WARSAW — An incoming shipment of U.S.-made “Switchblade” drones will not include the most effective version of that weapon, despite Ukrainian hopes to acquire the ones that can destroy armored Russian military targets, as President Joe Biden’s team balances Ukrainian requests for aid against logistical challenges and the threat of additional Russian aggression.
The impending delivery of 100 so-called kamikaze drones will be drawn from U.S. government stocks of Switchblade 300s, a lightweight “loitering missile system” with a range of about 6 miles over 15 minutes of flight. The transfer will not include any of the heavier Switchblade 600s, which Ukraine is eager to acquire in advance of an expected Russian effort to destroy its military in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas, now that the Russians have broken off their attack on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
“This is the biggest issue,” a Ukrainian official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The Russians will bring all their capabilities to the battlefield … and we have those ridiculous tactical drones.”
That frustration is in tension with the perspective offered by a senior Pentagon official who informed Congress that 100 drones would be provided to Ukraine.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH SAYS RUSSIAN MILITARY HAS COMMITTED ‘APPARENT WAR CRIMES’ IN UKRAINE
“We have … received the message loud and clear from our Ukrainian colleagues that this is required,” Defense Department Assistant Secretary Celeste Wallander told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. “We have committed 100 Switchblade tactical unmanned aerial systems to be delivered in the most recent package of [the] presidential drawdown. … We’ve heard the Ukrainians, and we take that very seriously.”
The Biden administration has not approved the transfer of the heavier-duty drones, according to a senior congressional aide. The number of available Switchblades is limited by supply chain issues, the aide acknowledged, but the limitations on the transfer are emblematic of a widespread perception that fear of provoking Russia is curbing the amount and quality of military aid that the White House is willing to give.
“There’s no reason that we can’t be giving the stuff that’s in our stocks right now, which is several hundred more of the [300s] and dozens of the [600s],” the senior congressional aide said.
That forbearance is illustrative of a wider gap between actual U.S. aid to Ukraine and the potential American assistance, one that reflects “a struggle inside major NATO capitals,” including Washington, about the most prudent way to support Ukraine. France and Germany have been perceived as eager for a ceasefire, while the Biden administration, according to U.S. and European sources, is more willing to support Ukraine but also fears that Russian President Vladimir Putin will turn to weapons of mass destruction if the war goes too wrong for Russian troops.
“Ukraine [has done] so much harm to the Russian war machine that they’ve gained momentum, and now we see worry in the West [about] what Putin now might do — that now he’s like a rat in a corner and he’s even more dangerous,” said a senior European official whose country emerged from behind the Iron Curtain after the collapse of the Soviet Union. “So it’s weird. We don’t agree with that at all.”
Other allies argue that Putin is more likely to use chemical weapons in support of a Russian offensive, not to halt a Ukrainian counteroffensive.
“The aim is not to have written in the history books that Russia [not only] lost the war in Ukraine but, on top of that, used chemical weapons,” a Baltic official said. “The primary goal is to occupy Ukraine, or at least part of Ukraine, and for that, they would be willing to use chemical weapons. In advancement, if they see that their casualties are mounting but they still have hope but they don’t want more lost troops and equipment, [then they could] use chemical weapons.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s team is perceived as more willing to answer Ukrainian calls for increased military assistance, while White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan has acquired a reputation being “afraid of winning” due to an apparent misgiving that Putin could use weapons of mass destruction if the Ukrainian military proves too effective in the war.
“It’s quite extraordinary that the State Department is rather on the hawkish side, whereas the White House is certainly pretty careful about this ‘provoking’ thing,” a second senior European official said. “They are just concerned of what if, as a result of anything happening — Russians feeling weakened or something like that. If the Russians were to use the chemical or biological weapons, what then [is] the actual response to that? I know that they are sitting down trying to draw up some options.”
That attitude has not prevented the United States from functioning as one of the world leaders in assistance to Ukraine. The Biden administration has provided “more than $1.6 billion in security assistance since Russia’s unprovoked, premeditated invasion,” counting the $300 million package unveiled Friday that includes the 100 Switchblade drones.
“Our role is to do everything we can to strengthen Ukraine on the battlefield, as we’ve done with the security assistance, the unprecedented amount of security assistance and weapons that we’ve flowed to Ukraine, and also to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table by continuing to apply incredibly severe costs and sanctions on Russia,” White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield told reporters Wednesday.
Yet the vast majority of that effort has focused on providing Ukraine with weapons that would allow them to resist Russian attacks rather than “counterattack and reverse the Russian invasion,” according to one senior official from a NATO member-state.
“Ukraine has, first of all, a right to self-defense, but it also has a right to return to the status quo ante — by force, if needed. This is absolutely legitimate,” the senior Central European diplomat said. “Some of the [NATO] allies are just afraid that it will be too provocative to provide Ukraine with higher-end systems.”
That caution has existed uncomfortably alongside the intermittent peace talks between Russian and Ukrainian officials in Turkey. “Some of the West Europeans would be more comfortable with this ending sooner regardless of the outcome,” the senior Central European official said earlier this week.
After the discovery of massacred civilians around Kyiv was revealed by the withdrawal of Russian forces this week, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz pledged that “Putin and his supporters will feel the consequences” of the atrocities, while German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht cautioned against trusting Putin to honor the terms of a hypothetical peace deal.
“We have seen how people lied, how we were deceived, how promises and commitments were not kept,” she said Sunday. “And that’s why I’m very hesitant, very skeptical.”
That statement is more in line with the assessment of Russia hawks who assume that Putin will cling to any Ukrainian territory that Russian troops control at the moment that a ceasefire is called.
“There’ll be no ‘Afghanization’ & no long conflict exhausting [Russia] as someone expects,” Michael Podolyak, a senior Zelensky adviser, wrote on Twitter as Russian troops withdrew from Kyiv. “[Russia] will leave all territories except the south & east, will try to dig in there, set air defense, drastically reduce losses & dictate terms. Without heavy weapons we won’t be able to drive [Russia] out.”
Logistical problems also impede the provision of those systems, as the Central European official and others acknowledged, because “the training for more advanced and more complicated systems take much more time,” especially with respect to maintenance. And yet it’s clear that some Western allies are less nervous about improving Ukrainian military power.
“The Brits seem to be more eager to give something stronger, [to give] actually what Ukraine needs to repel the aggressors out,” the first senior European official said. “The Ukrainian logic is that in their own territory, nothing is an ‘offensive’ weapon. Everything that they could get and use in their own territory is defensive.”
There are signs that U.S. and Western European officials are trending toward alignment with that argument. Scholz said Berlin “will continue to make weapons available to Ukraine.” And Biden’s team has agreed to assist with the transfer of Soviet-made tanks in the possession of NATO allies, according to a new report from the New York Times.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“We applaud all of those countries who are supporting our Ukrainian partners,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said Thursday. “For our part, we have provided $2 billion to our Ukrainian partners over the course of this administration … and that support, that assistance, will continue. It will continue so that our Ukrainian partners can continue to be effective on the battlefield.”
