Despite Western Support, Why Can't the Ukrainian Army Break Through Russian Defenses? Can F-16s and Abrams Tanks Bring Victory to Ukraine?

Ukrainian Army Forces Russian Army to Play Defense

Many in the Western world made no secret of the fact that they had high hopes, if not victory, for the Ukrainian counter-offensive launched in 2023, especially in the summer. In 2022, the offensives launched by the Ukrainian Army in Kiev and Kharkiv broke through the Russian defenses, which were shallow and spread over an extremely wide front. In the same year, the Ukrainian offensive in Kherson managed to overwhelm an isolated, logistically unsustainable Russian defense on the west bank of the Dnieper River. Ultimately, Ukraine's previous successes in Kiev, Kharkiv and Kherson had boosted confidence in the Ukrainian Army.

Now it was time to expel the Russians from Ukrainian territory. There was talk that the Ukrainian Army, strengthened by equipment and training support from the Western world, could now break through the Russian defenses, first cut Russia's connection to Crimea, and then set the conditions for a decisive victory. If the Ukrainian Army were to make such a breakthrough, Putin might take steps to end the war in order to prevent further damage to the Russian Army, whose defense lines would gradually deteriorate, and especially to avoid losing Crimea. 

Could ATACMS, F-16s and Abrams Tanks Change the Fate of the War?

Over time, it became clear that it was almost impossible to expel the Russians from Ukrainian territory. The positional (territorial) superiorities gained by the Ukrainian Army to repel the Russians were not enough for a decisive victory, although there was hope to some extent. Moreover, in some populated areas, the Russians were on the offensive again, recapturing lost ground. Therefore, by the end of the summer, the scene on the battlefield fell far short of the expectations and hopes for the Ukrainian Army. In fact, the successes achieved in the summer were limited, if significant, especially against Russian warships in the Black Sea. Moreover, the advances made to retake some of the territory lost from the Russians were achieved at great cost, at the expense of increased casualties. Some sort of balance of power had now been reached on the front, though not a climax for either side. 

Meanwhile, some close observers of the war see the United States as primarily responsible for Ukraine's failure, blaming the Biden administration. They argue that not all of Kiev's requests for help were fulfilled by Washington. For example, they argue that if the US had provided F-16 fighter jets, long-range missiles known as ATACMS or Abrams tanks earlier and in larger quantities, Ukraine could have easily displaced the Russians with the momentum it gained in the summer of 2023. According to this thinking, more and better equipment is always useful for an army. Therefore, if the Ukrainian Army had been able to conduct its offensives with more advanced weaponry, it would have been able to make much more progress than it has now. However, I do not believe that this 'technological equipment' can bring a decisive victory for Ukraine in this frontline war. 

F-16 Fighter Jets

If the limited number of F-16s are used in combat, it is unlikely that they will be able to operate together with Ukraine's air defense systems. This is because the Ukrainian Army does not have the war culture and infrastructure to use fighter jets and defense systems at the same time. In this environment, the F-16s cannot play a game-changing role in the war by performing only air defense missions. To use F-16s to carry out air strikes such as counter-air, combat airspace isolation and isolation behind the Russian front and on Russian territory means taking into account that F-16s will be disabled one by one against Russian defenses. In the end, when the F-16s are deployed in the field without the capabilities to serve a purpose beyond providing Kiev with psychological superiority and, to some extent, situational superiority according to the current situation, they should not be expected to achieve a fruitful success.

