Zelensky didn’t get his complete wish list

WASHINGTON – The President’s triumphal visit Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington it ended with the promise of billions more in US aid to Ukraine, but not what it wanted most:

tanks, fighters and long-range precision missiles.

The United States has repeatedly said that there are weapons it will not send to Ukraine to fight invading Russian forces.

But as the last 10 months of the war have shown, the limits of American support they moved in favor of Ukraine, and Zelensky can still get what he wants.

After his daring 10-hour trip to the nation’s capital on Wednesday, Zelensky walked away with nearly $2 billion in new weapons and equipment, plus a likely congressional pledge of nearly $50 billion in additional aid a year next. .

And while Zelensky didn’t get everything he wanted, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Thursday that the United States had engaged to supply the equipment Ukraine needs, although he declined to give specific details.

“Any president, any commander-in-chief, in similar circumstances would like to get as fast as possible, and we are committed to doing our part and helping with that,” Kirby said.

He added, however, that Biden and Zelensky did not spend most of their meeting discussing each of Ukraine’s demands.

The discussion didn’t center “on a list of additional capabilities.

There has been a much broader and deeper debate about this the situation in Ukraine and what the future holds,” he said.

“Be assured there will be additional capabilities in Ukraine,” Kirby said.

“Now what they are and how much of what they are, that has yet to be determined.”

Gesture

Zelensky’s trip was a vivid demonstration of his strategy of courting and pressuring allies.

He has mixed appreciation for the help provided by the United States with growing requests for arms, knowing he will not get everything he wants but believing that the combination of his constant requests and changes on the battlefield will lead Washington to recalibrate own assessments of what additional systems Ukraine can receive without risking a dangerous escalation with Russia.

Ukrainian officials have been broadcasting their best battlefield calls for months, most recently in a tweet titled “My Christmas Wish List” by Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to Zelensky.

In some respects, the Biden administration’s acceptance of risk increased as the war progressed.

Some weapon systems that were ruled out early in the war, such as the HIMARS rocket artillery and the Patriot missile defense system, have since been approved and are either in combat or en route.

But some US officials argue that what has changed is the nature of warnot the level of risk the White House is willing to tolerate.

Ukraine had a greater need for the HIMARS system once the war turned into an artillery battle and Russian command posts were withdrawn from the front lines.

The Biden administration decided to send the Patriot battery when Russia started firing prolonged attacks against the electricity infrastructure of Ukraine winter comes.

Biden on Wednesday approved one item on that list, a Patriot air defense battery.

But the administration has refused to offer or help supply the other four, including main battle tanks and long-range missiles.

In a press conference held on Thursday, the president Vladimir V Putin he downplayed the Patriots, saying Russia would find a way to do it defeat them.

“An antidote will always be found,” he told the Kremlin. “This is just an extension of the conflict, that’s all.”

Both the HIMARS and Patriot systems require trained crews to use them, so Ukraine is struggling to get experienced soldiers off the front lines to learn how to use them.

And the United States only wanted to do it when they were sure that the most sophisticated systems could represent a real difference.

Weapons

The weapons banned by the administration fall into three basic categories, with some overlap, according to administration officials.

The first group includes weapons such as long-range missiles called ATACMIwith a range of about 305 kilometres.

The administration fears that if Ukraine is in a bad enough situation, it could use the missiles to attack targets in Russia, prompting Putin to expand the war

Asked about the missiles in a joint news conference with Zelensky on Wednesday, Biden warned that sending weapons could break NATO’s unity in support of Ukraine.

“They don’t want to go to war with Russia,” he said, referring to the alliance.

“They’re not looking for a third world war.”

Some former US commanders dismiss the administration’s reasons for withholding critical weapons at this crucial time in the war.

“The administration continues to overestimate the risk of escalation and underestimate Ukraine’s astute and innovative ways of fighting,” said Frederick B. Hodges, retired lieutenant general and former US Army high command in Europe.

A second category it includes weapons such as the MQ-1C Gray Eagle and MQ-9 Reaper armed drones, which proponents say would allow Ukraine to strike a wider range of targets or locate them for further Ukrainian strikes.

But Pentagon officials have expressed concern that if those drones are shot down or crash, Russia I could get them back and take advantage of its advanced technology.

A third category it includes weapons such as the Abrams main battle tank and F-16 fighter jets, some of the most advanced weapons in the US arsenal.

Pentagon officials say Ukraine already has enough tanks and fighters from other countries.

More importantly, officials say, the systems take months to learn and require complex maintenance, typically performed by civilian contractorswho may not be able to work safely in Ukraine.

“These are tough decisions,” said Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who sits on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.

Crow was in favor of sending ATACMS and F-16s to Ukraine, but not main battle tanks.

Senator Christopher S. Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut and a member of the foreign relations committee, said Ukraine needs additional ammunition that the United States cannot easily provide.

“We simply don’t have the stock to supply, nor do we manufacture the ammunition that much of your equipment fires,” Murphy said.

“What Ukraine needs is enough firepower to show Putin the limits of his power,” Murphy said.

“Putin will never come to the table unless he has seen in real terms where his power stops.

And that means you have to be willing to finance maybe a stagnation for a period of time”.

Murphy also acknowledged the possibility that, with a divided congress -Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives next month, while Democrats will keep a majority in the Senate-, helping Ukraine soon will still harder.

“Zelensky is always asking for the heavens and that’s perfectly appropriate, and it’s our job to make sure his work is nimble enough to handle the moment,” said Murphy.

“We also have an obligation to taxpayers not to waste money.”

With each new request from Ukraine for another advanced capability, the US has tried to assess how Putin might react to the Kremlin’s comments and how Russia has responded in the past when the US has helped its allies and partners in Europe. .

One thing, above all others, has influenced the debate within the administration about what weapon system to give Ukraine:

Russia’s restraint in containing the war

Russia has continued to increase the brutality and scale of its attacks on Ukraine, killing civilians on its march to the capital Kiev, deporting children from occupied areas and now trying to break the will of Ukrainians by attacking electrical infrastructure to bring down the country in cold and dark.

But so far Moscow has not let its war spill over into NATO territory.

US officials continue to insist they have seen nothing to indicate Russia has decided to expand its attacks beyond Ukraine.

Cyberattacks by Russian intelligence agencies against NATO allies have not escalated, nor is there any evidence that Russia has carried out sabotage attacks against allied countries.

Putin’s reluctance a fight directly against NATO It was crucial for the alliance to be able to supply Ukraine with a steady stream of weapons and ammunition, the same supplies that have kept Kiev in the fight.

Putin has shown that he will accept high levels of international support for Ukraine, provided such weapons are used in Ukraine.

According to US officials, this is the critical calculation:

whether Putin will consider a weapon system intended to attack Moscow or be used in Ukraine.

It’s important, these US officials say, not to give Putin an excuse to expand the war.

Edward Wong contributed to the reporting.

Eric Schmitt is a writer who has traveled the world covering terrorism and national security. He was also a Pentagon correspondent. A Times staffer since 1983, he has shared four Pulitzer Prizes. @EricSchmittNYT

Zolan Kanno-Youngs is a White House correspondent, covering a range of domestic and international issues in the Biden White House, including national security and extremism. He joined The Times in 2019 as a national security correspondent. @KannoYoung

Julian E. Barnes is a Washington-based national security reporter covering intelligence agencies. Before joining The Times in 2018, he wrote about security issues for The Wall Street Journal. @julianbarnes – Facebook