For the US, a tenuous balance in confronting Russia

WASHINGTON (NYTIMES) - In the first weeks of the first major European land war of the 21st century, the United States has sent tank-killing weapons to Ukrainian forces, but not fighter jets.

It is equipping embattled Ukrainian troops with lightweight "kamikaze" attack drones, but not, at least in an obvious way, conducting an aggressive cyberwar to degrade Russia's technological advantage.

The White House will commit no US or Nato planes to the skies above Ukraine, a move US officials fear could risk turning a regional war into a global conflagration, but it is providing Ukraine with missiles that could accomplish the same task of destroying Russian aircraft.

Such is the tenuous balance the Biden administration has tried to maintain as it seeks to help Ukraine lock Russia in a quagmire without inciting a broader conflict with a nuclear-armed adversary or cutting off potential paths to de-escalation.

Navigating this path has led to a tangle of decisions and sometimes tortured distinctions when it comes to what kinds of assistance Washington should provide, even as the situation on the ground evolves, pictures of dead civilians circulate around the globe, and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine pleads with Congress and President Joe Biden to do more to help.

The balancing act informs every aspect of US policy about the war, including the scope of the punishing sanctions imposed on the Russian economy, the granularity of the battlefield intelligence provided to Ukrainian troops, the killing power of the weapons systems coming over the border and whether, as Mr Biden did this past week, to label President Vladimir Putin of Russia as a war criminal.

CIA officers are helping to ensure that crates of weapons are delivered into the hands of vetted Ukrainian military units, according to US officials.

But as of now, Mr Biden and his staff do not see the utility of an expansive covert effort to use the spy agency to ferry in arms as the United States did in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union during the 1980s.

They have judged that such a campaign would be an unnecessary provocation, in part because Nato supply lines remain open and there is a functioning government in Kyiv, Ukraine.

The new war has forced a recalculation on other fronts. In one example, US officials have floated the idea of Turkey's government providing Ukraine with the sophisticated S-400 anti-aircraft system.

It is the very system, made by Russia, that US officials punished Turkey - a Nato ally - for buying from Moscow several years ago.

Now US diplomats see a way to pull Turkey away from its dance with Russia - and give the Ukrainians one of the most powerful, long-range anti-aircraft systems in existence.

In the White House and the Pentagon, there have been active debates over which lethal weapons delivered to Ukraine meet the nuanced interpretations of what international law allows.

US officials acknowledge that the judgements of government lawyers are valuable only up to a point and that all that really matters is the judgement of one person: Mr Putin.

On Wednesday (March 16), the task of articulating the intricacies of the US' military policy toward Ukraine fell to a group of generals under a barrage of questions from top members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees.

Mr Biden has made clear that he will not accede to Zelensky's insistent pleas that Nato impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Clearing hostile aircraft from the skies would put the United States and its allies in combat with Russian forces. And a required step for a no-fly zone - suppressing enemy anti-aircraft weaponry - would mean attacking Russian air defence installations inside Russian territory.

But during the closed-door session, lawmakers pressed members of the Pentagon's Joint Staff about another flashpoint: the administration's decision not to help supply Ukraine with the MiG-29 fighter jets that Poland has offered and that Mr Zelensky has said his forces desperately need.

Administration officials have said the move would be "escalatory," and, according to people briefed on the exchanges, the lawmakers asked the generals if there was any hard intelligence that the jets might push Mr Putin toward intensifying the conflict by treating the United States as a "co-belligerent" in the war.

Intelligence officials have, in fact, told the administration that the MiGs could trigger a Russian move against Nato. During the congressional briefing, the generals said that the main issue was the capability of a MiG-29 to threaten Russian soil.

In contrast to a Javelin anti-tank missile that has only limited range on the battlefield, a MiG-29 could fly from Kyiv to Moscow in a matter of minutes, the generals said, a capability that the Kremlin might see as a direct threat.

The same day, the White House put forth another consideration: that to be delivered to Ukraine, the MiGs would have to take off from an air base in a Nato country, possibly inviting retaliation on Nato territory by the Russians.

Some US officials assert that as a matter of international law, the provision of weaponry and intelligence to the Ukrainian army has made the United States a co-belligerent, an argument that some legal experts dispute.

