“We want to see Russia weaken to the point where we can never do something like Russia invaded Ukraine again.” U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin made a determined remark after meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky in a secret blitzkrieg on April 24 in the Ukrainian capital of Kii. This is the first time that a top US defense official has publicly discussed the US government’s intentions to ‘weaken the Russian army’. His remarks are also a sign that the US government has changed its stance, which has been careful not to provoke Russia militarily for fear of escalating the war in Ukraine. In fact, in recent years, the top U.S. leaders have begun to pour out aggressive and harsh remarks. President Joe Biden called Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” in late March, while Secretary of State Tony Blincoln argued that Russia’s military purpose to occupy Ukraine had “already failed”.
More than anything else, the evidence that the US attitude has moved away from the ‘cautious mode’ is that the quantity and quality of arms supplies to Ukraine have changed dramatically. At the beginning of the war, the United States was conscious of Russia and supplied Ukraine with defensive weapons such as rifles and ammunition. As of the end of April, the situation is very different. The U.S. is supplying Ukraine with offensive weapons such as Mi17 helicopters as well as 155mm howitzers, mortars, armed drones, anti-tank missiles and surface-to-air missiles. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, eight to 10 U.S. transport planes are carrying weapons from the mainland to the Ukraine border of NATO member states every day. 72 hours is sufficient.
There is a reason why the US revised its policy to supply even offensive weapons. The U.S. predicted that the Ukrainian army would collapse within a few weeks following the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24. However, the Ukrainian army strongly resisted the Russian army under the leadership of President Zelensky. Even in northern Ukraine, they effectively defeated the Russian army, which they had originally aimed for quickly. The US changed its strategy. The decision was made to actively support the Ukrainian military, judging that it could survive at least several months or even years. At the beginning of the war, at the end of February, the US provided $350 million worth of weapons, including rifles, bullets, and body armor. Since then, the amount of support has grown, and as of the end of April, it has surpassed $3.7 billion. It is expected to increase further in the future. “At the beginning of the war, the Biden administration was very reluctant to supply weapons that could provoke Russia,” said Ian Brzezinski, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, who served as deputy assistant secretary for Europe and NATO in the Pentagon during the Bush administration. It is showing a very clear difference from the early days, such as supporting attack howitzers and even helicopters.”
Looking at the weapons supplied by the United States, 121 Phoenix Ghost drones, 300 Switchblade drones (aka Kamikaze drones), 200 armored vehicles, 90 155mm howitzers, 6,000 Javelin missiles for anti-tank attacks, which were effective in attacking Russian tanks and armored vehicles and 2,000 Stinger surface-to-air missiles, 11 Mi17 helicopters, more than 40 million rounds and 140,000 rounds of shells, more than 5,000 rifles, 400 machine guns, and 30,000 body armor and helmets. U.S. troops stationed in NATO are training Ukrainian soldiers to use U.S. weapons at the NATO member border area facing Ukraine. The United States is also helping in every way, such as supplying parts for Ukraine’s 20 old fighter jets and dispatching them to the front lines. At this point, it is worth hearing that the US is actually engaged in a ‘proxy war’ with Russia, although it has not only dispatched troops.
At present, the primary concern of the United States is whether the Ukrainian army armed with US weapons can deter the Russian army’s general offensive in the east. This is because, depending on the success or failure of the war, it will have a profound impact on the future of war and the peace negotiations that will be resumed in the near future. Reservist Major General Michael Lipas, who served as the commander of US special operations forces in Europe, told The New York Times, “If the Russian army takes control of the east and secures a passageway to Crimea, Putin will have the upper hand in peace negotiations with Ukraine.” said If the Russian army succeeds in occupying Donbas, Putin can use it as a lever for peace negotiations, albeit partially, by promoting his victory in the war to his own people.
If the Russian army gets even more cornered…
On the other hand, if the Ukrainian army succeeds in stopping the advance of the Russian army, Putin will be in a lot of trouble. Because in that case he will have to choose whether to continue dragging the Ukrainian war mired in a long war or return to peace negotiations at a disadvantage. If he decides to continue the war, it is the view of military experts that a conscription order is inevitable to replenish his forces. However, if the Ukrainian army persists in resistance under the full support of the West, the Russian army is highly likely to be defeated after suffering enormous human and material damage, just like the Afghan war in the past. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in February 1979 and suffered massive casualties, including 14,453 killed and 53,753 wounded, during the battle for about 10 years before withdrawing in December 1989. However, according to NATO estimates, Russia lost 15,000 soldiers in just one month after the invasion of Ukraine. The dominant observation is that Putin’s intention to reverse the tide of war in the East, where war is more favorable than the North, and then proceed with peace negotiations in order to favor Russia, was the dominant observation behind Russia’s general offensive in the East. It is for this reason that the United States, which is not ignorant of Putin’s intentions, has started providing all-out support to Ukraine.
The question is how many offensive weapons the US can continue to supply in the future without provoking Putin. “One of the biggest challenges facing the Biden administration is figuring out the limits of Putin’s patience,” CNN reported. Since the start of the war, Russia has never attacked a U.S. arms transport vehicle moving to Ukraine. However, if the US continues to supply offensive weapons as it is now, there is a possibility that Putin will launch a counterattack. If the United States or NATO responds to this, direct armed conflict between the two sides is inevitable. With this in mind, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov appeared on state TV on April 26 and warned the United States not to underestimate the possibility of a nuclear war. Earlier, the Russian embassy in the U.S. delivered a protest document to the U.S. State Department that contained a strong warning that the U.S. would face “unpredictable consequences” if the U.S. continued to support offensive weapons.
Western military experts take the Russian warning seriously. This is because, if the Russian military is further cornered in the future, it is not likely that it will actually launch an attack on US weapons transport vehicles. In that sense, the US’ bold arms support is like a ‘time bomb’ that tests Putin’s patience.