On the menu today: This week, in the span of 24 hours, the Biden administration’s position flipped from supporting a transfer of Polish MiG-29 fighter jets to the Ukrainians to opposing and blocking the move. The only explanation from the Pentagon is that there isn’t a “substantive rationale for it,” which will surprise the Polish and the Ukrainians. There are a few potential explanations for the administration’s sudden reversal — but none of them are good.
Why Did Biden Veto Sending Poland’s MiG-29 Jets to the Ukrainians?
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.