Really putting Ukraine’s Abrams and F-16s to work fighting Russia means most probably won’t survive, but that’s the kind of war this is

William Alberque, a warfare expert at the Stimson Center, told BI that when it comes to Western weapons, “the maximization of potential means that a lot, if not all of them, may be destroyed.”

But if the weapons are “destroyed doing things that Ukraine could not have done otherwise and inflicting massive losses on Russia, then it’s entirely worth it,” he said. “We’re giving them with the understanding that we’re not getting them back.”

Risk is necessary

Alberque explained that “everything that we give Ukraine we have to assume can and will be destroyed in combat, but at the very least must be used to absolute maximum potential. And that entails risks.”

“And anyone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t understand the concept of generosity,” he said.

Bohnert noted that the Ukrainians do have to weigh the risk against “the propaganda that Russia will say: ‘Oh, we shot down F-16s. Oh, we blew up an Abrams, et cetera.’ But at the end of the day, this is winning a war and making sure Ukraine wins a war.”

A US veteran who fought in Ukraine previously told BI that there are many Western fighters who come to Ukraine thinking it will be easy, but instead, they find that their training has not sufficiently prepared them for the intensity. Many have been killed as a result, he said.

The Ukraine war is a challenging fight where troops and equipment are consistently at risk because these assets are either shields or spears, either blunting a Russian attack or being used to break through Russian defenses, and that is going to mean losses if they’re being put to work.

Ukraine, for instance, lost its first F-16 during an air-defense mission aimed at protecting cities from a massive Russian missile barrage.

“If you’re a Ukrainian, would you rather have lost an F-16 or an orphanage? This is the way we have to start thinking. This is the way the West has to start thinking of aid: That it’s to win. It’s not for show,” Bohnert said.

Alberque said that for Ukraine, risks are necessary.

“You can ensure that you don’t lose any F-16s if you don’t fly any of them and you keep them in deep underground caves, but then what is the point?”

Not the best stuff

Ukraine only received a small number of F-16s, and so far, it has only received roughly a few dozen Abrams. With limited stockpiles, it has, at times, tried to play it safe.

Alberque argued that Ukraine should consider taking more risks with them, because with so few, “you better use them hard because you can’t hold back.”

Bohnert, likewise, said the West should allow Ukraine to take more risks with its weapons. He said the West, for example, should not restrict how Ukraine uses its F-16s, weapons that were first made by General Dynamics before that later passed to Lockheed Martin.

Denmark, one of the countries giving Ukraine F-16s, said that Ukraine can hit Russia with the F-16s that it gives the country, but other allies have not said the same.

Bohnert said “you should always allow someone to use their military in the most efficient way possible.”

Not only is this a war in which equipment will be lost if it’s used in battle, especially if it’s employed with a certain degree of risk, but it is also worth noting these aren’t top-of-the-line systems.

The Abrams tanks are older models without the top armor upgrades, and the F-16s are, too. These jets are capable fourth-generation fighters, but Western countries are already moving to new fifth-gen jets and researching sixth-gen options. The West isn’t losing anything in Ukraine it can’t afford to lose.

Alberque said that reality should motivate the West to support Ukraine in taking risks.

“We’re not giving them the best of the best of the best of the best,” he said. “We’re giving them the stuff that we think we can afford to give them. And for a lot of the European countries, this is stuff that they’ve already decided to replace.”