The High-Stakes Gamble: Ukraine’s Pursuit of Advanced Missile Systems

When nations tread the tightrope of geopolitics and conflict, their leaders often have to make difficult decisions, balancing the needs for defense, the risk of escalation, and the unpredictable dynamics of international diplomacy. Ukraine finds itself precisely at such a crossroads today, grappling with the imperative to modernize its military while managing the subtle calculus of East-West relations. One of the most critical questions the country is facing pertains to its ambitions to bolster its air defense capabilities, and here, the stakes are exceptionally high.

Modernizing a Legacy Fleet

Ukraine’s military is largely equipped with Soviet-era machinery, a vestige of its historical ties with Russia. With recent hostilities exacerbating tensions, there’s an emerging consensus that the Ukrainian air force must modernize to effectively deter aggression. One of the intriguing options on the table is the potential integration of advanced Western air-to-air missiles with Ukraine’s Soviet-era MiG-29 Fulcrum jets. Technically speaking, this is a complex affair that may involve not just high costs but a plethora of engineering challenges. We’re talking about marrying systems that were fundamentally designed in different technological eras and geopolitical contexts.

One of the possible solutions is to upgrade the MiG-29s to a 4±generation multi-purpose aircraft in two phases, known as MiG-29MU1 and MiG-29MU21. The MiG-29MU1 upgrade involves installing NATO-compatible communication and navigation systems, as well as extending the service life of the aircraft. The MiG-29MU2 upgrade is more ambitious and includes replacing the original radar with a more capable AESA radar, integrating new weapons such as the R-77 (AA-12 Adder) and R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) missiles, and installing a new digital cockpit with multifunction displays. Only one MiG-29MU2 has been completed so far, and it is still active in the Ukrainian Air Force.

Another option is to acquire new Western fighter jets, such as the F-16 Block 70/72, which are already being delivered to Slovakia, a former MiG-29 operator. The F-16s offer superior performance, reliability, and interoperability with NATO allies compared to the MiG-29s. However, they also come with a hefty price tag and may require additional training and infrastructure to operate effectively. Moreover, the F-16s may not be able to match the Russian Su-35s and Su-57s in terms of maneuverability and stealth.

Ultimately, the choice between upgrading the MiG-29s or acquiring new F-16s depends on various factors, such as the availability of funds, the urgency of the threat, and the political will of both Ukraine and its allies. Either way, Ukraine faces a daunting challenge in modernizing its air force in the face of a resurgent Russia.

The AMRAAM Equation

The AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a state-of-the-art weapon that has become the backbone of NATO’s air-to-air combat. AMRAAMs can engage multiple targets simultaneously and have a range of up to 160 km, depending on the variant. If successfully integrated, these missiles could offer Ukraine a significant qualitative edge over Russian air capabilities, which rely mostly on older missiles such as the R-27 and R-77. However, the path is fraught with hurdles; the MiG-29s would require extensive modifications to become compatible with the NATO-standard missile interface that the AMRAAMs use. Such modifications would involve replacing or upgrading the aircraft’s radar, fire-control system, data link, and weapon pylons. These changes would not only be costly and time-consuming, but also pose technical and political challenges.

The Long-Range Option: ATACMS

Another avenue Ukraine is exploring involves the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a long-range surface-to-surface missile system. The ATACMS would enable Ukraine to extend its reach far beyond the front lines, targeting critical Russian military logistics. Deployed from the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) — which Ukraine already possesses — these missiles could significantly disrupt enemy operations. Yet the ATACMS is a double-edged sword: its cluster munitions are ethically and legally fraught due to their potential for causing indiscriminate civilian casualties. Cluster munitions are banned by the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which has been ratified by 110 countries, but not by the U.S., Russia, or Ukraine. The U.S. has decided to provide Ukraine with a version of ATACMS that uses cluster bomblets rather than a single warhead, which may increase the risk of unexploded ordnance and civilian harm. The U.S. has also waived its own policy that prohibits the transfer of cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than 1 percent. The decision to supply Ukraine with ATACMS has been met with criticism from some human rights groups, who argue that it violates international humanitarian law and sets a dangerous precedent.

Balancing Act in Foreign Policy

The dilemma that Ukraine faces is emblematic of the broader challenges confronting nations caught in protracted conflicts. While the introduction of advanced weapons systems like the AMRAAM or the ATACMS could significantly strengthen Ukraine’s military, it also risks triggering an escalation that could lead to a larger, potentially more devastating, conflict. Furthermore, any miscalculation could have repercussions not just for Ukraine but also for the geopolitical balance in the region and beyond. For instance, Russia has warned that supplying long-range missiles to Ukraine would cross a “red line” and make the US a “party to the conflict” . NATO allies have also expressed concern about the potential destabilization of the security situation in Europe .

Moreover, international law looms as a constant background consideration. There are rules and norms about the conduct of war, and the use of cluster munitions in particular is highly controversial. As the Biden administration contemplates providing the ATACMS to Ukraine, these ethical and legal challenges cannot and should not be ignored. Cluster munitions are globally banned by the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which has been ratified by 111 states . The US is not a party to the convention, but it has adopted a policy to end the use of cluster munitions that result in more than 1 percent unexploded ordnance by 2018 . However, this policy does not apply to the ATACMS variant that is reportedly being considered for Ukraine, which contains cluster bomblets that have a higher failure rate . Human rights groups have criticized the use of cluster munitions as indiscriminate and harmful to civilians, both during and after attacks .

The Road Ahead

So, what should Ukraine do? The country’s leaders are tasked with an almost Herculean balancing act. On one side is the urgent need for military modernization and effective deterrence against a militarily superior adversary. On the other side are the imperatives of international law, the potential for escalation, and the complex labyrinth of diplomatic relations with Western allies and others.

In my opinion, Ukraine’s best path forward involves a blended approach that doesn’t put all its eggs in one basket. Military modernization must proceed, but in tandem with vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at conflict resolution and the establishment of a secure, stable framework for Ukraine’s future. As it seeks to fortify its defenses, Ukraine also has a compelling interest in ramping up diplomatic channels to defuse tensions and find a sustainable solution to its conflict with Russia.

Ultimately, advanced missiles might offer a technical edge, but they are not a panacea. The road to security and stability is multi-faceted and requires a nuanced strategy that harmonizes military objectives with diplomatic imperatives. With the world watching closely, the choices Ukraine makes today will resonate far beyond its borders, shaping not just its own destiny but the contours of international diplomacy and conflict in the 21st century.