Will they make Putin flounder? Or are they only part of an already ongoing war effort. Biden and his administration do seem rather confused.
One might have thought that announcing the serious sanctions we see now, before the invasion, would have deterred Putin and prevented the ongoing war in Ukraine. A war that now has become a U.S. and Europe proxy war carried out in Ukraine against Russia. Resulting in terrible sufferings in Ukraine.
 
Sanctions do deter
President Joe Biden warned Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday that the West would impose "strong economic and other measures" on Russia if it invades Ukraine (Reuters, December 7, 2021)
In an interview aired on CNN Secretary Blinken argued that sanctions were to deter:
“The purpose of the sanctions in the first instance is to try to deter Russia from going to war. As soon as you trigger them, that deterrent is gone. And until the last minute, as long as we can try to bring a deterrent effect to this, we're going to try to do that.” (CNN February 20).
 
Sanctions never meant to deter
During a press briefing on March 22 at NATO headquarters a journalist asked Biden: “Sir, deterrence didn’t work. What makes you think Vladimir Putin will alter course based on the action you’ve taken today?” President Biden visibly irritated: “Let’s get something straight: You remember, if you’ve covered me from the beginning, I did not say that in fact the sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter. You keep talking about that.  Sanctions never deter. The maintenance of sanctions — the maintenance of sanctions, the increasing the pain, and the demonstration — why I asked for this NATO meeting today — is to be sure that after a month, we will sustain what we’re doing not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year. That’s what will stop him. The journalist then asked: Do you believe the actions today will have an impact on making Russia change course in Ukraine? President Biden now visibly irritated: That’s not what I said. You — you — you’re playing a game with me.
 
Sanctions came too late to prevent war
Evidently Zelensky does have a different view about the deterring effect of sanctions
The weekend before the Russian invasion Zelensky told CNN’s Amanpour
“that the West is not doing enough right now to deter Putin. He called for a list of possible sanctions on Moscow to be made public immediately.” (CNN transcript February 20).
In a video message on March 24 Zelensky thanked the EU for uniting countries around Ukraine, although he seemed to have certain reservations in Hungary’s case. He then said:
"I want to say that it was done, one way or another, in different ways, but again the main thing is that you have united, and we certainly appreciate that. You applied sanctions - these are powerful steps, but it was a little late. Because if it was preventive, Russia would not go to war. No one knows for sure, but at least there was a chance. You blocked Nord Stream 2 - we thank you for that, and that was the right thing, but it was also a little late. Because if it had been done on time, Russia would not have created a gas crisis. At least there was such a chance," Zelensky said. (ukrinform.net) Emphasis added.
No one knows for sure, but neither is it wild speculation. Did the West make a serious miscalculation, even though they apparently knew that Putin would go to war (at least that is Biden seemed convinced), or – sinister thought – President Biden, Secretary Blinken and Security Advisor Sullivan may have thought that they would never get the Europeans aboard, before Russia actually had invaded Ukraine.
 
Consequences – war or peace?
Biden now argues that severe sanctions will only stop Putin and Russia after the fact, at some point in the future. When perhaps irreparable damage has been done, not only in Ukraine, but to the relations between the West and Russia. Even a successor to Putin might then want to rely on China, and then   the West would be confronted with a mighty Eurasian constellation.  
It is almost as if the Biden, Blinken and Sullivan constellation have not thought about the endgame and the consequences in the long term. At least not publicly. One may wonder if they have no long term plan or strategy, but are driven just by their moral outrage and old grudges.
It is really strange that Europe is eagerly tagging along with the U.S., without apparently having any idea of their own about what is going to happen. Even though they must realise that they will have to get along with Russia in the future, they seem bent upon making Russia an enemy, while making sure that carnage in Ukraine can go on with the help of sophisticated Western weaponry – and one might fear being persuaded by Zelensky and their own outbursts of jingoism to contribute to a further escalation.
They seem eager to please Zelensky in his often very unrealistic and outright dangerous demands, but perhaps they ought to dampen his ambitions in order to make peace possible.
Where do we see serious European attempt to create peace?

