US Sec’y of State signals OK imminent for Kyiv to strike Russia with US arms

(Originally published May 30 in “What in the World“) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has only 5% of the air defenses needed to protect central and eastern Europe from Russian attack.

The Financial Times, quoting unnamed sources, said the ability to defend against the kind of aerial barrages Russia is using in Ukraine is one of NATO’s biggest weak spots. Russia’s use of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, long-range artillery and drones have highlighted the need for more systems like the Patriot anti-missile batteries and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, or Nasams, that the U.S. has provided Ukraine.

Foreign ministers from NATO’s members are meeting in Prague to discuss such needs. While NATO as a group spends 2% of its members’ combined GDPs on defense, most of its individual members do not meet that threshold.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in Moldova on his way to that meeting, suggested the U.S. may join the growing list of NATO allies lifting restrictions on letting Ukraine use their weapons to strike targets inside Russia. President Joe Biden, who has resisted allowing U.S. weapons in direct attacks on Russian territory for fear it could into widening the war with an attack on NATO or by deploying nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Fueling that concern are reports that a recent Ukrainian drone attack inside Russia destroyed a long-range radar used to detect incoming nuclear missiles. While the attack may have been intended to blind Russia to Ukrainian missiles, the sites destruction may also keep Russia from eliminating “false positive” signals of incoming nuclear missiles, thereby increasing the risk of nuclear retaliation.

Putin ordered tactical nuclear weapons drills earlier this month in response to suggestions that the restrictions be lifted. But so far, Washington’s gradual escalations have yet to provoke World War III, which has led White House hawks to conclude that Putin is bluffing.

As explained in this space last week:

We’ve heard this tune before. It’s the same one that has seen the Biden Administration resist, then relent, on giving Ukraine Stingers, then howitzers, then Himars rocket launchers, then Patriot missiles, then Abrams battle tanks , then F-16s and then long-range Atacms, and then even longer-range Atacms.

The only weapon left to give Ukraine is attack drones, which Ukraine is building itself and using to knock out Russian refineries…

The instigator (or perhaps the scapegoat) in most of the White House’s retreats on weapons for Ukraine has repeatedly been the United Kingdom—and in particular its Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Sunak has dislodged each and every U.S. restraint by simply giving Ukraine what it wants from Britain’s own arsenal—and let FOMO do the rest.

So before he faces snap elections in July, Sunak has set the stage for Biden once again: 10 Downing has lifted its own restrictions on Kyiv using its Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Storm Shadows have longer range than U.S. Atacms anyway. So, if history is any guide, Kyiv will get the green light to launch its Atacms into Russia any day now.

Washington is also considering sending in U.S. troops into Ukraine to “train” Ukrainian forces. This follows French President Emmanuel Macron’s refusal to rule out a reporter’s suggestion that NATO would have to consider sending troops to defend Ukraine. Biden has vowed not to send U.S. troops into Ukraine, but “trainers” would be different, like the special forces Washington reportedly considered sending to Kyiv a year ago to defend the U.S. Embassy there. The joke was on The Wall Street Journal, which the White House used to leak that proposal. The reality was that U.S. Special Forces were already in Kyiv and have been since shortly after the Russian invasion.

Sending in “trainers” is a tried-and-tested ruse for escalation. It’s precisely the pretext Washington used to introduce U.S. military personnel into Vietnam years before the Marines waded ashore in Da Nang in 1965…

The Biden Administration also undoubtedly needs something to push the war in Gaza off the front page. Biden’s support for Israel and continued supply of weapons to Tel Aviv has divided American campuses and undercut Biden’s support among younger voters in swing states ahead of a tight presidential election this November. Fears that the war would explode into a regional conflict have faded after Israel’s muted response to Iran’s April missile attack and the recent death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash this month. But the conflict in Gaza is likely to drag on well beyond the November election.