Kiev’s allies have repeatedly crossed the red lines they themselves have drawn with regard to arms supplies to Ukraine. But today, almost a year since the start of the invasion of Ukraine, the concern of the United States and Europe with the possibility of Russian escalation has not changed substantially and still weighs on the next decisions, including whether or not to send fighter jets.
The US and its partners have already sent or pledged to send most of the systems it previously would not consider sending, most recently tanks, Himar guided missiles and Patriot air defense units, among other systems.
There is a growing consensus among Western leaders that time is now on Russia’s side and that Ukraine has a narrow window of time to launch a spring counteroffensive. This is prompting allies to readily band together to send in heavier equipment like tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and longer-range weapons.
Evidence of the shift in thinking was seen last week when the US announced the deployment of what are known as Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDBs), the longest-range bombs it has ever delivered. to Kiev.
According to Western analysts and officials, the fact that self-imposed limits are constantly being exceeded reflects not a change in how allies assess the risk of Russian escalation, but the changing requirements of the Ukrainian battlefield.
“The trajectory of the war has been more fundamental in determining the risk of Russian escalation,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation. “We have already seen that the moments when the concern about an escalation has become more acute have been moments of extreme vulnerability for the Russians. They have not occurred due to new weapons.”
US officials say they are constantly re-evaluating their support for Ukraine. Missile attacks in recent months against Ukraine’s critical infrastructure have convinced the US and its allies that it needs to deploy more sophisticated air defense systems.
“War remains changing and dynamic, which is why our support will continue to adapt to changing conditions, to provide Ukraine with the training, equipment and capabilities it needs to be effective on the battlefield,” said the deputy. Pentagon press officer Sabrina Singh.
For some analysts, Washington’s constant redefinition of which weapons systems would lead to an escalation in the conflict has a purpose.
“The US administration and European allies believe this incremental approach has been a really effective way to reduce the risk of escalation and prevent a direct US-Russian military confrontation,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, director of security at the security think tank. Washington Center for New American Security. “In many ways it’s like the parable of the frog in boiling water.”
But shifting the red lines does not guarantee that the very item Ukraine is aiming for, F-16 fighter jets, will be within that country’s reach. Asked last week whether the US would supply the fighter jets, President Joe Biden simply replied “no”.
US officials admit they may eventually send fighters or authorize allies to do so, but for now they say the fighters are too expensive, they are not readily available and it will take significant time to train Ukrainians to fly them.
Sending the fighters would also risk drawing NATO into the conflict. A US official said the F-16s had “the potential to be seen as a provocation because of their range and capabilities”.
He added: “Russia’s narrative is that this is a war with the United States. That’s not true. We don’t want to feed that narrative by giving the Russians a chance to point to things like F-16s that could be used against territory. Russian.”
Ukrainian officials – and their most hard-nosed allies in eastern Europe – say Russian threats, including clear allusions to the use of nuclear weapons, are tactics aimed at scaring Kiev’s allies to discourage them from supplying advanced weapons.
But in a sign that Ukraine views US concern about an escalation as a serious impediment to arms shipments, outgoing Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov took the unusual step this week of pledging not to use supplied weapons. by the West to reach Russian territory.
Concerns about an escalation came to a head in September after the collapse of Russian defensive lines in Kharkiv province. President Vladimir Putin ordered the deployment of 300,000 men and warned the West of a possible nuclear response, saying “if its territorial integrity is threatened, Russia will use all means at its disposal”.
Russia has since toned down the threats. Last week, reacting to promises by Germany and other countries to send Western tanks to Ukraine, Putin appeared to again hint at the possibility of using nuclear weapons, saying “we have means of responding, and they will not be limited to the use of armored vehicles”. But it was a less explicit reference.
Western officials and analysts have offered many explanations for the change in tone, including China’s concern about the risk created by Russian nuclear threats. A senior Western diplomat said the change in tone was the effect of a coordinated US-British-French warning to Moscow that any use of nuclear weapons would have “catastrophic consequences”.
Some experts say the Kremlin’s nuclear threats are aimed at its domestic audience, to encourage Russians to join the mobilization. The US detected no ominous shift in Russia’s nuclear posture during last year’s incendiary speech phase. But they still take the risk seriously and are constantly monitoring for any signs that Russia may be taking the necessary steps to fire a nuclear weapon.
In a report published last month by the think tank Rand Corporation, Charap and Miranda Priebe argued that there are several reasons to think Russia’s use of a nuclear weapon is still possible, among other reasons because Putin sees war as “almost existential”.
“The Biden administration has every reason to treat preventing Russia’s use of nuclear weapons as a top US priority,” they wrote.
Jack Reed, the Democratic chairman of the US Senate Committee on the Armed Services, said a collapse of the Russian military, Ukrainian advances on the annexed Crimean peninsula or attacks on Russia would increase the nuclear risk. “If Ukrainians enter Crimea, the discussion would heat up tremendously in the Kremlin.”
“Red lines are an interesting issue, but they are never this strong or evident,” he continued. “I really wish it was something almost arithmetic, like one plus one equals two. But it’s not that simple.”
With a wealth of experience honed over 4+ years in journalism, I bring a seasoned voice to the world of news. Currently, I work as a freelance writer and editor, always seeking new opportunities to tell compelling stories in the field of world news.
