Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has long-term implications for the world.
Written by Natarajan S
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has opened up a pandora’s box on arms preferences for Nations.
The strategy in which arms are procured is itself come under question. In the context of Ukraine war – modern warfare is everyday proving to be shifting from old historical notions to different precincts.
What has changed now:
Consider Main Battle Tanks as main armoury for invading in land wars.
We see in reality MBTs are not as effective as we thought of them for the price being paid for them
Check the pricesT-90AM (Russia) – $4.25 Million
Arjun Mk II (India) – $6.0 Million
AMX-56 Leclerc (France) – $12.6 Million
India are going for more of T-90 because of its price is cheaper and were also thinking they are most effective as marketed by Russian Defence Industry.
As reported by ONYX In the Russia-Ukranian war 625 Russian Tanks were lost ( destroyed: 331, damaged: 19, abandoned: 45, captured: 228) . This includes all generation of MTB of Russia T72s T80s T90s.
How was it possible ?
Ukraine has received — and properly used — large shipments of high-tech, self-guided and shoulder-fired Javelin anti-tank missiles.
What is special in Javelin? They got sophisticated tracking systems, which allow users to take cover immediately after firing, and they got the ability to hit targets from above.
Since the beginning of February, the US committed to giving Ukraine 5,500 Javelin systems, which are produced by US defence contractors Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and are each worth about $US178,000.
“Saint Javelin” is a meme in Ukraine ; during a tour of Lockheed Martin’s factory, Mr Biden said Ukrainian parents were naming their children “Javelin” or “Javelina” because of the weapons’ successes.
In the current war this Javelin anti tank system US-FGM-148 Javelin and British made The Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW) or the Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon, also known as the MBT LAW or the RB 57 these destroyed as many T72, T80 and T90s of Russian army.
Cost of a Javelin is under $178,000.
Current Cost of NLAW varies between $30,000 to $40,000
Considering the $6 Million cost of Arjun Tank and the $30,000 to $190,000 for Anti tank Weapons, we feel the Main Battle Tank, looses its relevance.
Main Battle Tank is not a stand alone system. Tanks need infantry support when the two elements are working together. Can not leave tanks alone because they are not prepared to provide local security during the operation. Tanks are extremely vulnerable to dismounted attack when operating on urban terrain, or lower levels. Tanks need air support too. Other transport and logistical support units are needed. So it is costly affair. A typical Battlegroup fighting a defensive battle on the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area), and based upon an organisation of one armoured squadron and two mechanised companies, could contain about 600 men, 16 tanks and about 80 armoured personnel carriers. Acquiring the equipment cost 2 to 4 Billion dollars. There is maintenance cost we estimate $500 million I would personally on the safe side think minimum 4 to 8 helicopters and 2 to 4 aircraft are needed to air support/coverage and supply. I have not taken into account their costs. Because they can be used in airforce as well. But we can estimate their hiring cost to be around 2 Billion dollars. India roughly spends about $50,000 per personnel. So it costs $30 million for the 600 men x how many years they are kept battle ready for an event? may be 10 to 15 years – It become closer to half a billion. Ammunition and missiles, radar systems may cost $1 billion for the support of these systems. Overall for the 4 to 6 billions a nation spend on a typical FEBA –
How much area can defend in defence or how much area they can move and occupy in an attack. It depends on the antitank weaponry of the enemy. If they got FGM-148 Javelin or NLAW, Ukraine war proved that their maneuverability and advance capabilities are so limited.
Also the Tanks and Armoured Vehicle on their own lack precision hitting. So damage to civilian buildings and civilians cannot be avoided. We understood the civilian damage brings in international condemnation and sanctions. They are heavy equipment and when they march on the roads they are easily targettable lame ducks.
Can we call these as modern weaponry any more? No.
High human loss, bulky equipments, high cost to maintain, civilian killing either in combat or defence be termed war criminal, etc. etc. Bombardments shatter and demolish buildings and people there which have huge monetary values. Any occupant country cant use the infrastructure and building and other fixed assets as those are shattered by crude imprecise bombings. So what could be the use of an invasion? If the invading country’s objective is to capture another country’s cities or regions, that purpose is self defeated by using this Tanks and armoury battalions. They don’t get any benefit considering the expenses for the arsenal and war built up. The Thermobaric weapons and cluster bombs used by Russians against Ukrainians is considered barbaric. If the invasion purpose is to threaten the country, now everybody knows the ineffectiveness, cruelty and war crime tags that can come through the use of tanks, armoury divisions. So considering economically, international politically, human rights angle, whatever way you think about this, is it not that this method seems to be outdated. Can this be WW2 remnant that we would be better off to be left without?.
Thermobaric weapons
.
Russia is accused of using illegal and barbaric weapons against civilians in Ukraine since it invaded the neighbouring country.
Any use of thermobaric weapons and cluster bombs is widely condemned and will take up large part of the war crimes investigation against Russia.
To defend against Russia, Ukraine relies on its allies supplied Stinger and Javelin missiles to slow the march of Russian forces.
The US, Russia, China and India are among the countries to have thermobaric weapons.
Thermobaric weapons were developed during World War II and first used by American forces in the Vietnam War.
Russian forces deployed thermobaric weapons in the Chechnya conflict in 1999.
The US used them twice in Afghanistan: first in 2001 against al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who were hiding in caves, and again in 2017 against Islamic State fighters.
