It certainly looks like a dramatic development - as globe-trotting master of ceremonies Antony Blinken, strongly hinted that the US, UK, and NATO might soon allow Ukraine to have long-range missiles attacking deep inside Russia.
Biden made a big strategic error when Russia attacked Ukraine. He decided to hitch helping a beleaguered nation to a different political objective: reviving NATO after four years of attack from Donald Trump.
He could have decided _not_ to frame the support for Ukraine as a NATO thing and instead just encourage contributions from a "coalition of the willing." Such a framing would not have been as provocative toward Moscow and would have produced much of the same result for Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine's war effort hasn't been a whole NATO thing. Only a few of NATO's 35 nations have very substantially contributed (the USA far and away the largest contributor.)
Why does this matter? Because over the several years of war, NATO supporters of Ukraine get more and more entangled in Ukraine's war and risk facing rising domestic political pressure to either "get the job done" (involving logically direct fighting with Russia) or break off support. Not very hard to imagine exactly this happening in the run up to the US election in November.
Biden has understood that nuclear war is a serious risk if the US (and perhaps other NATO countries) start directly fighting Russians. That is why there have been restrictions on which weapons Ukraine gets and some restraints on how they use them. The dangers of taking restraints off are too great for the US and the world. Ukraine certainly needs more artillery shells to hold the line in Donbass. That is where aid should go. Long range rockets, no! That is a strategic error.
Biden made a big strategic error when Russia attacked Ukraine. He decided to hitch helping a beleaguered nation to a different political objective: reviving NATO after four years of attack from Donald Trump.
He could have decided _not_ to frame the support for Ukraine as a NATO thing and instead just encourage contributions from a "coalition of the willing." Such a framing would not have been as provocative toward Moscow and would have produced much of the same result for Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine's war effort hasn't been a whole NATO thing. Only a few of NATO's 35 nations have very substantially contributed (the USA far and away the largest contributor.)
Why does this matter? Because over the several years of war, NATO supporters of Ukraine get more and more entangled in Ukraine's war and risk facing rising domestic political pressure to either "get the job done" (involving logically direct fighting with Russia) or break off support. Not very hard to imagine exactly this happening in the run up to the US election in November.
Biden has understood that nuclear war is a serious risk if the US (and perhaps other NATO countries) start directly fighting Russians. That is why there have been restrictions on which weapons Ukraine gets and some restraints on how they use them. The dangers of taking restraints off are too great for the US and the world. Ukraine certainly needs more artillery shells to hold the line in Donbass. That is where aid should go. Long range rockets, no! That is a strategic error.
I'd prefer to see peace negotiations, Noel. This drama is terrifying, and ending too many lives needlessly.