As the Ukraine War rages, and the country itself—irrespective of whichever side wins—is utterly decimated, the one thing that the world is experiencing is the rise of entirely new methodologies of warfare (along with the return of some old ones). Indeed, the Ukraine War has been a strange admixture of weapons systems—some old, some new—and tactics.

One such system is the Stugna-P Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) system, also known as the “Skif” internationally.

Developed by the Luch Design Bureau in Ukraine’s embattled capital of Kyiv, the Stugna-P was meant to counter modern armored threats, particularly those equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA). The Stugna has proven its effectiveness in multiple battles throughout this seemingly interminable war.

Stugna-P is a man-portable system (MANPAD) but can also be mounted on vehicles for greater mobility. The weapon features a modular setup with a tripod, missile container, guidance device, and a remote-control panel known as the PDU-215. This setup allows for more flexibility in deployment, either by a crew of three or four soldiers (depending on operational requirements).

Stugna-P employs a semi-automatic command to line-of-sight (SACLOS) guidance, where the operator must keep the target in sight but does not need to manually steer the missile’s entire flight path.

Instead, the missile is guided with course corrections sent via a laser beam to an optical receiver on the missile’s tail.

The Capabilities 

The Stugna-P can engage targets at distances of up to 5 kilometers in daylight, with a night capability extended to around four kilometers (using thermal imaging). A variety of missiles can be popped off from this system, including (but not only) the 130 mm and 152 mm missiles. Options are granted for tandem-charge warheads (which have been lethal to tanks in the Ukraine War for both sides).

What’s more, this system can be used to attack helicopters, only adding to its versatility on the battlefield.

First introduced in 2011, long before the current unpleasantness between Ukraine and their Slavic brothers in neighboring Russia, the Stugna-P has been deployed in both the Donbas conflict that preceded Russia’s invasion in 2022. The Stugna-P has enjoyed multiple victories over numerous Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs).

This system allows for an operator to launch devastating attacks from a setback, relatively safe position on the battlefield. In turn, the operator can control the missile from a distance, which has proven crucial for Ukrainian forces, notably those engaged in urban and semi-urban combat against the Russians.

Part of the overall “shoot-and-scoot” tactics that Ukraine has come to prefer against the larger Russian forces, Ukrainian operators can pop off these missiles and then quickly move away, avoiding Russian counterfire. What’s more, the Stugna-P is adapted for anti-personnel roles, again showcasing its versatility—and the ingenuity of Ukrainian defenders—in using weapons in off-brand ways.

Foreign systems, such as the American Javelin anti-tank missile system or the British NLAW have gotten all the notoriety for helping Ukraine, notably at the start of the war, stunt the Russian armored invasion. But the Stugna-P more than holds its ground when compared to these NATO systems. 

That’s because the Stugna-P has a longer range, quicker flight time, and resistance to electronic jamming through its SACLOS guidance system. Ukrainian soldiers have repeatedly noted that the Stugna-P is less portable than the American or British equivalents. 

Yet, the aforementioned greater range and operator safety are critical.

Ukraine Should’ve Kept the War Local 

An important, though often overlooked point by most Western analysts, is the way in which homegrown Ukrainian weapons platforms are actually performing better in combat against the Russians than the more sophisticated, costlier Western hand-me-downs that Ukraine has been forced to use.

It isn’t just in terms of anti-tank missile systems, such as the Stugna-P. Ukraine’s tanks, the T-64 and T-84 Oplot have performed far better than the Western-provided M1 Abrams, British Challenger-2, and German Leopard-2 tanks. This pattern has played out repeatedly for the Ukrainians throughout the war.

It’s almost as though Ukraine would have been better having the West simply help them augment and streamline their indigenous weapons production capacity rather than ply them with all of NATO’s junk. Despite the clear tactical successes the Ukrainians have enjoyed with weapons like the Stugna-P, the strategic situation remains relatively unchanged: Russia is winning.

Moscow will ultimately defeat the Ukrainians and win the war, simply via attrition.

How much time and effort were wasted by Ukraine because of their overreliance on NATO’s feckless alliance equipment?

We again have another painful example of how Ukraine’s partnership with NATO actually backfired on Kyiv by flooding the country with weapons systems that were impractical for use in the kind of campaign that Ukraine was fighting against Russia. It’s too bad because systems like the Stuga-P are both ingenuous and lethal. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.