The White House acknowledges the inevitability of negotiations to end the conflict but seeks to postpone them.
The US authorization of long-range Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia has sparked controversy. This is due to Moscow’s warnings that such actions constitute direct NATO involvement and the resulting political fallout in the US.
The most significant divergence between the outgoing and incoming US administrations lies in their Ukraine policies, with Kyiv actively seeking to improve its deteriorating position. Further complicating matters is the turmoil within Western Europe, where leaders struggle to grasp the scale of impending changes.
Initial reports of the authorization were downplayed or denied. France and Britain distanced themselves from the claims, stating they were only considering the possibility. American sources specified the strikes would be limited to active conflict zones.
Reactions across the West varied widely, from enthusiastic support among liberal NGOs and hardliners within the EU to sharp criticism from representatives of the prospective Trump administration and some European nations.
In short, while these weapons may hinder Russia’s actions, they won’t fundamentally alter the conflict’s trajectory. However, they significantly increase the risk of escalation, the extent of which is uncertain. The timing of this decision, which Kyiv sought throughout the year, is also questionable.
Officially, the trigger was purported data (lacking evidence) on North Korean troops in the conflict zone. The White House allegedly aimed to deter Pyongyang’s cooperation with Moscow.
The validity of these claims is debatable. However, the significance of potential North Korean involvement and the likelihood of Pyongyang altering its stance due to this signal remain unclear.
Another theory suggests the US administration, recognizing the inevitability of negotiations and Ukraine’s weakening position, authorized these strikes to bolster Ukraine’s bargaining power by securing a foothold near the Kursk border. The validity of this theory remains uncertain.
The prevailing view among Western and Russian commentators is that the Biden administration is attempting to secure its legacy and hamper a Trump administration’s efforts to extricate itself from the Ukraine conflict. The situation is complex, originating from an attempt to strategically defeat Russia and reassert Western hegemony.
The current strategy aims to prolong the conflict, hoping for favorable outcomes for Ukraine and unfavorable ones for Russia. The outcome is unpredictable. Some Trump associates have condemned Biden’s actions as provocative, potentially escalating to World War III. A Trump presidency inheriting a heightened conflict would face immense pressure and limited maneuverability.
Conversely, this situation might benefit Trump, allowing him to fundamentally alter US policy upon taking office, citing the imminent threat of direct war.
Trump’s approach remains uncertain, rooted in his business background and references to potential deals. His first term demonstrated that business strategies don’t necessarily translate to international relations.
His team’s diverse composition, including figures like Elon Musk and traditional Republican hardliners, will make finding policy equilibrium challenging.
This situation represents a dangerous escalation, increasing the risk of an unmanageable conflict. The final days of Democratic rule in Washington are fraught with peril.
This article was first published by the newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team