ANALYSIS | There is a feeling that another turning point is approaching in Russia’s war in Ukraine.

(CNN) — Russia’s massive mobilization, its impending offensive and missile terror against civilians are prompting Ukraine to make new demands for even more lethal aid to the West, days after the leaders signed their latest package that included the delivery of the first tanks

The growing public debate over sending in F-16 fighter jets resurfaces a dilemma underlying the entire NATO response: Is the goal of the United States and its allies simply to allow Ukraine to ensure its survival, or to help it oust Russia? of all its territory and guarantee the defeat of the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin?

The likely escalation of the war, nearing its first anniversary, comes as Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky warns that Moscow is rallying its forces for a “revenge” attack on the free world. CIA Director William Burns underscored on Thursday the feeling that another tipping point is approaching.

“The key is going to be on the battlefield in the next six months, it seems to us,” Burns said at Georgetown University. This involves “hitting Putin’s arrogance, making it clear that not only is he not going to be able to make any further progress in Ukraine, but as the months go by, he is increasingly at risk of losing the territory he has illegally seized.” until now,” the CIA chief said.

Washington is listening to Ukraine’s pleas for even more multi-billion dollar aid. It is about to announce a new $2.2 billion outlay that includes longer-range missiles for the first time, according to several US officials. CNN’s Kevin Liptak and Oren Liebermann reported that a guided missile with a range of 145 km called the “Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb” will be included in the package. However, the weapon could take weeks or months to arrive, as the United States will contract with American arms manufacturers to supply it.

Still, the latest US offer cements one of the most important and ironic consequences of the war. One of the perceived goals of Putin’s invasion was to forever cut off the hopes of Ukraine, once part of the Soviet Union, of joining NATO. It may not be a member of the alliance, but Ukraine is now waging a stronger-than-expected response against Moscow using some of the most advanced military equipment in the West.

Ukraine wants more

Judging by comments from senior Ukrainian government officials in recent days, the Kyiv government still does not believe it has the military capability to bring about the kind of change in Putin’s mindset that Burns describes.

And this despite a decision last month by NATO leaders to send more than 300 main battle tanks to war, including British Challengers, German-made Leopards and, ultimately, the advanced American M1 Abrams. For example, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov stated this week to NPR that he was optimistic that the US and its allies would eventually supply his country with fighter jets, including F-16s, which President Joe Biden has consistently said he will not send. “What is impossible today is absolutely possible tomorrow,” Reznikov added.

The question of whether or not to offer aircraft to Ukraine is a complicated one. It requires an assessment of whether there is a military need for the aircraft and a role they can adequately play. US and allied leaders must weigh the impact the planes could have against the risk of further escalating the tense standoff between the West and Putin. The leaders may also need assurances from Ukraine that the planes would only be used for operations inside Ukraine, in order to prevent an extension of the war to Russia. Due to similar concerns, the new package will not include the ATACMS missile Ukraine wants, which, with a range of more than 320 km, could be used to target Russian soil, CNN reported.

There are no signs that Ukraine is going to receive F-16s anytime soon. “No,” Biden said when asked this week if the US would offer the jets to Ukraine. UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace said that, at least for now, the time was not right to send the planes. “What they need right now are armor and tanks,” Wallace said, though he gave Kyiv some hope by saying: “Never assume anything and never rule anything out.”

The question of the military utility of the F-16s clashes with concerns that they could be vulnerable to the still effective Russian air defenses and aircraft. CNN’s Mick Krever reported this week that for the F-16s to be a game changer, Ukraine would first have to destroy Russian air defenses and establish air superiority over the battlefield. The jets could be more useful as a defensive weapon for the Army and better at shooting down Russian missiles, for example, than for close air support missions near the front lines, Krever wrote.

However, Evelyn Farkas, the former US assistant deputy secretary of defense, told CNN on Wednesday that she was hopeful that the US’s reluctance to allow fighter jets into Ukraine, mirrored by Biden’s earlier refusal to allow that Poland transferred MiGs from the Soviet era in the early moments of the war, remitted and that F-16s could be sent.

“The Russians have air power or essentially have power that they can use through the air. And I think this is what the Ukrainians lack,” Farkas said.

“I think we have to provide the Ukrainians with planes so they can provide cover for their troops on the ground.”

NATO united, for now

One of the reasons for not sending the planes is that they would require intensive new training for pilots who learned in old Soviet-era planes. Some Western experts dismiss Ukraine’s claim that the planes could be used by its pilots with a minimum of training, arguing that if the war approaches a critical six-month deadline, the planes might arrive too late anyway.

Still, the idea that sophisticated Western weapons are too complex for the Ukrainian armed forces, or that it would take too long to train soldiers to use them, is nothing new. There has been a pattern of initial reluctance on the part of the United States to offer Ukraine systems such as Howitzers, Patriot anti-missiles and Abrams tanks, which has been overcome by the pressure of events in the war.

And Zelensky, who has run an effective public relations campaign in the West since the Russian invasion nearly a year ago, dismisses the idea that his forces, which have heroically resisted Russian might, cannot quickly catch up on weaponry. “I assure you that Ukrainian soldiers can perfectly handle American tanks and aircraft by themselves,” he declared during his address to a joint meeting of Congress in December.

Several European leaders, including Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and French President Emmanuel Macron, have not ruled out the possibility of sending jets, and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said in an interview with the German newspaper Bild that if all of NATO agreed, he would be in favor of sending fighters. But there are no indications that this step is imminent. The transfer of US-made aircraft would require Biden’s approval.

And all NATO leaders seem determined to show unity around the fighters, after Biden covered up a disagreement with Germany last month when he agreed to transfer the tanks to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Putin is reacting to the new push in arms shipments to Ukraine with a familiar tactic: veiled threats to Western powers that he might use small-yield tactical nuclear weapons in warfare.

“We are not going to send our tanks to your borders, but we have what to respond with. And it will not end the use of armored vehicles,” the Russian leader said during a visit to Volgograd to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Putin’s threats have not previously deterred Western countries, which are increasingly embroiled in what is, in effect, a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. But his comments will once again fuel fears that the use of weapons in war will only intensify it and risk its spread.

Burns argued, however, that Putin made a bad bet in thinking he can crush Ukraine as political fatigue grips Europe and the United States.

The CIA chief said he told one of his Russian counterparts, Sergey Naryshkin, in November that “that Russian calculation is as deeply flawed as the original decision to go to war on February 24 was.”