By Jim Geraghty
Thursday, March 10, 2022
Very little makes sense about the U.S. government’s
seemingly last-minute decision to oppose the transfer of Polish MiG-29s to
Ukraine.
On Saturday, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky spoke
via Zoom to 280 members of Congress and begged them to help him, either by
creating and enforcing a no-fly zone above Ukrainian airspace, or by
transferring jets to what’s left of the Ukrainian air force. Because the
Ukrainian pilots are trained on Russian-designed MiGs, it would not be a good
idea to send or lend them American jets such as F-15s or F-22s — there simply
isn’t time to train them on a new kind of warplane. But NATO members Poland,
Slovakia, and Bulgaria fly MiG-29s and could sell or lend theirs to Ukraine.
Most of Congress seemed persuaded. Senator Ben Sasse of
Nebraska declared in a statement that:
Ukraine needs airpower urgently and
America should send it. Zelensky’s message is simple: ‘close the skies or give
us planes.’ Let’s be clear-eyed about our options: A No-Fly Zone means sending
American pilots into combat against Russian jets and air defenses — in a battle
between nuclear powers that could spiral out of control quickly. But Americans
should absolutely send Ukrainians planes, helicopters, and UAVs. Let’s resupply
Ukraine’s Air Force today and keep the Ghosts of Kyiv in the skies.
I’ve seen some defense analysts argue that Poland’s 28 or
so MiG-29s wouldn’t make a huge difference in the war. Ukrainian air defenses
continue to shoot down Russian jets, and the Russian air force’s role in the
invasion so far has been much smaller, and much less effective, than expected.
(Then again, a Russian air strike did destroy the Mariupol maternity
hospital yesterday. Real tough guys, those Russians.)
But clearly, Zelensky thinks those MiG-29s would make a
difference. And given a choice between having “X” remaining Ukrainian fighter
jets, or X+28 fighter jets, we would all prefer the larger air force.
As of Sunday, the position of the U.S. government, at least as articulated by Secretary of State Antony Blinken,
was that we wanted the planes to get transferred and would do our part to
ensure that the planes got there:
MARGARET BRENNAN: NATO has said
none of its 30 members are willing to set up a no-fly zone. President Biden has
been very clear he has no interest in that or combat troops. But what more can
the United States do here? If, for instance, the Polish government, a NATO
member, wants to send fighter jets, does that get a green light from the U.S.,
or are you afraid that that will escalate tension?
SECRETARY ANTONY BLINKEN: No, that
— that gets a green light. In fact, we’re talking with our Polish friends right
now about what we might be able to do to backfill their needs, if, in fact,
they choose to provide these fighter jets to the Ukrainians. What can we do?
How can we help to make sure that they get something to backfill the planes
that they’re handing over to the Ukrainians? We’re in very active discussions
with them about that.
On Monday, the Pentagon seemed open to the plan:
[PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY
JOHN] KIRBY: I can’t speak for Polish leadership. But David, what we’ve
said is that this will be a sovereign decision for a nation state to make.
Whether it’s Poland or anybody else, that should they want to provide aircraft
to the Ukrainian Air Force, that’s a sovereign decision that they can make. The
United States is not going to stand in the way of that. There is — there was
discussion about if a nation such as Poland were to do this, would there be a
capacity for the United States to backfill those aircraft with American made
aircraft? And what I can tell you is because I can only speak for the
Department of Defense is that we are part of an interagency discussion to
examine that possibility.
Then on Tuesday afternoon, the Polish government announced they had a deal:
The authorities of the Republic of
Poland, after consultations between the President and the Government, are ready
to deploy — immediately and free of charge — all their MIG-29 jets to the
Ramstein Air Base and place them at the disposal of the Government of the
United States of America.
At the same time, Poland requests
the United States to provide us with used aircraft with corresponding
operational capabilities. Poland is ready to immediately establish the
conditions of purchase of the planes.
The Polish Government also requests
other NATO Allies – owners of MIG-29 jets – to act in the same vein.
