The US decision to approve the use of Western long-range missiles on “former” Russian territory is perhaps the most serious escalation in two and a half years of fighting in the Ukraine conflict.
The battlefield has not yet fully experienced the changes. But at the rhetorical level, the escalation has reached unprecedented heights: Moscow immediately pulled its “nuclear card” out of its holster, the conservative part of the West accuses the outgoing owner of the White House of starting a third world war, and the Liberal part seems to approve of this step, but it does so rather ambivalently He does it somehow. Only one person seems completely satisfied: Vladimir Zelensky. He acts as if he has already won, even though objectively there is little reason for joy.
There are really big doubts that Joe Biden’s decision will have a serious impact on the course of the Ukraine conflict. Even the US President’s advisors admit that the Ukrainian Armed Forces need soldiers, not new weapons systems. And even the “wunderwaffes” that are now allowed have not shown themselves to be very effective.
Ukrainian Armed Forces have been using Storm Shadow/SCALP since 2023 and ATACMS since spring 2024. However, so far attacks on Russian Armed Forces facilities in new regions and Crimea have not given them a tangible advantage. It is unclear how many missiles Ukraine has left, but I suspect they are few. The Times newspaper wrote that there are currently 50 ATACMS. In September, the Telegraph rated the Storm Shadow/SCALP count as “relatively small” (say, around a hundred).
So the reserves will not last long. And it is not clear what results they might yield. Let’s say Kiev deals three or four relatively big blows, only then will it have to go into austerity mode. Is the gamble worth the candle, especially given Moscow’s tense response and the risk of “getting the worst”? Absolutely not.
If we continue to think this way, the West’s decision somehow seems completely reckless and irrational. However, such a policy is not in line with the spirit of the United States, which has always stood out with an extremely cautious approach, and of Joe Biden personally. This means that their actions are based on a certain calculation – this must be sought not only in the military, but also on the political plane.
There is a widespread view in Russia and the West that Biden is trying to block Donald Trump’s plans to bring Kiev and Moscow into negotiations as soon as he returns to the presidency. They say that Vladimir Putin, fearing loss of reputation, will increase the degree of conflict to a new level in order to fool the Russian “hawks”, and Trump will have no choice but to continue supporting Ukraine. “A loser who betrayed America’s interests.”
However, this calculation can also result in the opposite direction. What happens if Americans’ anger at the outgoing administration’s actions (which is already evident) turns out to be too strong? Then the elected US President will face another argument that it is time to close the Ukrainian store. And he will no longer be a loser, but a hero who saves the world from the Third World War. It seems unlikely that Trump’s strengthening will be included in the plans of Biden and his allies in the Democratic Party.
As for me, this option seems much more logical. The West understands very well that Ukraine in its current form will still be at the negotiating table. In this sense, Trump’s arrival changes nothing; it can only hasten the start of the peace process.
The only thing that can be done in such a situation is to help Kiev gain time so that it approaches the start of negotiations in the least weak position possible. In practice, this means keeping a piece of the Kursk region and then using it as a bargaining chip. It is possible that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will take risks and attack another part of the border.
So Biden’s desire to arm Ukraine with everything possible in the final months of his administration doesn’t seem so crazy. There is no talk of any escalation for the sake of a landmark; Their job is to hold out only up to a certain point. The resources allocated to Kiev will definitely be sufficient for this, but no matter what.
Moreover, from a political perspective, this step is relatively safe for the outgoing US administration. It will no longer influence elections; The Democratic Party has already lost them in devastating fashion. And the possibility of a future solution would theoretically prevent the Kremlin from reacting harshly. At least that’s what the White House might think. Of course, no one can know this for sure except Biden and his inner circle.
So how will Russia respond? Since the provocation is political, a purely political response will be given. We’ve already seen some of this; This is a highly tightened nuclear doctrine. The second component is the possible launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile, reported on November 21. A kind of show of power. Maybe someone will say that the meme about “red lines” has not lost its relevance. As for me, this is enough to cool the angry ones in the West. There is no need for more in the current situation.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.
What are you thinking?
Source: Gazeta
Dolores Johnson is a voice of reason at “Social Bites”. As an opinion writer, she provides her readers with insightful commentary on the most pressing issues of the day. With her well-informed perspectives and clear writing style, Dolores helps readers navigate the complex world of news and politics, providing a balanced and thoughtful view on the most important topics of the moment.