Low-Cost Weapons Outperform Advanced Systems in Ukraine Conflict

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has underscored the effectiveness of low-cost, mass-produced weapons over highly advanced systems. Ukrainian defense leaders are cautioning Western nations against relying solely on expensive military technology, highlighting that a successful long-term strategy against Russia requires a focus on quantity and reliability.

Serhiy Goncharov, CEO of the National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries, representing approximately 100 Ukrainian companies, explained that the reliance on a limited number of sophisticated weaponry could prove detrimental in a protracted conflict. He stated, “Those systems are good to have, but mass is key.”

Mass Production vs. High Technology

The war has demonstrated that a small number of precise and costly weapons cannot match the scale of attritional warfare being employed by Russia. Goncharov pointed out that the US M982 Excalibur guided shell, priced at around $100,000 each, becomes less effective when facing the enemy’s electronic warfare systems and traditional artillery that costs significantly less—up to thirty times cheaper and available in vast quantities. He noted, “The M107 self-propelled gun, first fielded by the United States in the 1960s, proves that inexpensive firepower, when deployed in sufficient numbers, can be devastatingly effective.”

In his view, Ukraine would benefit more from acquiring 200 affordable howitzers, like the locally produced Bohdana, rather than a mere ten units of high-end systems such as the Swedish Archers.

The conflict has also highlighted Ukraine’s urgent need for a steady supply of weaponry. While advanced systems may promise transformative impacts, maintaining a consistent flow of reliable and moderately priced arms is essential to sustain the fight.

Russia’s Strategy and Western Responses

Russia’s military strategy has relied heavily on artillery and extensive ammunition use, drawing parallels to the attritional battles of World War I and II. The Kremlin’s capacity to endure significant losses is supported by its larger military force and population, enabling it to engage in a long-term war. According to the UK Ministry of Defense, Russia has lost over 3,600 main battle tanks and nearly 8,000 armoured vehicles since February 2022.

In contrast, Ukraine has faced acute shortages of weapons and ammunition. In response, the country has turned to cost-effective drones to conduct asymmetric warfare, while Russia has also deployed uncrewed systems in combat.

Ukraine’s insights are gaining traction across Europe. Defense ministers and military leaders are re-evaluating Western strategies in light of Russia’s approach. Former Lithuanian Defense Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis emphasized the need for a “high quantities” approach, contrasting the West’s focus on costly, slow-to-produce systems with Russia’s strategy of assembling inexpensive, expendable forces rapidly.

Similarly, Troels Lund Poulsen, Denmark’s Defense Minister, stated that the conflict has revealed a pressing necessity for increased quantities of affordable weapons to address threats from both Russia and China. NATO Secretary Mark Rutte has advocated for faster and more pragmatic procurement processes, suggesting that while high standards are ideal, speed and sufficient quality should take precedence. He remarked, “Ukraine can operate effectively with equipment rated six or seven out of ten, whereas NATO often insists on nine or ten.”

Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution noted that Western militaries have historically prepared for short, decisive engagements rather than enduring wars of attrition. He acknowledged the importance of advanced systems, but emphasized the necessity of balancing quantity with quality.

UK Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard echoed these sentiments, stating that the conflict has exposed outdated procurement practices. He pointed out, “We build and procure really expensive high-end kit,” explaining that the lengthy procurement process—taking five years to initiate and an additional ten years to manufacture—hinders effective military readiness.

Industry Adaptations

European defense manufacturers are responding to these lessons. Kuldar Väärsi, CEO of Milrem Robotics, stressed the need for production methods aligned with battlefield demands. He stated, “Having a hundred more simple pieces of equipment is better than 10 very sophisticated items.” Mass production enables the defense industry to meet actual demand rather than pursuing a limited number of high-end contracts that may falter in a sustained conflict.

Goncharov urged Western nations to reconsider their fixation on perfection in military procurement. Success in today’s warfare will stem from speed, quantity, and practicality, as much as from technological sophistication. As the conflict continues, the lessons learned may reshape military strategies and procurement policies across the globe.