Biden’s last-minute move, to grant Ukraine the right to fire American-made missiles into Russian territories, could be perceived as a means to sort his own diplomatic mess before abandoning the office. As Biden was inching towards the end of his tenure, it seemed he could maintain no further control on complex international scenarios, thus leaving his successor with a precarious situation. It’s crucial to note his vacillations, since he himself has previously opposed this move considering the induced risk of getting the U.S. entangled in a direct conflict with Russia. However, the failing commander-in-chief seemed obligated to make this decision in the face of escalating Russian aggression.
The premise here seems to be that Russia is poised to deploy 10,000 North Korean soldiers into the Ukraine conflict and has already launched a massive air attack on Ukraine. This action, allegedly in preparation, glosses over the plea from Ukraine and its Western allies for a reciprocal right to defend. The question raised by the Ukrainian side is clear – why should Ukraine hold their fight if Russia is insistent on relentlessly bombarding their country, something it showcased with flaring audacity recently?
Ukraine was then authorized to make use of the U.S. Army Tactical Missile System (or ATACMS, sounding like attack-ums). This missile system, already utilized on Russian-occupied territories in Ukraine, has a somewhat constrained range of approximately 190 miles. While the range falls on the lesser side, it’s still formidable enough to cover numerous Russian bases, ammunition depots, and logistical centres. Its application at this juncture could obstruct Russia’s planned counter-assault to reclaim Ukrainian-occupied land in the Kursk region.
The idea behind restraining Ukraine from retaliating using NATO missiles, as some propose, is Putin’s explicit red line against such actions. Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov points out that this elevates the tensions to an entirely new level. This isn’t tantamount to a declaration of World War III, but it’s a move bound to provoke Russia, leading to possible retaliatory action against the U.S. and its allies – these responses may be mostly asymmetric, indirect, and likely escalating the conflict.
Military experts remain skeptical if allowing Western missiles to land in Russia can amend the trajectory of the ongoing war. The conjecture that these missiles would do more than the United States’ previously supplied equipment, such as the Abrams tank or the F-16 jet fighter, seems misplaced given Biden’s previous unsuccessful strategies. Ukraine has already been sending its drones deep into Russian space, also utilizing ATACMS for targeting Russian assets in Crimea and other seized territories.
Meanwhile, Russia remains persistent in its progress, gaining up to a mile in Donetsk region per day. This indicates the failure of Biden’s approach to contain Russia’s advancement despite green-lighting Ukraine’s use of ATACMS against Russian territory. Hence, Trump, following his inauguration on January 20th, gets a red carpet directly to the stop button on ATACMS activities, a strategy formed by the administration that bemusingly ended up giving more to Russia.
Throughout the campaign, Trump had made assertions that he’d terminate the war expediently, though the specifics of this promise remained ambiguous. With Biden’s decision seen as reducing his negotiation possibilities, leading him towards a global confrontation, Trump’s previously vague promise might suddenly hold more weight.
According to commentators in line with the Kremlin, Biden’s final international act may inadvertently prove a point to Trump. If Ukrainians, fully armed and capable of retaliation, can stand against Russia, a negotiated settlement may lean towards likelihood. Despite ridiculing Biden’s previous stance as weaker, it turns out that his last international act might inadvertently pave the way for true negotiations.