See also (added March 29):

U.S. diplomacy failing in relation to Russia and China
https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/us-diplomacy-failing-in-relation-to-russia-and-china
 
Proxy war in Ukraine because Biden and Blinken bear a grudge?
https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/proxy-war-in-ukraine-because-biden-and-blinken-bear-a-grudge?
 
Letting Ukraine bleed in a proxy war with Russia?
https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/letting-ukraine-bleed-in-a-proxy-war-with-russia?
 
NATO eastward expansion a serious mistake?
https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/nato-eastward-expansion-a-serious-mistake?
 
Foolish reactions to Russian demands and threats?
https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/foolish-reactions-to-russian-demands-and-threats
 
Who defines US policy?
https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/biden-giving-in-to-putin

 

Views of U.S. diplomacy
 
“If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.” (Secretary of State Albright, 1998).
 
A … distinguishing feature of modern American diplomacy is that US admin-
istrations as a whole tend to privilege hard power policies over soft power policies.
 A further distinguishing characteristic of American diplomacy is that “the United States has chosen to isolate diplomatically for long periods states that it deemed adversarial, and has
required those states to meet preconditions before it will formally engage them. (Wiseman, Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2011)
 
Blinken’s and Sullivan's diplomacy or the lack of it?
When NPR interviewed Secretary Antony Blinken on March 16 he was asked “Do you have any channel that is open to Vladimir Putin right now to communicate about any way to end this war?”
Blinken’s vague answer: “Well, various leaders, countries have sought to communicate with him, may even remain in communication with him. Of course, the Ukrainians are talking to the Russians.”
Following up, the interviewer then asked if the United itself had any channel open to Putin.
Blinken’s answer was noncommittal: “there are always ways of communicating. Let me leave it at that.”
One would have thought U.S. diplomacy would be heavily involved in trying to persuade Russia and force Ukraine to find a compromise that would end the war in Ukraine. Instead, it seems that the U.S. is quite willing to fight a proxy with Russia in Ukraine. Letting Ukraine bleed for failed diplomacy.
One wonders if Biden and Blinken think they are carrying out the reverse of the Soviet Union’s and China’s proxy war with the U.S. in Vietnam. Somewhat like the U.S. proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s in Afghanistan. Ukraine now playing the role of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
An observer in the Washington Post wondered how much the “U.S. seem to be collectively stuck in the past. Just as we did during the Cold War, we see ourselves as the good-guy victims of an immoral opponent. This time, the Russian state, personified by Vladimir Putin, is the one-dimensional enemy.” (Weissberg, December Washington Post 2021).
 
With relation to China’s support of Russia, Secretary Antony Blinken was asked what the U.S.  might be able to do: “Are the United States and its European allies capable of isolating China in the way that you’ve isolated Russia if China were to aid Russia beyond some certain point?”
Biden’s answer: “Well, China is already on the wrong side of history when it comes to Ukraine and the aggression being committed by Russia. The fact that it has not stood strongly against it, that it has not pronounced itself against this aggression, flies in the face of China’s commitments as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council responsible for maintaining peace and security… Second, of course, if China actually provides material support in one way or another to Russia in this effort, that would be even worse. (state.gov).

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan seem to work on diplomatic, or is non-diplomatic, principles similar to Blinken’s.
In a meeting with China's top diplomat Yang Jiechi in Rome March 14, he “raised directly and very clearly” concern over possible Chinese support for Russia.
When a State Department spokesperson was asked about the meeting he said: “Backing Russia in the wake of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine would have implications for China's relationships around the world, including with U.S. allies and partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region. … We have communicated very clearly to Beijing that we won’t stand by if – we will not allow any country to compensate Russia for its losses.”
Meaning that the U.S. is apparently already threatening China with sanctions too.