Long Range ATACMS Missiles

We know that with the arrival of the ATACMS missiles, Ukraine has been relieved. However, the US has not yet provided Ukraine with the long-range versions of these missiles, which include Crimea. It is not yet clear whether they will or not. If the Ukrainian Army were to receive advanced ATACMS missiles with an effective range of about 200 miles, the entire Crimean peninsula could be brought within the effective range of these weapons. It would be possible to hit deeper targets in Crimea with ATACMS missiles. This would have been a factor that would have made it difficult for the Russians to reinforce the front line from Crimea, which could have disrupted the Russian resistance. At the very least, it would have weakened the possibility of the Russian Army launching a counter-offensive, and as a relief for the Ukrainian Army, it could have served Kiev's grand plans. By the way, we know that the Russians have already skillfully used counter jamming measures to break the effectiveness of the ATACMS system, which fires GPS-guided missiles. On the other hand, the HIMARS missile system, which has a shorter range compared to ATACMS, was already a highly effective weapon for Ukraine when it was first introduced into the war in 2022. But now it is much less effective, because the Russians have reduced their dependence on large supply centers, nodes within the effective range of HIMARS. They have also learned to jam GPS signals, which both missile systems use for guidance/guidance.

Abrams Tanks

Another point of contention is the effectiveness of tanks in the Russian-Ukrainian War. The American Abrams tanks have modern capabilities far superior to Ukraine's fleet of mostly Soviet-era T-64s and T-72s. However, the German Leopard 2 tanks that Ukraine used in its offensives last summer are also known to be very effective weapons, far superior to the Abrams. The Leopard 2s have undoubtedly performed well, but no one can claim that they are invincible superweapons. According to open source data, 26 of the nearly 100 Leopard 2 tanks in Ukraine's possession are known to be out of service. Many others cannot be used due to maintenance and repair problems. On the other hand, like all tanks, the Leopard 2 (and the Abrams if it were to arrive) needs infantry support and artillery fire to survive on the battlefield. In the summer of last year, the Ukrainian army proved that it has as bad a record in this regard as the Russians. The Leopard 2s, largely deprived of infantry support, led the first waves of offensives, but were not very useful. Perhaps if the Ukrainian Army had Abrams tanks, they would have undoubtedly helped, but no one can guarantee a decisive victory. 

In any case, regardless of F-16s, ATACMS missiles or Abrams tanks, next-generation warfare technology products are seen as essential for an army to achieve victory. In particular, unmanned aerial vehicles, satellite surveillance and precision weapons are essential for decisive battles. However, it is also known that all this is at the disposal of the Ukrainian Army throughout 2022 and 2023. Therefore, the mere presence of weapons and platforms is not enough for victory. 

Duration of troop training and critical decisions of the Ukrainian General Staff 

This leaves the training level of the Army. The brigades deployed by Ukraine received only five weeks of Western-style military training before the offensive maneuvers last summer, which was not enough. Only well-trained and combat-experienced troops could make a difference in a war. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian General Staff, instead of concentrating its limited forces on a single point to achieve results, divided the available force into three and launched attacks from three separate points. Consequently, the number of Ukrainian troops was not enough to declare victory in the three-point battle. For this reason, along with other factors, the command's decision to launch operations on three fronts against the Russians did not result in the desired success and progress. In a way, the Ukrainian Army failed to comply with the basic principles of warfare such as objective, unity of effort, and conservation of force.

Conclusion

In the meantime, it is important to remember that it is the Russians who determine the course of the war. The Russian General Staff, which dictates to the Ukrainians a front line passing through the points they want, is ultimately playing a good defense. They give the impression that they are content with fighting a defensive war rather than an offensive one. The Russian Army, which has taken an in-depth defense formation on a wide front line, has fortified the front with large minefields. In the rear, reserve troops are kept ready, while logistics lines are kept open to ensure the flow of supplies to the troops on the defensive lines. Therefore, I believe that under the current circumstances, Russia seems to be quite satisfied with the de facto territorial gains it has wrested from Ukraine. The Ukrainian Army, which has weaknesses in all the above-mentioned areas to break through the Russian front, currently has little chance to declare victory. I see little potential for the F-16s and Abrams tanks that will be delivered to the Ukrainian Air Force later this year to change this situation.

Reference

BBC Visual Journalism Team, “Ukraine in maps: Tracking the war with Russia”, 20 Aralık 2023, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682