical superiority over the Russian systems is undeniable – they have a firing range at least several kilometers longer.

Crab self-propelled howitzer ©Licensor | Kevin Payne

However, this doesn’t always translate into an advantage in combat: to take advantage of the longer range, you need effective reconnaissance, which isn’t always possible with Russian air superiority, and very effective jammers that make it difficult for drones to operate.

Most of the support, however, consists of weapons that are simply outdated and not technically superior to Russian equipment. Leopard 1 tanks, M113 transporters, old M109 howitzers, or VAB reconnaissance vehicles do not provide a technical advantage, but because of their numbers and availability, they allow Ukraine to fight.

War is a clash of states, not of tanks.

Therefore, when you see tables of technical data published – including by the Ukrainian side – demonstrating the alleged advantages of one piece of equipment over another, it is worth remembering that little is made of them. Technical superiority is important, but its significance should not be overstated.

As the historian and popularizer of military knowledge Norbert Bonchik has repeatedly noted, “war is a system. It is not individual types of even the best weapons that fight, but states and their industrial bases. Therefore, an isolated Ukraine – despite the heroism of its defenders and numerous impressive successes – will be doomed to defeat in a clash with Russia.

What matters to the West is not the occasional delivery of a battalion of new tanks, but long-term economic assistance, the development of its own arms industry, the creation of repair facilities, or an effective training system. Providing Ukraine with some of these resources would allow Kiev to defend itself effectively and preserve its sovereignty, regardless of whether Abrams, Leopards, or just plain old T-72s are used in combat.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Military Overview On December 25, 2024: Russian Forces Occupied 100 Sq Km In Ukraine In The Last 48 hours
• Violence At Recruitment Centers In Ukraine Escalating
• “They Shot A Mother And Her Child.” War Crimes Committed By Ukrainian Army

Support SouthFront