China later criticised the U.S. warning as arrogant, and according to Asia Times the Chinese Foreign Office spokesperson “strongly urged the US not to undermine its legitimate rights and interests when handling relations with Russia.”
Meanwhile the Chinese Defense Times talked of strengthened Russia-Chinese cooperation to counter the U.S. hegemony:
“Under the mutual commitment that "China-Russia cooperation has no upper limit", the two countries are creating greater development space for each other based on the principle of mutual benefit and win-win results. The construction of the Eurasian Economic Union-China's new financial settlement system is a larger-scale embodiment of this principle of mutual benefit and win-win results.“ (Translation, Defense Times’ social media).
 
US diplomacy making threats and creating mighty adversaries
Wondering if this means that Blinken and Sullivan represent the current U.S. administration’s view of how diplomacy works – or perhaps does not work. As if U.S. hegemonic power and ideological belief of being on the right side of history means diplomacy threatening the use of hard power and isolation. Both in relation to Russia and more or less also in relation to China. As if it is forgotten that hard power and isolation diplomacy against China would have to be an order of magnitude larger than in case of Russia. Perhaps plain and simple rather stupid.

One might even get the idea that U.S. is acting even more like Russia, than Russia itself dares.
Think of the Balkan wars in the nineties. An essay from the CATO institute tells this story of how the U.S. acted against Yugoslavia:
“At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against the Serb‐ dominated remnant of Yugoslavia.”
Sounds uncanny similar to Russia’s argument for invading Ukraine.

Once Nixon and Kissinger cosied up to China in order to contain Russia. Now it seems that Blinken and Sullivan represent a version of American diplomacy doing what it can to make both of them adversaries. A recent article in Foreign Policy carried the ominous title  “Washington Must Prepare for War With Both Russia and China.”  Not a very smart move might think. Let’s see how this may play out over time.
 

Much has been said in recent days about Putin’s reasons for invading Ukraine and about his state of mind.
Putin is seeing the collapse of the Soviet Union as “a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.”
Condoleezza Rice is seeing “a different Putin” who “seems erratic” and has “an ever-deepening delusional rendering of history.”
A former U.S. ambassador to Russia about Putin: "He has changed. He sounds completely disconnected from reality. He sounds unhinged."
Boris Johnson on Putin: “He is clearly in an illogical and irrational frame of mind.” Prompting speculation that Putin might be crazy.
Not much has been said about Biden’s and Blinken’s policies and reactions in relation to Putin and the invasion of Ukraine and only Biden’s antagonists have questioned his mental capacities and health.
What is evident though is that Biden and Blinken has shown a very belligerent stance against Putin and Russia. Only a result of Putin’s surprisingly drastic invasion or may there be other explanations?
Here an attempt to explain President Biden’s and Secretary Blinken’s belligerent stance using reasoning similar to the reasoning about Putin’s motives. Alas, with just as little factual evidence of course.
Let us see how this might play out.

Biden’s and Blinken’s frustrated stance in 2014
To understand their belligerence towards Putin and Russia it is worthwhile to cast a glance at Biden’s and Blinken’s views and attitudes back in 2014 when Russia made what Obama called an incursion into Crimea, and Russia supported pro-Russian separatist in Luhansk and Donetsk.
With a “Don’t do stupid s—" approach to foreign policy President Obama recognised that Ukraine was a core interest for Russia, but certainly not in the same way for the U.S. Resulting in a careful and measured approach to Russia. A Russia that Obama apparently saw as a regional power in decline.
Vice-president Biden evidently stood for a more belligerent approach. “When Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2014, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pressed President Barack Obama to take decisive action, and fast, to make Moscow “pay in blood and money” for its aggression. The president, a Biden aide recalled, was having none of it.” (NYT).
According to the article in the New York Times Biden tried to persuade President Obama to send lethal weapons to Ukraine in the shape of Javelin anti-tank missiles, but apparently Obama would have none of it.
Instead, Biden was made emissary to the region and send off with Obama’s warning “about not overpromising to the Ukrainian government.” (NYT). Something the U.S. and the EU have done for years since 2014, and now causing President Zelensky to plea more and more desperate and incoherent for interventions that would led war in all Europe.

