Why do Western countries not send more powerful weapons to Ukraine?

Question

One of the most important reasons for Ukrainians being able to defend themselves against the Russian military is the weapons sent by various NATO / EU countries.

However, it seems that there is quite a reluctance on sending more powerful weapons compared to what would be possible and the Russians are making progress in Eastern Ukraine.

For example, the US is sending advanced longer-range rocket systems to Ukraine, but this happens quite late.

This delay in sending powerful weapons that would have helped the Ukrainian army push back the Russians faster has arguably led to more Ukrainian cities being almost completely destroyed.

I know that various countries might have various reasons, so I would exclude from this question the countries that still significantly depend on Russian oil and/or gas (e.g. Germany, Hungary).

What reasons have the other countries given for not sending more powerful weapons or what risks are attached with sending these weapons?

Answer 1

• It is in the interest of most Western countries to preserve/restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This is part of their interest to preserve the established international order, which benefits them.
• It is not in the interest of most Western countries to have the war escalate to other countries, especially not other EU or NATO countries.
• Russia has threatened to escalate the war if things don't go as Russia wants. It is probably not in Russia's interest to start another war while they are not winning the current one, but the West might be reluctant to bet too much that Russia sees the Russian interest the same way.

Net result, Ukraine is getting considerably more aid and weapons than other countries in similar positions, but less aid and weapons than Ukraine might wish.

Answer 2

Just to highlight a few practical points:

• Modern weapon systems are expensive. Few countries will have large surpluses that they can share without weakening their own defences at a time of heightened international tension.
• These systems are complex and likely to require specific training. Can Ukraine spare front-line soldiers to spend weeks learning to use them effectively?
• Modern weapon systems are frequently networked as "systems of systems". What appears to be a standalone weapon may be less effective without the sensors required for targeting. Equipment may be incompatible with that currently in use.
• NATO and the former Warsaw Pact use different military standards. Having incompatible munitions (for example) in the supply chain would complicate logistics.

Such practical problems complicate the task of providing useful support, even for willing allies.

Answer 3

It's apparently because of the possibility Ukraine will attack Russia with those weapons. Russia has stated that they will consider that act a red line. It seems Western countries are concerned that Russia will be even more destructive if this red line is crossed (Russia is not using all its resources in the war right now; it is e.g. able to conduct joint flights with China).

Answer 4

Because there would come a point at which Putin would unleash his nuclear arsenal.

Right now the balance of power is unbelievably delicate and thus far, the free world can support Ukraine… but supporting is very different from fighting alongside.

Beyond that, could you clarify the exposition to your Question? As it stands, that seems largely to raise queries…

Answer 5

Cynics would say that the current situation is close to ideal for the West; there is no reason to force a decisive win for the Ukrainians.

The Cynic would note that the banner of international law and human rights held up by the West are propaganda on par with the Great Russia narrative of the Putin: Both myths have a core of truth which makes them believable enough to create respective public support, but neither one holds up to scrutiny. In reality, the U.S. are happy about a very affordable proxy war that is occupying and weakening Russia without any loss of American life.

The cynic would say that, given this premise, there are two developments to avoid:

1. The war intensifies and involves NATO directly, becoming expensive both in terms of money and non-Ukrainian and non-Russian human losses. The war is already very expensive in terms of Ukrainian and Russian losses, but the West couldn't care less; Russian losses are actually an added bonus because they tend to weaken both Putin's standing and the military power of Russia. By contrast, the West is extremely concerned about Western losses which have to be avoided at all cost. To avoid misunderstandings: Western losses have to be avoided solely for political reasons; the fundamental, general nonchalance with which soldiers and populations alike are slaughtered has been shown sufficiently well by now. Western losses must be avoided solely because they would be a hard sell to the Western populations.

   Direct NATO involvement would also increase the danger of an incidental territorial or nuclear excursion.

2. The war ends quickly. Ideally, in a continuing war, Putin should have a hard time on the home front, weakening his interior standing. The Russian military is slowly grinding through its supplies and human resources. The economic fallout is not as severe (if at all) as the U.S. hoped; either they have made their peace with it or there are efforts underway to extend and intensify the embargo.

Therefore, the West will continue to hem and haw and provide enough weapons to keep the conflict alive but not enough to end it. Two years ago I asked for exit strategies for this war; to this date, there are none, and there is no meaningful effort to end it. That is no coincidence: The Western governments don't want to end it.