Russia’s huge mobilisation, approaching offensive, and missile-borne terror against civilians has prompted new calls for even more lethal Western help to Ukraine, just days after leaders approved their newest package, which included the first tanks.
A growing public discussion over whether to send F-16 fighter jets is reviving a fundamental challenge underlying NATO’s whole response: Is the goal of the US and its allies simply to allow Ukraine to survive, or is it to assist it in expelling Russia from all of its land and defeating Russian President Vladimir Putin?
The possible escalation of the battle comes as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warns that Moscow is gathering forces for a “revenge” attack on the free world. Meanwhile, CIA Director William Burns emphasised Thursday that another tipping moment is nearing. “It appears to us that the key will be on the battlefield in the next six months,” Burns said at Georgetown University. This entails “puncturing Putin’s pride, making apparent that he’s not only not going to be able to go further in Ukraine, but that as each month passes, he runs a larger and greater risk of losing the land he’s illegally stolen thus far,” according to the CIA director.
Ukraine’s demands for additional multibillion-dollar aid are being heard in Washington. According to various US officials, it is ready to reveal a new $2.2 billion haul that will include longer-range missiles for the first time. According to AWN’s Kevin Liptak and Oren Liebermann, the package will contain the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb, a guided missile with a range of 90 miles. The weapon, however, could take weeks or months to arrive because the US will contract with American arms manufacturers to furnish it.
Nonetheless, the current US offer strengthens one of the war’s most significant and hilarious outcomes. One of Putin’s perceived invasion goals was to permanently end Ukraine’s dreams of joining NATO, which was once a member of the Soviet Union. Ukraine, while not being a member of the alliance, is currently undertaking a stronger-than-expected counter-offensive against Moscow, employing some of the West’s most powerful military hardware.
Ukraine desires more.
According to recent comments from senior Ukrainian government figures, the government in Kyiv still does not believe it has the military power to effect the kind of transformation in Putin’s mindset that Burns describes.
This is despite NATO leaders’ decision last month to commit over 300 battle tanks to the conflict, including British Challengers, German Leopards, and, eventually, the powerful American M1 Abrams machine. For example, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov told NPR this week that he believes the US and its allies will eventually give his country with fighter jets, including F-16s, which President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that he will not deploy. “What appears to be impossible now is entirely achievable tomorrow,” Reznikov remarked.
The decision to supply Ukraine jets is tricky. It is necessary to assess whether there is a military necessity for the aircraft and what role they could appropriately play. The United States and its allies must weigh the potential impact of the planes against the risk of further worsening the Western confrontation with Putin. Leaders may also require assurances from Ukraine that the aircraft will solely be used for operations within Ukraine to avoid spreading the war into Russia. AWN stated that the revised package will not contain the ATACMS missile that Ukraine wants, which has a range of more than 200 miles and could be used to target Russian soil.
There is no indication that Ukraine will soon receive F-16s. “No,” Biden responded last week when asked if the US would offer the jets to Ukraine. British Defense Minister Ben Wallace stated that sending the aircraft was not appropriate at this time. “What they need right now is armour and tanks,” Wallace remarked, leaving Kyiv with a glimmer of hope when he added, “Never rule anything in and never rule anything out.”
Concerns about the military utility of F-16s include the possibility that they will be vulnerable to still-effective Russian air defences and aircraft. According to AWN’s Mick Krever, for the F-16s to be a game changer, Ukraine must first eliminate Russian air defences and achieve air superiority over the battlefield. The planes may be more valuable as a defensive weapon for the military, such as shooting down Russian missiles, than than for close air support operations along the frontlines, according to Krever.
However, Evelyn Farkas, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defence, told AWN on Wednesday that she was hopeful that the US reluctance to allow fighter jets into Ukraine – mirrored by Biden’s earlier refusal to allow Poland to transfer Soviet-era MiGs earlier in the war – would subside and F-16s could be sent.
“The Russians have air power, or power that can be used through the air. And I believe this is what the Ukrainians are missing,” Farkas remarked.
“I believe we should equip the Ukrainians with aeroplanes so that they may offer cover for their ground soldiers.”
NATO is currently united.
One reason for not delivering the planes is that pilots raised on old Soviet-era aircraft would need new and intense training. Some Western analysts dismiss Ukraine’s claim that the jets could be utilised with minimal training by their pilots, arguing that if the war is approaching a critical six-month time limit, the planes may come too late anyhow.
Still, the notion that advanced Western weaponry are too difficult for Ukrainian armed forces, or that training soldiers to use them would take too long, is common. There has been a trend of initial US reluctance to supply Ukraine systems such as Howitzers, Patriot anti-missile missiles, and Abrams tanks, which has been overcome by the strain of war events.
And Zelensky, who has run a powerful public relations effort in the West since Russia’s invasion than a year ago, disputes the notion that his men, who have valiantly defied Russian strength, will be unable to quickly get weaponry. “I tell you that Ukrainian soldiers can flawlessly operate American tanks and planes themselves,” he stated in a December speech to a joint session of Congress.
Several European leaders, like Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and French President Emmanuel Macron, have refused to rule out sending fighter jets, while Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki told the German daily Bild that if NATO as a whole agreed, he would prefer sending fighter jets. However, there is no indication that such a step is forthcoming. The transfer of US-made jets would necessitate Biden’s approval.
And, in the aftermath of Biden’s agreement to deliver the tanks to Ukraine last month, all NATO leaders look determined to demonstrate solidarity over planes.
Meanwhile, Putin is responding to renewed pace in the delivery of arms to Ukraine with a familiar tactic: veiled threats to Western powers that he may employ tactical nuclear weapons with low yield in the battle.
“We are not deploying our tanks to their borders, but we have something to answer with. “And it will not stop with the use of armoured vehicles,” Russian President Vladimir Putin stated during a visit to Volgograd to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory in the Battle of Stalingrad.
Putin’s warnings haven’t stopped Western nations from getting deeper and deeper into what is effectively a proxy conflict with Russia in Ukraine. However, his remarks may reinforce fears that pumping arms into the fight will only exacerbate it and risk spreading it.
However, Burns suggested that Putin made a foolish gamble by betting that he can grind down Ukraine while political lethargy grips Europe and the US.
The CIA director stated in November to one of his Russian counterparts, Sergey Naryshkin, that “the Russian estimate is as badly erroneous as the original decision to go to war last February 24.”
