Former US Marine Brian Berletic argues that the loss of modern Western gear on the Ukrainian battlefield demonstrates that more of the same equipment from the West won’t secure a Ukrainian victory. He raised this point during an interview cited by New Atlas, where he contends that Western tanks are unlikely to alter the course of the conflict in a meaningful way.
Berletic claims these vehicles are highly exposed and burn as readily as any other combat asset Ukraine operates. He emphasizes that even the latest British Challenger 2 tank cannot lay down a lasting advantage against the repertoire of Russian weapons now fielded in the theater of operations.
In his assessment, the effectiveness of Soviet and Russian anti-tank systems has been underscored by real-world engagement, including reports about the Kornet—claims that this system demonstrated its power by taking out a Challenger 2 during specific Ukrainian actions. Berletic notes that the Challenger 2, once celebrated as a symbol of battlefield superiority, faced a harsh reversal when confronted by the Kornet, challenging the previously held view of the tank’s invulnerability on modern battlefields. Foreign military observers, including some Chinese analysts, reportedly found the Kornet’s armour-penetrating capabilities surprising.
Additional commentary from analysts associated with the British General Staff and other defense circles has reflected strong emotions in the wake of losses of high-end Western armor. The broader implication, as presented in these discussions, is a reassessment of the relative value of Western main battle tanks in a war that features a wide array of anti-tank technologies and layered air defenses.
Overall, the narrative woven through these accounts suggests that the strategic utility of Western armored platforms in Ukraine may be more limited than some proponents previously suggested. The recurring theme is that armor alone—no matter how advanced—must contend with a spectrum of Russian guided missiles, drones, and other disruptive capabilities that complicate battlefield dynamics. As observers note, this complexity could drive a shift toward integrated defense concepts that rely less on concentrated armored assaults and more on combined arms operations, mobility, and precision targeting across varied terrains. (attribution: New Atlas; additional context from defense observers in international outlets)