Why is the US so wary about Poland’s fighter jets being sent to Ukraine?

It seems strange when huge quantities of other military materials and ‘lethal aid’ are being delivered, argues Sean O'Grady

Two Russian-made MiG-29s fly above and below two US-made F-16 fighter jets during a Polish air show (AP)

Everyone knows what Volodymyr Zelensky would like and, famously, it isn’t a ride to a place of safety in the west. He wants no-fly zones, humanitarian corridors, and as much defence equipment as Nato and friendly neutral countries such as Finland can send his way. Faced with what seems to be an extraordinarily slow and amateurish Russian force, it is tempting, and not that crazy, to think that Ukraine could actually win this war.

Most immediately, Ukraine would like some more fighter jets, to make sure the Russians don’t gain absolute superiority in the air. Poland answered the call with an ingenious proposal: they would donate their stock of old Russian-manufactured MiG fighters to Ukraine, whose pilots are trained to use them, but they would do so via US air force facilities in Germany, with Ukrainian pilots flying into the war zone. Presumably this is because the Russians would be less likely to retaliate against the Americans than against Poland. The scheme could have been extended to the Romanian air force, and those of other ex-Warsaw Pact nations with MiG aircraft.

There were a few problems, though. First, the Poles seem not to have consulted the US – at least according to the US – which didn’t endear them to their senior Nato partner. The move was especially ill-timed, as vice-president Kamala Harris is about to fly to Warsaw for talks.

Second, and more substantively, the Americans consider the idea “untenable” because it would pit Nato aircraft, or recently ex-Nato aircraft, against Russian aircraft. That would risk a confrontation in the sky, with the possible loss of Russian pilots, and it would give the impression that Nato was involved in an aggressive war against Russia. The possibility of escalation to nuclear weapon levels was judged too real to risk it. So the Polish scheme seems to have run its course, though theoretically it could still be done via a neutral state, such as Sweden or Finland.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Wednesday that “logistical questions” remained on how to get Polish fighter jets to Ukraine. “How do you get planes into Ukraine in a way that is not escalatory?” she said.

“Military to military” conversations are under way on the issue, Psaki said, adding that she doubted Vice-President Harris would discuss the issue in a major way on her trip this week to Poland and Romania.

The concerns of the US may seem strange, when huge quantities of other military materials and “lethal aid” are being delivered to Ukraine, from helmets and guns to anti-tank weapons and some 17,000 “fire and forget” anti-aircraft missiles – such as the “stinger” and the “javelin” – with many more on the way.

The difference between downing a Russian plane with a missile fired from the ground and one fired from a jet is academic. It is, to some degree, one of perception. Some weapons are deemed “defensive”, and some are more obviously “offensive”, in every sense. A stinger is associated with defence against attack from the air; a MiG fighter is associated with the corresponding aggression. There is a tacit understanding about what sort of kit falls into each category, and with that an assumption about the appropriate response.

It must be disappointing for the Ukrainians, though. It might not take much more to disable the bulk of the Russian war machine and pin the invaders back. Maybe Harris will bring some answers, but America seems surprisingly wary of actually defeating Russia and, as an inevitable consequence, neutering Vladimir Putin.