President Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use Western long-range missiles against Russian territory represents a significant escalation in the Ukraine conflict, potentially triggering a crisis reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The authorization marks a dramatic turning point in the two-and-a-half-year conflict, prompting strong reactions. Moscow has issued nuclear threats, while Western conservatives accuse Biden of provoking World War III, and liberals express tentative, uncertain approval. Ukrainian President Zelensky, however, appears highly satisfied, despite the limited battlefield gains.
The impact of Biden’s move on the war’s trajectory is uncertain. Even US advisors acknowledge that Ukraine’s primary need is troops, not advanced weaponry, as existing advanced weapons have shown limited effectiveness.
Ukraine has employed Storm Shadow/SCALP systems since 2023 and ATACMS since Spring 2024, yet attacks on Russian military targets in Crimea and other annexed territories have yielded minimal results. Ukraine’s missile stocks are dwindling; reports indicate fewer than 50 ATACMS and a limited number (around 100) of Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles.
The limited number of missiles raises questions about the strategic value of their use. The potential for significant retaliation from Moscow outweighs the possible benefits of a few large strikes followed by missile shortages.
From a military perspective, the West’s decision seems reckless and illogical, deviating from Biden’s typically cautious approach, suggesting a political motivation. A prevalent theory is that Biden aims to undermine President-elect Trump’s planned peace negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv.
The theory suggests that by provoking escalation, Biden seeks to force Trump into continued support for Ukraine, preventing him from being seen as abandoning US interests. However, this strategy carries substantial risk. Growing public resentment towards the Biden administration’s actions might compel Trump to end US involvement in Ukraine, transforming him from a perceived “loser” into a hero who averted World War III.
Recognizing that Ukraine will eventually negotiate, Trump’s election will likely accelerate the process, not alter the outcome. Thus, Biden’s arming of Ukraine in the final months of his presidency can be interpreted as a tactic to strengthen Ukraine’s negotiating position and maintain leverage, possibly through continued border incursions, particularly in Kursk Region.
Politically, Biden’s decision carries low risk, given his party’s election loss and the possibility that a peace deal might prevent an overly harsh Russian response. The White House’s hope is that this calculation will prove correct.
Russia’s response is likely to be political, mirroring the provocation. We’ve already witnessed a tougher nuclear stance and the unveiling of the new Oreshnik hypersonic missile, serving as a show of force. While some claim that “red lines” are obsolete, this display likely suffices to deter excessive escalation from the West, at least for now.
This article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team