United States is increasingly helping Ukraine and less afraid of Russia

If at the beginning of the Russian invasion, the United States and its allies aimed at preserving Ukraine as a state, now they say they believe in its victory and will help achieve this victory.

Moscow's protests, its threats and allusions to nuclear weapons have not been successful - Kyiv's partners are increasing arms supplies. And if before they transferred only defensive weapons, now even the previously cautious Germany promises to transfer tanks to Ukraine.

American officials began to openly talk about how they help the Ukrainian army in confronting Russian aggression. This also applies to the official statements of the Pentagon, and even more - the information that they tell off the record.

Western experts interviewed by the BBC say that the United States and its allies have begun to perceive Russian threats with a grain of salt - however, they intend to continue to avoid direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

• Online: War in Ukraine

“War between Russia and Ukraine, confrontation between the West and Russia”

On Thursday, the NBC channel said , citing high-ranking military officials, that US intelligence helped the Armed Forces of Ukraine knock out the Moskva cruiser. And on Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the US is sharing intelligence that helps Ukrainian forces kill Russian generals commanding the invasion.

After the visit to Kyiv for Orthodox Easter by Lloyd Austin and Anthony Blinken, the US secretaries of defense and foreign affairs, US officials began talking about how Ukraine could win the war .

The desire of the United States to see a strong and independent Ukraine, in full control of all its territory, was stated by Mark Milley , head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces.

British Foreign Minister Liz Truss also promised Kiev support in the complete liberation of all occupied territories.

The rhetoric of NATO leaders has indeed changed, General Sir Richard Barrons, the former head of the British Joint Forces Command, said in a conversation with the BBC Russian Service.

“There is an increase in support for Ukraine, but it is based on the iron rule that this will not escalate into a war between Russia and NATO,” said the retired general. “This is a war between Russia and Ukraine, but a confrontation between the West and Russia.”

In the run-up to the war, US and British leaders warned Moscow that an invasion of Ukraine would be costly. They meant that the West is ready to impose the most severe sanctions and supply the Ukrainian army with a limited set of defensive weapons, which will complicate the advance of Russian forces.

Sir Richard calls this approach a failure: he believes that NATO countries have not done enough to prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine.

However, after the Russian attack on Kyiv bogged down, NATO's position began to change.

“We saw the failure of the Russian army, and this created an opportunity for more ambitious goals,” Barrons says, emphasizing that instead of defensive weapons, the West began to supply Ukraine with weapons for self-defense.

If previously the main types of weapons sent to Ukraine were portable anti-tank guns and portable air defense systems, new deliveries from NATO countries include attack drones, artillery, armored vehicles and military aircraft.

Confidence has emerged in Washington that Ukraine is capable of not only defending itself, but also achieving victory, Michael Mazarr, a senior researcher at the American RAND Corporation, said in an interview with the BBC.

“This is the trajectory of the war itself: when the Russian attack on Kyiv failed, and Russia moved to operations in the south and east of the country with troops that had already suffered serious losses, the context changed,” says Mazarr.

However, the new, more active approach of the United States had another reason - indignation at the atrocities of the Russian army.

Evidence of war crimes in Bucha and Mariupol provoked a strong reaction in the US, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who often uses information from intelligence sources in his columns, told the BBC.

“Democrats and Republicans alike were outraged by the Russian invasion, and it gave the Biden administration the opportunity to put an unprecedented $33 billion aid package to a vote in Congress,” says Ignatius, who was recently named to the Russian sanctions list.

If this package is approved, then the total volume of military assistance Ukraine has received from the United States since the beginning of the invasion will be $46.6 billion. This is more than two-thirds of Russia's defense budget for 2021.

Few doubt the approval of the Congress: representatives of both parties have already expressed their support for it. 73% of Americans support arms sales to Ukraine, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll.

But the need to reconsider old approaches was also dictated by the new stage of the war: the battle for Donbass created a need for heavy weapons, and primarily for artillery, says Barrons.

“More like rhetorical threats”

Russia sent official notes of protest to the United States against arms sales to Ukraine, and during the war Putin twice hinted at the use of nuclear weapons. His ministers warned that Russian military forces would destroy NATO military supplies in Ukraine.

These threats have not stopped the US and its allies - NATO is only increasing supplies. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss rejected the arguments of those who propose not to supply heavy weapons so as not to provoke Russia.

“In my opinion, inaction is the most terrible provocation. Now is the time for courage, not caution,” Truss said.

The West is becoming less fearful of the Russian army, because it has turned out to be much less combat-ready than expected, said Barrons, a retired British general.

The Russian army is weakened, and a significant part of it is involved in Ukraine - Moscow simply does not have enough conventional military force to attack NATO now.

The Washington Post's Ignatius suggests that after the first month of the war, experts in Washington concluded that Russia's threats should not be taken too seriously because they were not backed up by action.

“Russia's resources are stretched to the limit and its troops will be in real danger if it escalates the conflict,” Ignatius said. He says there are enough US forces in Europe to support Ukraine without worrying too much about possible escalation from Russia.

In mid-April, CIA director William Burns warned of another danger - the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine.

Such a scenario was supported, in particular, by the head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. Tactical refers to less destructive nuclear weapons designed for use on the battlefield.

The head of the CIA, however, stressed that US intelligence has no data on the deployment or movement of weapons that would indicate the preparation of the Russian Federation for a nuclear strike on Ukraine.

“Yes, Russia has 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads, ten times more than the US. But the likelihood of these weapons being used in Ukraine and especially outside of Ukraine is low, because it is simply not in the interests of Russia,” says Barrons.

According to him, such a strike will not change the course of the conflict, but, being the first use of nuclear weapons since the end of World War II, will shock the whole world: whole generation."

In addition, such a move will only strengthen the cohesion of NATO, the expert says. So he suggests that Western leaders have assessed these risks and drawn their own conclusions about the reality of the threats.

Ignatius agrees with this assessment - he believes that Russian threats are formulated very vaguely, and that tactical nuclear weapons by themselves are unlikely to change the course of the war, so that their use by Russia does not make any practical sense.

“These are more rhetorical than real threats,” says Ignatius.

However, this does not mean that the US and NATO are ignoring the risks of escalation.

Despite appeals from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Biden administration has not responded to the call to “close the skies over Ukraine” — that is, introduce a no-fly zone. This measure would be a step towards a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, according to many experts.

“The US continues to be very clear that it is not in its plans to actively participate in the war. The US is not sending troops to Ukraine,” says Mazarr of the RAND Corporation.

The expert recalled how, during the Vietnam War, the USSR supplied North Vietnam with weapons that were directly used to fight the US army - and to kill American soldiers. Russian experts usually also point to the supply of American weapons to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, who used them against the Soviet army.

“I don't think the current situation is unprecedented, although the US does provide significant military assistance to Ukraine,” says Mazarr.