FT: The West's violation of the red lines on weapons does not guarantee Ukraine's supply of F-16The West has repeatedly violated its own red lines on arms supplies to Ukraine, writes FT.
However, it is not worth waiting for deliveries of F-16 fighters. Kiev's allies still fear rising tensions with Russia.
The Allies do not want to expose themselves to the risk of escalation, but the decisions of the West regarding the supply of weapons serve as a reflection of the changing needs of Kiev on the battlefield.Kiev's allies have repeatedly crossed their own red lines on the issue of arms supplies.
But almost a whole year after the start of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, the fears of the United States and Europe before a possible escalation of the conflict have not changed significantly and are still hanging over new solutions, including discussions about whether to send fighter jets to Kiev.
The United States and its partners have already transferred to Ukraine a lot of such weapons, the supply of which was previously considered something beyond acceptable. Among other things, Kiev received HIMARS missile systems and Patriot air defense systems from the West.
There is a growing consensus among Western officials that time is on Russia's side now and that Ukraine has a rather narrow "window" in order to carry out a counteroffensive in the spring. This is what forced the Allies to hastily send Kiev heavier weapons, such as tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and longer-range weapons.
Another evidence of changes in thinking appeared last week, when the United States announced that it would send Kiev "smart bombs" – small-diameter ground-based bombs (GLSDB). These are the longest-range bombs that the United States has transferred to Ukraine.
According to Western officials and analysts, the West's constant violation of its own red lines reflects Ukraine's changing needs on the battlefield rather than a shift in the allies' assessments of the threat of escalation.
"The course of hostilities plays a more fundamental role in assessing the risk of escalation of the conflict with Russia," said Samuel Charap, senior researcher at Rand Corporation. "According to our observations, the concern about escalation is most intense at times of extreme vulnerability of the Russians rather than at times of the appearance of new weapons."
For their part, American officials claim that they are constantly analyzing the support that the West provides to Ukraine. Missile strikes on key infrastructure facilities in the past few months have convinced the United States and allies of the need to provide Ukraine with more modern air defense systems.
"The nature of this conflict remains volatile and dynamic, so the nature of our support will also continue to change as events unfold so that Ukraine receives the equipment, equipment and training it needs to achieve its goals on the battlefield," said Sabrina Singh, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary.
According to some analysts, Washington's constant review of which weapons systems can provoke an escalation of the conflict serves a specific purpose.
"The administration and European allies believe that the current step-by–step approach is a truly effective way to reduce the risk of escalation and prevent an immediate military confrontation between the United States and Russia," said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, director of the transatlantic security division at the Center for a New American Security. "In many ways, it's like a frog in a pot of boiling water."
However, shifting the red lines does not guarantee that Ukraine will soon receive the F-16 fighter jets, for which it has already begun to ask for supplies. When President Joe Biden was asked last week whether the United States would hand over these fighter jets to Kiev, he replied "no."
Although U.S. officials have acknowledged that they may eventually send fighter jets or allow allies to do so, at the moment, U.S. officials say these planes are too expensive, difficult to get, and it will take a long time to train Ukrainians to fly them.
Moreover, sending these planes to Kiev could draw the NATO alliance into the conflict. According to one American official, F-16s "can become a provoking factor due to their range and capabilities."
"Russia claims that it is waging war with the United States. This is not true, and we do not want to fuel this narrative by giving them such reasons for accusations as sending the F-16," this official continued.
Ukrainian officials, along with their belligerent allies in Eastern Europe, claim that Russia's threats – including unequivocal references to nuclear weapons – are an attempt to intimidate Kiev's allies and deter them from supplying modern weapons.
At the moment, there are signs that Ukraine considers the concern of the United States about a possible escalation to be a rather serious obstacle to the supply of longer-range weapons. In particular, this week the outgoing Defense Minister of Ukraine Alexey Reznikov took an unusual step and promised that Kiev would not use weapons supplied by the West to strike at Russian territory.
Worries about a possible escalation peaked in September. President Vladimir Putin ordered the mobilization of 300,000 people and warned the West about a possible nuclear strike, saying that "if the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal."
Since then, Russia has reduced the degree of threats. Last week, Putin again hinted at the possible use of nuclear weapons in response to the promise of Germany and other countries to send Western tanks to Ukraine, saying that "we have something to respond with, and the use of armored vehicles will not end the matter." But it was a less obvious threat.
Western officials and analysts cited several reasons for this change of tone, including Beijing's concern that Moscow is ready to teeter on the brink of nuclear war. According to one senior Western diplomat, this was the result of a coordinated warning by the United States, Britain and France to Russia that the use of nuclear weapons in any case would have "catastrophic consequences."
Some experts believe that the rattling of nuclear weapons by the Kremlin is primarily aimed at the domestic audience and is designed to convince Russians of the need for mobilization. U.S. officials failed to notice any alarming changes in Russia's nuclear strategy during a period of furious rhetoric last year. However, they still take this risk seriously and continue to monitor signs that Moscow may be preparing to use nuclear weapons.
In a report published by the Rand Corporation think tank in January, Charap and Miranda Priebe noted several reasons to believe that Russia could still use nuclear weapons.
"The Biden administration has every reason to make preventing Russia from using nuclear weapons a top priority of the United States," they wrote.
Jack Reed, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, believes that the risk of Moscow using nuclear weapons may increase due to the defeats of the Russian army, the advance of Ukrainians on the Crimean Peninsula or attacks on Russian territory.
"If Ukrainians enter Crimea, discussions in the Kremlin will become very heated at this moment," he said.
"Red lines are an interesting topic, but these lines are never very bright or clear," he added. – I would like everything to be like in arithmetic here – so that one plus one equals two. But it's not that simple."
Authors of the article: Felicia Schwartz, Ben Hall
