If at the beginning of the Russian invasion the United States and its allies aimed to preserve Ukraine as a state, now they say they believe in its victory and will help achieve that victory.

Moscow’s protests, threats and allusions to nuclear weapons have failed – Kyiv’s partners are increasing arms supplies. And if once they gave only defensive weapons, now even cautious Germany promises to hand over tanks to Ukraine.

US officials have openly described how they are helping the Ukrainian army resist Russian aggression. This applies to official statements by the Pentagon, and even more – information that they tell off the record.

Western experts interviewed by the BBC say the United States and its allies have begun to view Russia’s threats with some skepticism, although they plan to continue to avoid a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

On Thursday, NBC reported , citing senior officials, that US intelligence had helped the Ukrainian Armed Forces line up the Moscow cruiser. And on Wednesday, the New York Times wrote that the United States is sharing intelligence that is helping Ukrainian forces kill Russian generals in command of the invasion.

Following a visit to Kyiv on Easter by Lloyd Austin and Anthony Blinken, US defense and foreign ministers, US officials said Ukraine could win the war.

The US desire to see a strong and independent Ukraine that fully controls its entire territory was stated by Mark Millie , chairman of the Committee of Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces.

British Foreign Secretary Liz Trass also promised Kyiv support in the full liberation of all occupied territories.

The rhetoric of NATO leaders has really changed, said General Sir Richard Barrons, the former head of the British Armed Forces, in an interview with the BBC.

“Support for Ukraine is growing, but it is based on the iron rule that it will not escalate into a war between Russia and NATO,” the retired general said. “It is a war between Russia and Ukraine, but a confrontation between the West and Russia.”

On the eve of the war, US and British leaders warned Moscow that invading Ukraine would be costly. They meant that the West was ready to impose the toughest sanctions and provide the Ukrainian army with a limited set of defensive weapons, which would make it difficult for Russian forces to advance.

Sir Richard calls this approach a failure: he believes that NATO countries have not done enough to prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine.

However, after the Russian offensive on Kyiv stalled, NATO’s position began to change.

“We saw the failure of the Russian army, and it created an opportunity for ambitious goals,” Barrons said.

If the main weapons previously sent to Ukraine were anti-tank guns and air defense vehicles, the new supplies from NATO countries include strike drones, artillery and armored vehicles.

In Washington, there is confidence that Ukraine is able not only to defend itself, but also to win, said in an interview with the BBC Michael Mazarr, a senior researcher at the American corporation RAND.

“This is the trajectory of the war itself: when the Russian offensive on Kyiv failed and Russia switched to operations in the south and east of the country with troops that had already suffered heavy losses, the context changed,” Mazarr said.

However, the new, more active approach of the United States had another reason – outrage at the atrocities of the Russian army.

Evidence of war crimes in Bucha and Mariupol has provoked strong reactions in the United States, said Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who often uses information from intelligence sources in his columns.

“Both Democrats and Republicans were outraged by the Russian invasion, which gave the Biden administration the opportunity to vote in Congress on an unprecedented $ 33 billion aid package,” said Ignatius, who was recently added to Russia’s sanctions list.

If this package is approved, the total amount of military aid received by Ukraine from the United States since the beginning of the invasion will be $ 46.6 billion. This is more than two thirds of Russia’s defense budget for 2021.

Few doubt the congressional approval: representatives of both parties have already spoken out in support. 73% of Americans support arms supplies to Ukraine, according to a recent Reuters / Ipsos poll.

But the need to reconsider previous approaches is also dictated by a new phase of the war: the battle for Donbas has created a need for heavy weapons, especially artillery, says Barrons.

Russia has sent official notes to the United States protesting the supply of weapons to Ukraine, and Putin has twice hinted at the use of nuclear weapons during the war. His ministers warned that Russian forces would destroy NATO military cargo in Ukraine.

These threats have not stopped the United States and its allies – NATO is only increasing supplies. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom Liz Trass rejected the arguments of those who propose not to supply heavy weapons so as not to provoke Russia.

“In my opinion, inaction is the worst provocation. Now is the time for courage, not caution,” said Trass.

The West is less and less afraid of the Russian army because it has proved far less capable than it seemed, says Barrons, a retired British general.

The Russian army is weakened, and much of it is involved in Ukraine – Moscow does not have enough military force to attack NATO now.

Ignatius of the Washington Post suggests that after the first month of the war, experts in Washington concluded that Russia’s threats should not be taken too seriously because they were not backed up by action.

“Russia’s resources are at the limit, and its troops will be in real danger if it escalates the conflict,” Ignatius said. He says US forces in Europe are enough to support Ukraine without worrying about possible escalation from Russia.

In mid-April, CIA Director William Burns warned of another danger – the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine.

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, in particular, spoke in favor of such a scenario. Tactical is a less destructive nuclear weapon designed for use on the battlefield.

The head of the CIA, however, stressed that US intelligence has no data on the deployment or movement of weapons that would indicate Russia’s preparations for a nuclear strike on Ukraine.

“Yes, Russia has 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads, ten times more than the United States. But the likelihood of using these weapons in Ukraine and especially outside Ukraine is small, because it’s clearly clearly not in Russia’s favor,” Barrons said.

According to him, such a strike will not change the course of the conflict, but will be the first use of nuclear weapons since the end of World War II and shocks the whole world: “Russia will use tactical nuclear munitions in Ukraine generation”.

In addition, such a move will only strengthen NATO’s cohesion, the expert said. He therefore suggests that Western leaders have assessed these risks and drawn their own conclusions about the reality of the threats.

Ignatius agrees with this assessment – he believes that Russia’s threats are formulated very vaguely, and tactical nuclear weapons alone are unlikely to change the course of the war, so its use by Russia does not make any practical sense.

“These are rhetorical rather than real threats,” says Ignatius.

However, this does not mean that the United States and NATO ignore the risks of escalation.

Despite the appeal of the President of Ukraine Zelensky, the Biden administration did not respond to the call to “close the skies over Ukraine” – that is, to introduce a no-fly zone. The move would be a step towards a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, experts say.

“The United States is still very clear that it does not plan to take an active part in the war. The United States is not sending troops to Ukraine,” said Mazarr of RAND.

The expert recalled how during the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union supplied North Vietnam with weapons used to fight the US military – and to kill American soldiers. Russian experts also usually point to the supply of American weapons to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, who used them against the Soviet army.

“I don’t think the current situation can be called unprecedented, although the United States does provide significant military assistance to Ukraine,” Mazarr said.

Want to get top news in Messenger? Subscribe to our Telegram or Viber !