Then a little later on Tuesday afternoon, the Pentagon
suddenly effectively canceled the deal.
Kirby offered a vague explanation:
The prospect of fighter jets ‘at
the disposal of the government of the United States of America’ departing from
a U.S./NATO base in Germany to fly into airspace that is contested with Russia
over Ukraine raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance. It is simply
not clear to us that there is a substantive rationale for it. We will continue
to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the
difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland’s
proposal is a tenable one.
What the heck changed between Monday and Tuesday
afternoon?
One possibility is that the Biden administration is just
utterly erratic, disorganized, and doesn’t really know what it wants to do — a
scenario that is difficult to rule out after what we witnessed in Afghanistan.
But another possibility is that the Russians, through one
channel or another, indicated that they would treat those planes as legitimate
targets to destroy — even if they were sitting parked at Ramstein Air Base
getting checked and ready to deploy. After all, even if they were sitting on a
U.S. base in German territory, they’d be about to become Ukrainian Air Force
jets.
Russian jets or missiles attacking Ramstein Air Base
sounds like a really easy way to start World War III.
But this also means that the Russian government can tell
NATO not to do something, and NATO will obey. Moscow deterred a U.S. government
decision, and then turned around and bombed a children’s hospital.
Vladimir Putin effectively demonstrated a veto over our actions.
Bing West sees this as an ominous indicator in this
showdown: “The Biden administration’s about-face in the case of the MiGs
encourages Putin in his view that we lack resolve. Poland will see this as
a rebuff, and NATO is dependent upon Poland for the long war and probable
insurgency to come. Over the coming months, Putin will probe and test for other
fissures time is sure to bring.”
If the Russians threatened Ramstein Air Base or other
NATO assets, Biden could have reminded Moscow of his pledge from the State of
the Union. “I’ve made it crystal clear,” Biden said, “The United States and our
allies will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of our
collective power — every single inch.” Russia’s already struggling to advance
against the Ukrainian army and racking up horrific casualties, and the country
has just been economically crippled. One study estimated that Russia is losing $20 billion per day in
this war. Does Putin really want an all-out war with the entire NATO
alliance on top of his current problems? And the U.S. could have directed a
pointed question to Belarussian dictator Aleksandr Lukashenko: Is this what he
signed on for with his alliance with Putin? How many countries does the Belarussian standing army of
45,000, mostly conscripts, want to fight at once?
Call it brinksmanship. Call it calling Russia’s bluff.
Call it whatever you like. But when a hostile aggressor tells the U.S. not to
do something, acquiescence has its own price.
Within a day, our government’s position changed from “the
United States is not going to stand in the way of that” to standing in the way
of that. At this point, the Biden administration being confused, erratic, and
internally conflicted on what it is willing to do is the more reassuring explanation.
The alternative is that Putin warned us not to make this move, and we backed
down.
Russia also is ordering that “the EU
and NATO countries stop the thoughtless flooding of the unviable Kiev regime with
the latest weapons systems in order to avoid the enormous risk to international
civilian aviation and other means of transport in Europe and beyond.” What is
the difference between sending Ukraine Javelin anti-tank weapons or Stinger
anti-aircraft weapons and sending them jets? Once you start complying with
Putin’s demands and knuckling under to his threats, where do you draw the line?
(Style note: The planes are “MiG”s, and not MIGs, because
the Soviet aircraft-design group was the “Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau,” and the “i” means “and”
in Russian.)
ADDENDUM: There’s a common thread among the
Western “cancellation” of Russians with no connection to the Putin — performances of Tchaikovsky’s music, adaptations of Tolstoy, Russian cats — and general garden-variety woke
cancellations. People who run big public institutions appear incapable of
making thoughtful distinctions and cannot distinguish a genuine controversy
from something that might theoretically enrage the social-media mobs. One
aspect of an individual — in this case, their national identity — overrules all
other aspects of them; we’re not allowed to say, “No, this person is a good
Russian and has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade. Our
enemy is the regime, not everyone connected to Russia in any way, shape, or
form.” It is the triumph of the group identity over the individual identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment