They say they need these weapons now, not later. And many of them. The message has been broadly the same since the beginning of the Russian invasion, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky allegedly said “I need ammunition, not a walk”, until last week, when Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba told NATO leaders in Brussels that it had a triple agenda: “weapons, weapons and ammunition”. But in the United States and Europe, the debate over what kind of weapons should be sent is very different from what it was just six weeks ago. This is a pivotal moment in the war, and as the battlefield changes, so do the types of weapons the Ukrainian forces need. There is no longer any fear that the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, could fall in a few days. Russian forces are repositioning themselves for a battle for eastern Ukraine – what many predict will be a wide-ranging, open, rural confrontation between infantry, armor and artillery, with the kind of engagement they have not seen in generations. Fighting may be tougher for Ukrainians as war shifts to open ground in the east This next phase could be “prolonged” – “measured in months or more,” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan warned in a White House briefing. It could look like something from World War II, with two large armies facing each other, Kuleba told NATO foreign ministers on Thursday. “To win such a war, we need different help than we have received in the past,” Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said in a video appeal released Thursday. “We want to liberate the enemy-occupied territories as soon as possible. “To do that, we need more weapons.” In the early days of the fighting, NATO countries worried that the weapons they provided to Ukraine could be quickly seized by senior Russian forces or that Ukrainian troops did not have time to train to use new equipment effectively or that sending offensive weapons would escalate the conflict and anger Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was rattling his nuclear sword. Weapons are easier to give than to take back. But as the war continues, these concerns have begun to subside. Now, some NATO countries are preparing to supply Ukraine with more lethal, sophisticated, long-range and heavy armor. The question is whether the Ukrainian officials will come as fast as they want – to stop the advance of Russia and to repel the Russian troops.

What do the Ukrainian forces need? Since the invasion on February 24, Western governments have supplied Ukraine with billions of dollars worth of weapons, including thousands of easy-to-use missile launchers, which have proved particularly deadly to small Ukrainian groups. slowing down, stopping and then reversing the Russian attack on Kyiv. These shoot-and-scoot launchers were crucial, according to military analysts. “We know military assistance is having a critical impact on this conflict,” Sullivan said Monday, stressing the US-made anti-aircraft Stingers and anti-tank Javelins sent to Ukraine. Javelins, not jets: How the US is arming Ukraine against Russia Now, as the war turns to the east, the numbers and types of weapons supplied by the United States and Europe will once again prove crucial to Ukraine. Its forces must be quickly rebuilt, replace equipment lost in six weeks of fighting, and supply the reserve units that the Ukrainian army is now trying to put on the field. They also need to prepare for a new kind of war, with the ultimate goal not only of defending cities but also of promoting Russian forces. “So anti-tank missiles alone are not going to cut it,” said Michael Coffman, director of research at the CNA Russia Studies Program, a think tank based in Arlington, Virginia. Koffman estimated that Ukraine needed “hundreds” of armored combat vehicles, including tanks, and a huge amount of ammunition. Reznikov noted a larger list: air defense systems and fighter jets to protect civilians and Ukrainian troops from missiles and airstrikes. long-range artillery to keep Russian forces at bay. tanks and armored vehicles to penetrate Russian defenses and liberate occupied territories; and anti-ship missiles to defeat Russian naval siege and unblock ports in the Black Sea. Western governments were reluctant to send such heavy weapons. However, the Czech Republic became the first NATO country to contribute tanks, a senior Czech official confirmed to the Washington Post on Saturday, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss an unannounced transfer. “Hopefully this will start a road race for who can offer more,” said William Alberque, director of strategy, technology and weapons control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “It’s hard to be the first” to send a tank, “but when someone breaks the ice, it’s a lot easier,” said Margiris Abukevicius, Lithuania ‘s deputy defense minister, who was in Washington last week to discuss military co – operation with the United States. States.

What can the Ukrainian forces use? In the first weeks of the war, Ukrainian supporters focused mainly on providing weapons that Ukrainian forces already knew how to use or that could be developed with minimal training. A soldier could learn how to shoot a javelin, for example, by watching a short video. And the former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe could share their stockpiles of Soviet-made equipment that easily integrates with Ukraine’s existing stockpile. However, European defense officials told The Post that their thinking about the number and types of weapons they were willing to send had evolved, as Ukrainian forces had shown the ability to fight – and bought time to train on more sophisticated equipment. western construction. In the beginning, “we only supplied weapons if we knew that the Ukrainians were able to handle them from the first moment. “We are now seeing more advanced weapons and a willingness to invest a little time to help them use them,” said Abukevicius, the Lithuanian deputy defense minister. Opinion: As Ukraine prepares for a second round, the West has a duty to accelerate At NATO meetings in Brussels last week, the focus was on Ukrainian forces acquiring more advanced weapons systems as quickly as possible. “Countries have said they are willing to go further, because we recognize that this is a new attack, that Russian forces are more concentrated and that more advanced weapons will be required,” said a Western official who attended the NATO summit. British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said on Friday that his country would supply Ukraine with heavy armored military ships called the Mastiffs – and that British troops would help train Ukrainians in their operations. The latest package from the United States, Sullivan said, includes laser-guided missile systems, Puma drones and armored multi-purpose wheeled vehicles. More arms shipments from the United States are coming soon, Sullivan said, promising that the types of advanced weapons aimed at Ukraine would be “excellent” and “unprecedented,” although he declined to give details. For tanks and air defense, the focus remains on older systems. Central Europe maintains stockpiles of old Soviet and post-Soviet tanks – the T-72s and even older T-64s – and Alberque said Ukrainian forces know how to drive and repair these tanks. In some cases, the White House has agreed to send new equipment to Central European countries if those countries donate their old equipment to Ukraine. Thus, a steady stream of defense officials has passed through Washington in recent weeks, seeking assurances that the United States will fill them with more modern equipment in the short term. President Biden said in a statement Friday that the United States would reposition a Patriot missile system in Slovakia after the country sent an S-300 air defense system to Ukraine.

Will weapons from the West escalate the war? Washington Post and National Security’s Pentagon reporter Karun Demirjian explains his difficulties in deciding which weapons to send to Ukraine. (Video: Joshua Carroll / The Washington Post, Photo: The Washington Post) The arms debate has evolved along with the conflict, although there are still divisions over the dangers of NATO becoming too deeply involved in the battle. Ukrainians say it no longer makes sense for Western governments to discuss whether the weapons being sent to Ukraine are “defensive” or “offensive” – ​​or they could somehow “escalate” the war, which has seen dense urban centers are indiscriminately bombed by Russia, along with accusations that Russian forces have committed war crimes deliberately targeting civilians. At NATO’s meeting in Brussels last week, the distinction between offensive and defensive weapons seemed to disappear. “This is about defending Ukrainian territory, so we need all the equipment we can get,” a NATO official told The Post, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss defense decisions. “I urge the Allies to provide further support to many different types of systems, both small arms and heavy weapons,” said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. But there is still caution among Western allies. Russia has warned that it would treat arms shipments to Ukraine from NATO countries as “legitimate targets” for military action, possibly creating more direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. At the same time, supplying Ukraine with long-range artillery, for example, involves the risk of the conflict crossing the border. Germany, which was criticized for offering to send 5,000 protective helmets in January, has embraced the need for deadly aid, although …