How far is President Biden willing to ascend the escalation ladder on Ukraine?

By any accounting, Tuesday’s State of the Union was short on talk of foreign policy. President Biden made scant reference to America’s role in the world, absent a brief but cadenced assertion of commitments to “the most basic of principles;” namely, “sovereignty,” life “free of tyranny,” and “the defense of democracy.”

About an hour in, the address showcased Oksana Markarova, Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington, but reference to American material support came only in passing assurance of “as long as it takes.” This stands in stark contrast to last year’s address, delivered during the opening weeks of Russia’s invasion, when President Biden opened with a blistering critique of Vladimir Putin and encouragement of the Ukrainian people.

Some in Kyiv may have hoped that Biden’s exhortative “Let’s finish the job” refrain might have been applied to a collective goal—say, the recapture of Crimea or the assurance of advanced fighter jets. This was not their speech.

Rather, President Biden’s most remarked upon reference to Ukraine of late came last week when a reporter’s question about the possibility of providing F-16 fighter jets was met with a brusque “No.”

This brief exchange was widely viewed as a setback for Ukraine. Deputy Foreign Minister Andriy Melnyk has lately implored allies to establish a “fighter jet coalition” that would summon not only F-16s but also a multinational fleet of Eurofighters and Tornados alongside French Rafales and Swedish Gripens.  

However, if past is precedent, “no” rarely means “never” when it comes to American support. This applies to statements—or lack thereof—from the president and key deputies, alike. To the contrary, it usually means “not yet.” As if to confirm the corollary, Oleksii Reznikov, the Ukrainian defense minister, has remarked “All types of assistance at the beginning went through the ‘no’ stage. This means ‘no’ as of today.” 

Consider recent reversals. At the end of December, the Biden administration announced it would respond to Kyiv’s urgent requests for more advanced ground-based air defenses by sending Patriot missile batteries. The White House had previously demurred from providing the systems, presumably because they are manpower- and training-intensive, ill-suited to contend with drones and smaller ballistic missiles deployed by Russia, and enormously expensive.  

Meanwhile, Colin Kahl—President Biden’s undersecretary of defense for policy—observed to reporters that “The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It’s expensive, it’s hard to train on. It has a jet engine; I think it’s about three gallons to the mile of jet fuel. It is not the easiest system to maintain. It may or may not be the right system.” He then echoed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s concerns that “We should not be providing the Ukrainians systems they can’t repair, they can’t sustain, and that they, over the long term, can’t afford, because it’s not helpful.”  

One week later, the Pentagon confirmed it would provide 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. This announcement was released in coordination with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s statement that his government will provide 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.    

President Biden deserves credit for side-stepping Kyiv’s most escalatory demands. No-fly zones, Ukrainian accession to NATO, and American boots on the ground are currently on ice due to the obvious risks of a general war on the European continent. As President Biden remarked last March, “We will not fight the third World War in Ukraine.” Thank goodness for small mercies.  

But all measures short of direct and sustained fighting between NATO and Russia remain on the table. This is precisely why the matter of F-16s has yet to be settled, the president’s perfunctory snub notwithstanding.  

Nearly one year ago, the Pentagon scrapped a three-way fighter jet swap that would have circuitously provided Polish MiG 29s to Ukraine in exchange for an American sale of F-16s to Warsaw. Eleven months later—having scaled unknowable rungs up the escalation ladder—anonymous Defense Department officials are now leaking their tacit support for the direct delivery of F-16s to Ukraine.  

This change in posture was predictable. The wish fulfillment of Abrams tanks was bound to accelerate demands for long-range missiles and aircraft. While tanks provide protected mobility for infantry, they also require air support. To undertake another successful offensive, Ukraine has naturally zeroed in on the sort of firepower that will allow them to maneuver and advance by destroying Russian logistics. 

As President Volodymyr Zelensky stated in a recent nightly address, “We have to unlock the supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine, it is important for us to expand our cooperation artillery, we have to achieve the supply of aircraft to Ukraine. And this is a dream. And this is a task.” 

However, the White House must weigh these dreams and demands against American interests. While they may partially align, they do not perfectly overlap. A significant escalation in the war—such as a strike against command-and-control targets within Russia delivered by American-built fighters—would risk the sort of general conflict all had hoped to avoid. 

President Biden should proceed with caution to ensure his next address to the country and our Congress does not break with his desire to avoid World War III.

Reid Smith is director of foreign policy at Stand Together.