Biden’s frustration in 2014 clouding his view today?
In April 2014 Biden vowed that the U.S. would never recognize Russia’s “illegal occupation” of Crimea and said “no nation has the right to simply grab land from another” and called on Russia to stop supporting masked gunmen who have seized government buildings across the east of the country.” (NYT).
In November 2014 after a meeting with Ukrainian leaders Biden criticised Russia for not lessening its aggressive stand towards Ukraine. “Instead we’ve seen more provocative action, more blatant disregard for the agreement signed not long ago by Russia. As long as that continues Russia will face rising cost, greater isolation.”(Los Angeles Times).
Now with Biden being President he sems finally to be able to act on a grudge he may have carried with him since 2014. Sending the infamous Javelin missiles in large numbers to Ukraine, creating rising costs for Russia and making every attempt to isolate Russia.
Perhaps Biden is not so different in his reactions from Putin in this regard. Perhaps like him acting on personal a grudge, he has had carried with him for a long time.

What about Blinken then?
First it is worth noting that Blinken’s relationship with Biden goes back a long time. His presentation at the U.S. Department of State homepage states:
“Mr. Blinken was national security advisor to then-Vice President Joe Biden. This was the continuation of a long professional relationship that stretched back to 2002, when Mr. Blinken began his six-year stint as Democratic staff director for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Then Senator Biden was the chair of that committee from 2001 to 2003 and 2007 to 2009”
In 2014 “Blinken was nominated and confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State under former Secretary of State John Kerry. Secretary Blinken played a key role in guiding President Obama’s foreign policy, particularly his strategy in the Middle East and response to the Russian annexation of Ukraine.” (InfluenceWatch).
Blinken certainly seems to have had a negative view of Russia and President Putin for quite some time, just like Biden.
In 2014 at an event at the Brookings Institute he argued: “One way President Putin and Russia define power is by the geopolitical influence that Russia is able to obtain. And undermining Russia politically in the international community and isolating it politically diminishes that power." (Newsweek)
At a confirmation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in November 2014 Blinken argued like Biden for providing Ukraine with lethal weapons. Speaking about Russian aggression he said:
“One element that could hopefully get them to think twice and deter them from further action is strengthening the capacity of the Ukrainian forces, including with defensive lethal equipment. So that’s why I think that’s something that we should be looking at.”
Blinken in 2014 also argued that the sanctions put in place in 2014 would mean that Russia would really be hit. In an interview as deputy national security advisor, he argued (please note this is quote from March 2014, not from 2022 when Blinken is almost repeating himself).
“Actually, the compact that President Putin has with his people is if you remain politically compliant, I’ll deliver growth for you. That growth has stagnated even before this crisis. And everything that’s happened since, as a result of the efforts we’ve made, to isolate Russia for its actions in Ukraine has only made that worse.
And what we’re seeing every single day is Russia getting more and more isolated and its economy taking a bigger and bigger hit.
We had the finance minister of Russia worrying out loud in public about the hit that the economy was taking. We have the leader of the Association of Entrepreneurs, basically the oligarchs’ club, saying I’m really worried about investment drying up. This is having an impact on Russia. This has to get Putin to think twice.” (CNN).
Apparently not enough of hit to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, after none of Putin’s three essential demands had been seriously considered by Blinken and Biden.

