Giving Ukraine heavy weapons does not mean NATO is at war with Russia

A BILLION EUROS ($1.1bn) goes fast when you are fighting a war. But Germany’s announcement on April 15th that it would give around that sum in additional military aid to Ukraine may at least soften criticism of its failure to send tanks. It is part of a recent wave of pledges to provide Ukraine with heavy weapons. Two days earlier America promised $800m in new aid, including armoured personnel carriers and helicopters. Britain is sending armoured patrol vehicles and anti-ship missiles, while the Czech Republic has delivered mobile rocket-launchers and T-72 tanks from its old Soviet stockpiles. Slovakia, which has already sent Ukraine an S-300 anti-aircraft system, has said it might also provide MiG-29 fighter jets (pictured), a Soviet model that Ukrainian pilots know how to fly.In early March, America scotched a similar offer of MiG-29s from Poland, for fear it might invite reprisals from Russia, and thus drag NATO into the war. Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, was more explicit still, suggesting that donations of heavy weapons might prompt Russia to label NATO a “co-belligerent”: a party to the conflict, and thus a legitimate target under the laws of war. Now, America says it has no objection to Slovakia’s offer. Early in the conflict Ukraine’s friends mainly stuck to giving it small arms and portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. As it has grown clear that the war will be a long one, they have become willing to supply it with complex systems that require months of training. Russian war crimes have also helped convince them to give Ukraine the heavier gear it needs to recapture occupied territory, and to help it shift from old Soviet kit to NATO-standard weaponry which could be maintained and armed more easily.