But while Mr Putin has made threats about launching attacks to impede the military assistance, he has not yet acted to stop it by attacking bases in neighbouring countries - Nato allies - where the equipment originates.

That could change, US officials said, especially if Mr Putin thinks he is cornered or in danger of losing.

"It is a fine line the administration is still walking in every dimension of its support for Ukraine," said Ms Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former senior intelligence official who specialised in Russia and is now at the Centre for a New American Security. "They are trying to figure out, how do you get right up to the line without crossing over in a way that would risk direct confrontation with Russia?"

Planes with pilots might be off the table, but armed drones are not. This past week, Mr Biden announced that the United States would ship small Switchblade drones to Ukraine that could be used to blow up Russian armoured vehicles.

The single-use kamikaze drones have bladelike wings; do not require either a long runway or a complex satellite uplink; and can be controlled to dive-bomb tanks or troops, self-destructing when they explode.

Unlike the large Predator and Reaper drones used for decades in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, the portable drones pose no threat to Russian soil.

Still, the White House authorised an initial shipment of only 100 of them to Ukraine - a small batch that could be intended to see how Mr Putin reacts to their deployment on the Ukrainian front lines. Depending on the response, hundreds or thousands more could be on the way.

The proposal for Turkey to supply Ukraine with Russian-made S-400 anti-aircraft systems would also test what Mr Putin is willing to accept from Nato - and how far a Nato ally that in recent years often appeared to be building bridges to Moscow is willing to go in reiterating its commitment to the alliance and backing Ukraine.

The idea came up when Ms Wendy Sherman, the deputy secretary of state, visited Turkey two weeks ago. Ms Sherman declined to talk about her discussions.

A different senior US official said the United States knew the proposal would anger Mr Putin.

Ukraine already uses Turkish-made drones, but Turkey is worried that providing the anti-aircraft systems could make the country a target of Russia's wrath.

The Ukraine war features tank columns and trenches, all features of Europe's bloody conflicts of the past century. Thus far, there is little evidence that the United States - or Russia - is eager to escalate the conflict in the 21st century battleground of cyberspace.

Days before the war began, there was a flurry of cyberattacks on Ukrainian financial institutions and government ministries, including one that was found and partly neutralised by Microsoft.

A European satellite system sometimes used by the Ukrainian military was also hit, knocking out service, although it is still unclear whether the Russians carried out the attack.

What has been missing thus far is a large-scale Russian cyberattack that disables the power grid or communications systems inside Ukraine, which for the most part continue to operate despite the withering Russian barrage of artillery and airstrikes.

Until the invasion began, US Cyber Command had a unit based in Kyiv that was helping the government fend off attacks. It is now operating from a nearby Nato country. There is fragmentary evidence that the United States and its allies worked to counter some of the attacks and to prevent others from being launched. But action seems to have been limited.

Inside the Biden administration, there is a view that Mr Putin could be choosing his moment to launch a cyberattack against the US financial system in retaliation for the devastating financial sanctions imposed on his country by the United States and its allies.

Unless and until that happens, the administration appears resolved not to launch a significant first strike and invite retaliation - especially given the risks to the US economy and financial system if Russia were to target them.

"The water in Afghanistan must boil at the right temperature," Pakistan's then-president, General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, told his intelligence chief as Pakistan began supplying the mujahedeen in their gruelling battle against Soviet troops in neighbouring Afghanistan.

In other words, hot enough to convince the Russians that the country was not worth the struggle but not so hot as to provoke a broader war in the region.

The weapons that helped turn the tide of that conflict, shoulder-fired Stinger surface-to-air missiles, are now being unloaded from cargo planes in Nato countries and delivered to Ukrainian troops on the front lines to help keep Russia from controlling the skies.

Given Russia's bloody history with Stinger missiles, US officials have been wary of advertising their use in Ukraine. This month, when General Mark Milley, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited an airfield near Ukraine's border where Stingers were being unloaded, reporters travelling with him were barred from disclosing the whereabouts of the base.

Even after two senior US officials told the House Armed Services Committee during a public hearing that Stinger missiles were among the munitions being sent to Ukraine, spokespeople avoided using the S-word from the lecterns at the White House and Pentagon.

Until this past week. On Wednesday, the White House released a detailed list of the weapons it was providing as part of an US$800 million (S$1.08 billion) package of arms to Ukraine.

At the top of the list: "800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems."