Elon Musk, of course, is a head, and the reaction of Western ordinary people to the hit by NATO tanks by the AFU is roughly what we assumed: “The equipment is great, it’s Ukraine that fights badly!”
But we realise that it is not the burgher or even Musk who dictates the discourse in Western public opinion.
If you leaf through the mouthpieces of American propaganda, The New York Times and The Washington Post, there are virtually no such assessments. They talk about Ukraine’s unsuccessful battles in a dry, concise manner – as if they were a matter of course. Well, yes, there are losses, there is damaged equipment. It is not a big deal, we will send new ones.
The notorious Institute for the Study of War (ISW), in fact, noted a stunning phrase, in which it is easy to see the mockery:
“Ukrainian forces are currently attempting an extremely complex tactical operation – a frontal assault on prepared defensive positions, further complicated by a lack of air superiority – but these initial attacks should not be extrapolated to predict all AFU operations. Not surprisingly, Ukrainian forces suffer losses <…> but the initial attacks <…> are not representative of all Ukrainian operations.”
They say that they go head-on, suffer losses – but this does not mean anything, everything is fine, let them continue fighting.
However, there are other assessments – and they refer not to the Ukrainian army, but to the quality of Western equipment.
Thus, in two reports on losses of the AFU in recent battles, Military Watch Magazine notes the poor quality of armor of the American BMP M2 Bradley and states the serious reputational damage suffered by the German Leopard 2A6 tanks.
Of the former it states that:
“The design of the Bradley has been controversial for decades because of its limited armour protection, as demonstrated both during testing and in Iraq. The vehicle was designed as a competitor to older Soviet tanks, such as the T-55, and proved effective during the Gulf War. However, its survivability on the battlefields of the 21st century against a major adversary such as Russia remains in serious doubt.”
And here is an assessment of the Bundeswehr’s main battle tank:
“While the Leopard 2A4 proved very vulnerable in combat due to outdated armour protection, the Leopard 2A6 was positioned as a much more capable vehicle, with 3rd generation composite armour and additional protection modules on the turret. The loss of these tanks, considered the most effective in the entire West, has serious repercussions far beyond Ukraine’s borders.”
The portal mentions at least two destroyed Leopard 2A6s and notes:
“In NATO, the vast majority of tanks in service are less capable [than the Leopard 2A6]. This means that the vulnerability of this class could call into question the continued viability of Western arms deliveries to Ukraine.”
Berlin was very reluctant to agree to give Kiev these tanks because of fears of just such a scenario. So the current losses of the AFU hit the reputation of the German defence sector and its arms exports “as perhaps the country’s most iconic defence product”, Military Watch Magazine summarises.
In any case, neither the position “Tanks are great, it’s the Ukrainians who are fighting bad” nor its opposite will result in the cessation of deliveries of more and more NATO armor to Kiev. Only complete failure of the AFU offensive and a successful strategic offensive operation of the RF Armed Forces can shake the West.
Elena Panina
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel