The uncertain outcome of the war in Ukraine forces the two adversaries, supported by their respective allies, to use the most sophisticated and decisive weapons to defeat their enemy. Are these providential weapons, or game-changers, really decisive for the outcome of the war?
Former senior officer of the Royal Gendarmerie and teacher at the School of Economic Warfare.
When will this damn war end?!? Whether on the Ukrainian or Russian side, everyone – civilian population and political or military leaders – must secretly hope for an end to this deadly conflict, the outcome of which seems increasingly uncertain. Because everyone has finally realized it: no one emerges victorious from a high-intensity war between two heavily armed and equipped military powers – largely thanks to their allies for Ukraine – and with resources human and material constantly renewed, even almost inexhaustible. In this context, the strongest wish desired by both sides is to be able to dispose, as soon as possible, of the providential weapon that can tip the conflict in its favor. What television studio experts identify as the game-changer. And that the military qualify as a weapon of technological breakthrough or strategic breakthrough. In other words, the weapon or weapon system that will give a decisive advantage in the field to its armed forces and which will invariably impact the outcome of the battle. And this quest for the ultimate weapon is not new. Already towards the end of the Second World War, the Third Reich sought to develop Wunderwaffen, literally “miracle weapons”, to turn the tide of the war after the successive debacles of the German army from 1944.
at each phase of the war its game-changer
Nevertheless, the recurrence of this term game-changer since the beginning of the conflict, used each time one of the two camps records successive victories on the battlefield can leave us doubtful. Thus, from the first days of the offensive which saw the Russian air force destroy a large part of the Ukrainian air defense batteries with the aim of having control of the skies, the armament provided by the allies came to completely rebalance the balance of power. Indeed, the delivery of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) by the Americans and the British to the Ukrainian army played a decisive role in the destruction of Russian planes and helicopters. The Russians have therefore lost their ability to have control of the 3rd dimension because of the threat of MANPADS, which have therefore been designated by military experts as the first game-changer of this conflict. But, quickly, a new weapon burst onto the battlefield and was immediately considered the new providential weapon: drones as well as prowling ammunition. All of these weapons, whether Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones, American Switchblade prowling ammunition or Iranian Sahde-136 drones, have been called game-changers from their first use. Then after, it was the turn of the artillery with the French Caesars guns to be put forward, followed by the American HIMARS multiple rocket launchers which made it possible to carry out strikes in depth and which were decisive in the counter- Ukrainian offensive of September 2022. Then Russian military analysts took over, calling the Russian long-range missiles used to destroy Ukrainian power plants and strategic sites decisive weapons that allowed Russia to shift the momentum of this war which was in favor of Ukraine. Then now, we return to the traditional game-changer, the tank, considered the spearhead of all land military maneuvers since the Second World War and strongly demanded by Zelensky to allow his army to relaunch a major offensive towards ballast. And the next request for armament will concern fighter planes, described as decisive and essential by kyiv, so as not to give in to the advance of Russian troops. But according to Justin Massie, co-director of the Strategic Analysis Network at the Institute for International Studies in Montreal, “aviation will not be a game-changer, unless the West provides their best planes, F-35s by example”. We can already imagine what will happen next. To cope with the strong comeback of tanks and fighter planes on the battlefield, we will return to the game-changers of the beginning of the conflict, namely anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. We finally go around in circles and we put the term game-changer to all the sauces. So we have to stop with this game-changer theory! Because behind this overused term, there is an interest of defense manufacturers to highlight their latest generation weapons and present it as the ultimate weapon to force the decision on the battlefield. And therefore by extension, the weapon that it is necessary to acquire to integrate it into its arsenal.
The “sword and shield theory”
Joseph Henrotin, researcher at the Center for Risk Analysis and Forecasting (CAPRI), also wonders about the impact of these game-changers on the outcome of battles. For him, the primacy of victory should be attributed more to doctrine or the quality and modes of military command than to these famous game-changers. He also specifies that “no weapon throughout history has made it possible on its own to win a war: the game-changer cannot have a direct impact on the strategic plan.”
We can therefore allow ourselves to speak of a game-changer for a single battle or a series of successive battles for which one of the two adversaries manages to impose his will on the other. But for a long-term war, the game-changer can quickly become obsolete, because the adversary will have had time to adapt to this new weapon of technological breakthrough. The game-changer is above all a weapon that relies on new technology, for which we have not yet succeeded in developing a counter. But by recovering drones that have fallen on the battlefield, for example, it is possible, after dissecting and then analyzing them, to deduce their flaws or design adequate response measures.
Nuclear weapons: the Game-finisher
This incessant technological race between offensive weapons and defense systems responds to the “sword and shield theory”. When armored vehicles, for example, manage to “reinforce their defense shield” using technological means to ward off enemy rocket attacks, weapons manufacturers develop new technologies to “sharpen their sword” in order to pierce this new armor. infallible.
But if no single weapon in military history has won a war, there is a weapon whose effect of devastation and astonishment is such that it could put an immediate end to any what war: nuclear weapons. This weapon, qualified as unconventional, can alone change the rules of power. It was further to the use of the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 that the United States had forced the capitulation of Japan. And the nuclear weapon is currently in Putin’s hands, with neither Zelensky nor his Western allies seeming to care about its use by Moscow. What could prevent Vladimir Putin from giving in to the temptation to use nuclear weapons, at least tactically, to end this war so as not to have to shoulder a defeat unacceptable for his legacy? Thus, if the outcome of this war does not go in Russia’s direction, we risk witnessing the use of the game-finisher: nuclear weapons. With however a major uncertainty: contrary to the situation which envisaged in 1945, Russia is not the only country which is in possession of this weapon of the apocalypse…