Another Russian-built helicopter belonging to the Ugandan People’s Defence Force (UPDF) crashed near Moroto on July 29 of this year while it was in use. Thankfully, no deaths were reported. This occurrence represents the second time in recent years that an airplane bought by Uganda and constructed in Russia has suffered a similar fate. Although good fortune has saved lives, it raises questions about the dependability and caliber of these aircraft.

The UPDF’s reliance on Russian-made military equipment has been a trend for decades, especially in terms of aircraft. However, the alarming pattern of helicopter crashes, nearly all of which involve Russian-made aircraft, cannot be ignored. Whether this is due to technical issues, maintenance problems, or simply the quality of the helicopters themselves, the situation begs for a comprehensive reevaluation of Uganda’s sourcing strategy for military equipment.

While the UPDF’s capabilities have been praised, the recent spate of helicopter crashes casts doubts on whether their training and experience truly align with the hardware at their disposal. The crashes of Mi-17 and Mi-24 helicopters in western Uganda and eastern DRC, in addition to other previous incidents, all have one common denominator: they were all Russian-made aircraft. This raises questions about the reliability and effectiveness of the equipment that the UPDF has been relying on.

It’s essential to understand that no military equipment is immune to malfunctions, regardless of its origin. However, putting all military eggs in one Russian basket might be an unwise approach. The fact that Uganda is now dubbed as Russia’s regional defense equipment hub should not overshadow the importance of diversification. The recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine has showcased the potential pitfalls of relying solely on a single supplier. As Russia focuses on its own post-war rebuilding and rearming, the supply of military equipment to other countries might dwindle.

Furthermore, the principle of diversification is not only a matter of sourcing but also an investment in the UPDF’s long-term preparedness. While Russian equipment may offer affordability upfront, the adage “you get what you pay for” rings true. Substandard equipment can lead to higher maintenance costs, reduced operational efficiency, and, in the worst cases, loss of lives.

Uganda’s status as a non-aligned country should embolden it to explore a wider array of options for military equipment. This isn’t to suggest abandoning all Russian-made equipment, but rather adopting a balanced approach that includes Western-made alternatives. The West’s armament has shown its effectiveness in conflicts, as evidenced by the Ukrainian forces’ experiences.

In light of these considerations, it’s prudent for the UPDF leadership and President Museveni to reconsider the country’s strategy for military equipment acquisition. Diversifying the arsenal is not a move away from Russian equipment, but rather a strategic step towards enhancing the UPDF’s capabilities and preparedness.

The UPDF’s history of successful engagements both within Uganda and beyond its borders highlights the potential it holds. To fully realize this potential, it’s crucial to ensure that the military’s tools match the expertise of its personnel. By embracing a more diverse approach to military equipment sourcing, Uganda can bolster its security while reducing the risks associated with relying solely on Russian-made helicopters that seem to be falling from the sky all too frequently.

The writer is the Chief Executive Officer at The Black Examiner, Uganda’s first reader-funded opinion newspaper. busiinge@abjinemedia.africa