The United States decision to permit the use of Western long-range missiles on territory previously controlled by Russia marks one of the most serious escalations in the Ukraine conflict over the past two and a half years.
On the battlefield, the immediate changes may not be evident, but the rhetoric has climbed to new heights. Moscow has signaled a willingness to leverage a nuclear option in its messaging, Western conservatives accuse President Biden of edging toward a global confrontation, while liberal voices respond with cautious ambivalence. In this dynamic, Vladimir Zelensky appears outwardly pleased, as if victory were already within reach, even though the situation on the ground remains unsettled.
There are real questions about whether Biden’s decision will alter the trajectory of the war. Senior advisers have acknowledged that Kyiv needs more soldiers and sustained combat readiness, not merely new weapons systems. And despite the introduction of long-range systems, recent strikes have not produced a decisive breakthrough for Ukrainian forces.
Ukrainian forces have been deploying Storm Shadow/SCALP since 2023 and ATACMS since spring 2024. Yet attacks on Russian facilities in new regions and Crimea have not yielded a clear advantage. It is unclear how many missiles Kyiv still possesses. The Times reported that about 50 ATACMS remain in reserve, while in September The Telegraph characterized Storm Shadow/SCALP stocks as relatively modest, roughly around a hundred missiles in circulation.
Reserves are unlikely to endure much longer, and the question remains what results they will deliver. If Kyiv scores three or four relatively large blows, the side might then face a period of austerity. Is such a gamble worth it, given Moscow’s heightened response and the risk of a sharper clash? The prevailing assessment suggests probably not.
From one vantage point, the West’s decision might appear reckless at first glance. Yet the action aligns with a tradition of cautious American diplomacy and with President Biden’s temperament, implying that the calculus rests beyond mere military considerations and extends into political strategy.
There is a common sense in Russia and the West that Biden aims to block Donald Trump’s plan to revive negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow should he win the presidency. Some argue that Putin, fearing a loss of face, could escalate further to test Western hawks, while Trump might feel compelled to maintain support for Ukraine. Critics describe Biden’s moves as the choice of a leader who refuses to surrender influence, and they label the alternative as a betrayal of American interests.
But the same calculation could backfire. Rising anger toward the outgoing administration could push the next president to shut the Ukrainian chapter entirely. If Trump wins, he could cast himself as a savior who prevents a wider catastrophe, reshaping the political landscape. It remains unclear whether Biden and his allies anticipate or accept this possibility.
In this view, the West understands that Ukraine must remain at the negotiating table, and a change in leadership might not erase that fact but could hasten the path to diplomacy. The objective would be to buy Kyiv time, strengthening its position before talks begin, potentially preserving a slice of leverage on the border while avoiding a decisive widening of hostilities.
Consequently, Biden’s push to arm Ukraine further in the final months of his term may not be irrational. The aim is to sustain pressure and endurance rather than seek a dramatic, immediate breakthrough. The resources allocated appear designed to sustain Kyiv under current conditions, regardless of the eventual pace of escalation.
From a political standpoint, the move is framed as comparatively safe for the outgoing administration. It is unlikely to sway electoral outcomes, and the possibility of shaping a future settlement could deter harsher Kremlin responses. Only Biden and his inner circle can know the full calculus behind this approach.
How Moscow responds remains a political calculation. Signals of a tightened nuclear doctrine and discussions around potential strategic demonstrations are present in security briefings. Observers note that the broader message may be aimed at cooling Western nerves rather than provoking a new battlefield escalation. The dynamics continue to hinge on negotiations, perceptions, and restraint rather than on any single move.
The analysis presented here represents one perspective amid a broad spectrum of views about the conflict and its possible futures.