The Russian and Syrian governments were accused of using thermobaric weapons against rebels in Aleppo in 2016
Who has them?
The US, Russia, China and India are among the countries to have thermobaric weapons.
Thermobaric weapons were developed during World War II and first used by American forces in the Vietnam War.
Russian forces deployed thermobaric weapons in the Chechnya conflict in 1999.
The US used them twice in Afghanistan: first in 2001 against al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who were hiding in caves, and again in 2017 against Islamic State fighters.
The Russian and Syrian governments were accused of using thermobaric weapons against rebels in Aleppo in 2016.
Where have they been used in Ukraine?
British officials say the Russian Ministry of Defence has confirmed the use of thermobaric weapons in Ukraine.
In a tweet on March 10, the British Ministry of Defence said Russia had confirmed the use of the TOS-1A weapon system in Ukraine.
“The TOS-1A uses thermobaric rockets, creating incendiary and blast effects.”
It is not publicly known where or when Russia used the TOS-1A weapon system in Ukraine.
May be but we need to look at the the alternatives. We will discuss in the next post. We need to find, why a nation need to attack in the modern world and why all countries need to have a defensive mechanism that is land based advancement/defence goals. Can all things be settled through monetary transactions, trade expansions and by opening up economies to even backward nations?
FEAR AND INSECURITY THE MAIN CAUSE OF CONFLICTS
There is this 9th May 2022 Victory Day speech of President Putin that gives us an indication of why a country like Russia started military action against Ukraine
President Putin in a military parade in Moscow to mark victory over Nazi Germany in 1945, and made a number of claims about Ukraine and Nato.
1.”Kyiv has declared that it could obtain nuclear weapons” – If a non-nuclear neighbour thinks about Nuclear weapon capability – a nuclear nation has FEARS and it wants to restrain it.
2.”There was every indication that a clash with neo-Nazis and Banderites – backed by the US and its junior partners – was unavoidable” – So another reason is for FEAR of anti-semitic view of a nation
The term “Banderites” refers to supporters of the World War Two nationalist leader Stepan Bandera, who expressed anti-Semitic views and for a time collaborated with Nazi Germany.
3.”The Nato bloc launched an active military build-up on the territories adjacent to us… We saw how military infrastructure was being rolled out, how hundreds of foreign advisers started operating. Regular deliveries of cutting-edge weapons from Nato countries were deployed” – So a country FEARS about other countries military build up can go for a war
So FEAR is the most occurring word we found in THIS military actions.
We consider CHINA- INDIA skirmishes of 2020-2022:
Beginning on 5 May 2020, Chinese and Indian troops engaged in aggressive melee, face-offs, and skirmishes at locations along the Sino-Indian border, including near the disputed Pangong Lake in Ladakh and the Tibet Autonomous Region, and near the border between Sikkim and the Tibet Autonomous Region. Additional clashes also took place at locations in eastern Ladakh along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
MIT professor, Taylor Fravel, said that the skirmishes were a response from China to the development of Indian infrastructure in Ladakh, particularly along the Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road. According to Yun Sun, a China specialist at the Stimson CSenter, China perceived India’s road-building as a threat to its “territorial integrity” which it will not sacrifice for the sake of good relations with India. ALSO A parliamentary speech by Amit Shah, the Minister of Home Affairs, also could have irked China. In the speech, Shah had declared that Aksai Chin, a disputed region administered by China, was part of the Indian-administered Ladakh Union Territory. WE SEE CHINA’S FEAR OVER THE INDIAN INFRA BUILT UP AND INDIAN MINISTER’S STATEMENT ABOUT CHINA CONTROLLED TERRITORY ESCALATED TENSIONS AND WAR LIKE SITUATION. Wars/communal/Terrorist wars “are the result of two types of change-increases in fear and increases in the feasibility of gaining aims by force. Fear, or insecurity, becomes a trigger of war” Ref: Sarah Kenyon Lischerhttps://doi.org/10.1080/105761099265676
“Fear of domination or extinction leads to war when a threatened group believes that it can reduce or avoid danger by using violence. Indicators of increasing feasibility of violence include shifts in relative military capability, heightened international legitimacy, and false optimism.
The combination of a security dilemma and the ability to act determines when, and if, simmering ethnic tensions will erupt into violence. ..In ethnic civil war in Nigeria and Sudan, …conflicts broke out when fearful communal groups saw violence as a practical solution to political oppression.
The analysis of causation suggests that prevention of conflict must deactivate the volatile mix of fear and feasibility in order to achieve a stable peace.”
FEAR and Terror as weapons of war:
We saw how fear of insecurity created wars. We now discuss how FEAR and terror are often used as weapons to distort the opponent’s decision-making or break the opponent’s will. Military and political leaders need to respond to this tactic.
They have several options including the appeal to reason or the creation of emotions to counter fear. World is presuming that President Putin’s strategy is creating fear and terror in the minds of Ukrainians as the primary motive for the military action . But Ukrainians responded to this tactic by withstanding to the might of Russian onslaught.
“The Second World War ..if soldiers ran forward towards the enemy, they were fired at, if they panicked and retreated towards their own troops, they were fired at. The success of this kind of repressive fear management … had made inroads. Thus, the First World War remains unique in its confluence of attempts among all warring parties to manage soldierly fear and to diagnose/treat fear-induced psychological breakdowns among soldiers.”
-Jan Plamper, Goldsmiths, University of London