Is Biden and Blinken having their revenge for 2014?
As we have seen one might perhaps argue that both Biden and Blinken have born a deepfelt grudge against Putin and Russia since the Crimea invasion in 2014 and felt regret that what was done in 2014 wasn’t enough to persuade Putin to give up his aggression against Ukraine. He did not leave Crimea and did not stop his support for the rebels in Luhansk and Donetsk.
The difference between 2022 and 2014 is that Biden and Blinken now have it in their power to carry out what they wanted to do in 2014. Apparently in the belief that Russia will act differently this time.
Free to do what they wanted to in 2014 and convinced that this time they both save Ukrainian sovereignty and cause Putin and Russia to fail, they are willing to support and wage a very risky proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. With Ukraine now bearing the disastrous  consequences.
This might explain why they had no thought for any seriously meant diplomatic solution that would answer Russia’s concerns.
Just listen Blinken at a recent press briefing with UK’s Liz Truss on March 9:
”So our response continues to be to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the Ukrainians have the means to defend themselves; to make sure we do everything we possibly can to exert pressure on Russia and on Putin to change course; to do everything we possibly can, of course, to support those who are suffering as a result of Russia’s actions.
Ultimately, I am absolutely convinced that Putin will fail and Russia will suffer a strategic defeat no matter what short-term tactical gains it may make in Ukraine. As we’ve said before, you can win a battle but that doesn’t mean you win the war – on the contrary. You can take a city but you can’t take the hearts and minds of its people, and Ukrainians are demonstrating that every single day.”
All the while Ukraine is doomed to bear the terrible consequences of what may after all be less a result of insurmountable differences between Russia and the U.S. over the Ukrainian independence and security, than of long held grudges borne by the decisionmakers in the conflict.”
You may argue that the idea that U.S. is willing to wage a proxy with Russia for reasons related to lack of success in 2014 is highly speculative.
Perhaps so, as the reasoning cannot be substantiated by facts, but big policy decisions in peace and war are certainly not only a result of some facts, but of fateful decisions made by those believing in power, highflying ideals, or low motives, or as we perhaps seen here, long term grudges, hidden behind a modern version of the emperor’s new clothes.

Europe should think twice
If there is any truth in what is surmised here, then Europe should be very hesitant of doing what the two B’s are now persuading and pressuring Europe to do.
What is needed is an independent European stance, even realising how weak it is, in as much as Europe do not carry a Rooseveltian big stick, but is only able to talk very loudly. But then talk might actually help bring about a diplomatic compromise over Ukraine with Russia.
After all Europe will have to live with Russia also in future, whatever the outcome of the present conflict, while the U.S. in reality will be forced to be less concerned with Russia and Ukraine and more with a Chinese hegemon.
Although judging from the belligerence and yellow-blue jingoism shown in Europe at the moment it does not look as if European decisionmakers are realising that.

Now one may seriously ask if Blinken has given up working for peace in Ukraine, and instead is actively working to escalate an U.S. and NATO proxy war with Russia.
Just take a look at the diverging views on “no-fly zone Ukraine” or “fighter planes for Ukraine”.

Secretary General Stoltenberg
Tuesday last week when the question of fighter planes for Ukraine arose, Stoltenberg said that European Union members would not lend fighter jets to the war in Ukraine. Thus, in effect warning Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria not to send their old Russian MiG 29’s to Ukraine.

At a press conference after an “Extraordinary meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs” on Friday 04 March 2022, Stoltenberg also argued against “no flight zones” and other proposals that might involve NATO in a possible war with Russia.

”…we have a responsibility as NATO Allies to prevent this war from escalating beyond Ukraine. Because that will be even more dangerous, more devastating, and will cause even more human suffering. So we have made it clear that we are not going to move into Ukraine, neither on the ground, or in Ukrainian airspace. And of course, the only way to implement a no-fly zone is to send NATO planes, fighter planes into Ukrainian airspace, and then impose that no-fly zone by shooting down Russian planes. And our assessment is that we understand the desperation. But we also believe that if we did that, we'll end up with something that could end in a full-fledged war in Europe, involving many more countries, and causing much more human suffering. So that's the reason why we make this painful decision to impose heavy sanctions, provide significant support, stepping up support. But at the same time not involving NATO forces directly in the conflict in Ukraine, neither on the ground, or in their airspace.” (Stoltenberg, NATO).

President Zelensky
In an angry comment after NATO’s Friday meeting Zelensky called it a "weak summit, a confused summit," and argued:
"All the people who die starting today will also die because of you. Because of your weakness, because of your disconnection."
"Today the leadership of the alliance gave the green light for further bombing of Ukrainian cities and villages, refusing to make a no-fly zone.

A day later Zelensky then made a passionate plea in a zoom call to 300 members of the U.S: Congress. Zelensky again asked for a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, or at least provide fighter planes in order to allow Ukraine to defend itself.

