Has Russia’s strategy changed as a result of the enormous deployment of powerful Western weapons in Ukraine?

The West’s supply of a series of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine has the potential to change the course of the war, putting pressure on Russia to mobilize elite troops to participate in urban warfare.

According to some military analysts, Ukraine has received a considerable number of next generation anti-tank missiles in recent weeks. Soldiers in Ukraine were given a massive arsenal of weapons never seen before in a contemporary battle.
The United Kingdom alone delivered 3,615 NLAW anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine, while Germany sent 1,000, Norway 2,000, Sweden 5,000, and the United States sent an unspecified amount of Javelin missiles.

In less than a week, the US and NATO had delivered more than 17,000 anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine.

According to Phillips O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, “the number of anti-tank weapons transferred to Ukraine is bigger than the amount being supplied to the forces in those nations themselves.” “Some countries recognise that their forces will not be able to provide anti-tank missiles to Ukraine for the time being.”
Ukraine receives formidable armaments from the West.

According to Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian military specialist at the US-based Jamestown Foundation, most Russian tanks today are particularly vulnerable to the latest anti-tank weaponry like the NLAW or Javelin.

The Javelin and NLAW missiles are both designed to target tanks from the top, where tanks armour is the thinnest. The “fire and forget” feature on these weapons allows Ukrainian soldiers to evacuate their positions as soon as they fire, lowering the risk of enemy fire.

Russian tanks are struck by Javelin and NLAW missiles and removed from combat in a video released by Ukrainian media.

Russia is claimed to have had to alter its battle techniques, similar to what Israel did during the 1973 Israel-Arab war. That year, Israeli tanks suffered heavy losses, forcing the foreign army to deploy troops to clear the path for the tanks rather than use tanks on the front lines.

In an urban warfare context, however, this technique necessitates a large number of seasoned soldiers to guard tanks as well as raid opposing defences.

“The Russian military will find it difficult to progress if the infantry can’t do this,” Felgenhauer added. “Does Russia have sufficient elite forces to invade a major city?” “I’m not sure.”

Urban warfare necessitates a significant number of people. Russia approved a plan last week that would allow foreign recruits to fight in Ukraine.

Volunteer forces from Syria and the Middle East are expected to join the Russian campaign in Kiev this week, according to the West.

The Kiev authorities announced a nighttime curfew on March 15. During this time, everybody who ventured out was deemed a Russian spy.

Professor emeritus at King’s College London, Lawrence Freedman, said: “With the exception of Mariupol, the Russian military has shown no signs of assaulting any large cities in Ukraine, probably due to fears of mass casualties. Tanks can no longer support troops on the move.”

Russia’s response

In general, the Western supply of sophisticated anti-tank weapons to Ukraine is changing, preventing Russian tanks from entering major towns.

Almost all of the Russian generals involved in the operation in Ukraine have fought in Syria, so they are fully aware of the obstacles that the soldiers confront, according to Felgenhauer.

In towns like Aleppo and Homs, Russian jets used to give considerable support, but the Syrian army failed to carry out its task on the ground.
Russia had to invest time training the Syrian army and installing thermobaric rocket launchers (TOS-1A) to destroy resistance locations at the time.

As a result, the Syrian army had taken control of Aleppo by the end of 2016.

“In the West, there is a perception that victory cannot be achieved in well-defended cities. The reality, however, is that all it takes is the correct tactics and weapons. The question is whether Russia will accept it or not, according to Felgenhauer.

The continuing conflict in Mariupol is undoubtedly the most important test yet. Russia has dispatched elite forces from Chechnya to the front lines in order to make some progress.

Russia was able to concentrate its forces on other vital towns such as Odessa and Kiev after winning at Mariupol.

Furthermore, Russia is alleged to have deployed new anti-tank missiles known as Kornet into the Ukraine conflict in a manner that “takes poison and poisons.”

Furthermore, Russia is alleged to have deployed new anti-tank missiles known as Kornet into the Ukraine conflict in a manner that “takes poison and poisons.”

In Ukraine, Russia uses Kornet missiles to fight with contemporary anti-tank missiles, which the country develops and manufactures domestically.

Kornet missiles, with their longer range and faster flying speed, are even more powerful than Western anti-tank weapons.
At least one video published so far shows the Russian military setting fire to a Ukrainian tank using a Kornet missile. Russia must also eliminate Ukrainian tanks and armoured vehicles in order to win. The best solution is to use Kornet rockets.

The Kornet missile is designed to destroy tanks with active armour protection, which is sufficient to eliminate any tank currently in service with the Ukrainian army.

The Kornet missile, on the other hand, has the disadvantage of requiring two operators, shooting from a fixed position, and requires the operator to steer the missile until it reaches the target.

Kornet missiles have disabled many Western tanks, including the US M1 Abrams, the German Leopard A25, and the Israeli Merkava, during engagements in the Middle East.

Military observers in the Ukraine battlefield are attentively monitoring to see if the Western Javelin, NLAW missiles are superior versus Russia’s Kornet.

Leave a Comment