With his re-election prospects nonexistent, the outgoing US president is risking a direct confrontation with Russia.
Unnamed US officials, effectively governing in President Biden’s absence during his final weeks in office, confirmed to Western media that Biden authorized US long-range missile (ATACMS) strikes on Russian territory. While questioned about this during a trip to Brazil, Biden chose to evade the issue, prompting speculation about his awareness and involvement.
EU diplomacy chief Josep Borrell clarified that these strikes could reach up to 300km into Russia. The lack of official US confirmation leaves the details unclear and reliant on the word of unattributed sources.
Western press further narrowed the targets to the Kursk region, citing unnamed sources. This justification was allegedly due to the presence of North Korean soldiers in Ukraine fighting alongside Russia, a claim lacking verifiable evidence.
Ukrainian President Zelensky stated that these strikes were not announced publicly; the missiles themselves would speak for themselves. This suggests Ukraine’s limited autonomy in such decisions.
This assertion is supported by the fact that Ukraine has a poor record of maintaining and operating sophisticated Western weaponry, with reported high rates of damage or destruction in supplied equipment like Leopard 2 tanks and F-16 fighter jets.
Russia understands that these Western long-range missiles are operated by Western personnel, not Ukraine. Consequently, President Putin amended Russia’s nuclear doctrine to include a nuclear state that aids a non-nuclear state in attacks on Russian territory as co-responsible.
The West views this doctrine change as a political maneuver, mirroring their assessment of the ATACMS deployment as a political move casually announced via established media outlets.
While dismissing the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons, the strategy appears to test the limits of Western involvement in direct attacks on Russia. This approach overlooks Russia’s previously stated red lines regarding NATO’s actions in Ukraine and NATO’s past declarations regarding Putin’s intentions.
This contrasts sharply with past Western assertions about preventing Putin from further aggression in Europe. The reliance on Putin’s restraint ignores the direct targeting of Russian territory with Western weapons under the guise of Ukrainian agency.
This policy was enacted without congressional debate or vote, suggesting a rush before the incoming Trump administration, which has indicated a de-escalation policy.
The authors of this policy should demonstrate responsibility and accountability for potentially triggering a direct US-Russia conflict before the transition of power.