One might get the idea that Zelensky is actually working less for some kind of compromise peace than for involving the West in the war.

Secretary of State Blinken
Zelensky’s pleas did not fall on deaf ears. In an interview on CBS News on Sunday, Secretary of State Blinken said that if a NATO member would send their old MiG 29 fighter planes to Ukraine it would get a green light from the U.S. He added:

“In fact, we're talking with our Polish friends right now about what we might be able to backfill their needs if in fact they choose to provide these fighter jets to the Ukrainians. What can we do? How can we help to make sure that they get something to backfill the planes that they're handing over to the Ukrainians?"

The idea being that Poland would get U.S. F16 fighter planes instead of the planes sent to Ukraine, although that would take some time as they might be earmarked for Taiwan.

Poland’s response – for the time being
Poland’s response to ideas of providing Ukraine with MiG 29 fighter planes had already been shot down as it were by President Duda tweeting no to “sending any jets to Ukraine because that would open military interference in the Ukrainian conflict.”
Later the Prime Minister added this tweet:

6:38 AM · Mar 6, 2022·Twitter for Android

A Polish official quoted in Financial Times this Monday also said: “Poland is not in a state of war with Russia, but it is not an impartial country, because it supports Ukraine as the victim of aggression. It considers, however, that all military matters must be a decision of NATO as a whole.”

What in the world do Biden, Blinken and Zelensky hope to achieve?
First, they shot down Russia’s three essential demands, and not even the warning from their own intelligence service that Russia might invade Ukraine made Biden and Blinken reconsider.
Biden and Blinken act as if a Ukraine invasion followed by ex post sanctions were preferred to a compromise with Russia based on a kind of “Finlandisation” of Ukraine?
Perhaps Biden bears some kind of grudge from 2014 when Crimea was invaded. As Vice-President he implored President Obama to let Russia “pay in blood and money.”
Obama rejected Biden’s idea and according to New York Times instead sent him as emissary to Ukraine warning him “about not overpromising to the Ukrainian government.”
Perhaps this is what he has done now, with dreadful consequences.
 
See also essays written just before the invasion:

Does Putin have a point? And are Western reactions foolish?
An alternative view of the Ukraine crisis at
https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/foolish-reactions-to-russian-demands-and-threats

NATO eastward expansion a serious mistake?
Still a relevant question to look at in order to understand Putin’s reason for invading  Ukraine. https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/nato-eastward-expansion-a-serious-mistake?

Let the U.S. take the consequences
Addendum March 9, 2022

Statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland
In connection with the statement by the US Secretary of State on providing airplanes to Ukraine the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland published this statement on March 8, 2022:

“The authorities of the Republic of Poland, after consultations between the President and the Government, are ready to deploy – immediately and free of charge – all their MIG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base and place them at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America.

At the same time, Poland requests the United States to provide us with used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities. Poland is ready to immediately establish the conditions of purchase of the planes.

The Polish Government also requests other NATO Allies – owners of MIG-29 jets – to act in the same vein.” (2018.08.03, gov.pl)


Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby
On the same day Pentagon rejected to Polish offer. Here the statement from the Pentagon the Pentagon Press Secretary

“We are now in contact with the Polish government following the statement issued today. As we have said, the decision about whether to transfer Polish-owned planes to Ukraine is ultimately one for the Polish government. We will continue consulting with our Allies and partners about our ongoing security assistance to Ukraine, because, in fact, Poland's proposal shows just some of the complexities this issue presents. The prospect of fighter jets "at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America" departing from a U.S./NATO base in Germany to fly into airspace that is contested with Russia over Ukraine raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance. It is simply not clear to us that there is a substantive rationale for it. We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland's proposal is a tenable one.” (March 8,2022, defense.gov)

Blinken – Pentagon disagreement?
This exchange of statements would seem to indicate that Secretary of State Blinken and the Pentagon have conflicting views on the proposal to provide Ukraine with old MiG 29’s.
The diplomat Blinken seemingly trying to escalate conflict with Russia, while the Pentagon is  holding back and showing more sense, at least for now.