\n
![](\"https:\/\/en.hamsonews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/5262882.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
Ukraine\u2019s quest for permission to launch long-range strikes on Russian territory seemed to have been resolved in October when, after hearing Zelensky\u2019s \u201cVictory Plan,\u201d the Biden administration decided\u00a0not to give the green light. Now, with the dust settled on Trump\u2019s resounding presidential victory, Biden\u2019s\u00a0reversal\u00a0of this position last Sunday was an\u00a0unexpected escalation. It moved reporting from how the new administration would approach peace talks to sensational images of rockets and more war. To mark the\u00a0one-thousandth day\u00a0of the war, Ukraine fired Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) into the\u00a0Bryansk Oblast. Russia has responded by officially promulgating its\u00a0new nuclear doctrine, underlining starkly its willingness to go \u201call the way\u201d if necessary. Now, it is unclear if we stand on the brink of World War III or if, once again, it is all just another flash in the pan of informational warfare.<\/p>\n
Officials from the Biden administration and the Pentagon have not made any clear statements to justify the rationale behind the decision. Why give the permission now, two months before Trump comes into office and attempts to make a peace deal in Ukraine? Most\u00a0reporting\u00a0usually presents the green light as a response to Russia\u2019s imminent use of North Korean troops to retake the Kursk Oblast. U.S. and NATO officials have declared\u00a0North Korea\u2019s involvement\u00a0an escalation from the Russian side, even though the presence of North Korean soldiers on the battlefield\u00a0is still contested.<\/p>\n
If we assume this decision is not simply based on Biden\u2019s desire to spite Trump, what could the rationale be? One reading is that it is an attempt to deter escalation\u2014by threatening escalation. Understandably, Washington wants to stop a deterioration of Ukraine\u2019s position prior to the opening of negotiations. But why do this when Biden is a lame-duck president without a mandate to justify his escalatory action? Furthermore, it appears the credo of \u201cstanding with Ukraine for as long as it takes\u201d has quietly collapsed. Now, a range of analysts talk about the\u00a0inevitability\u00a0of making a deal with Putin. Trump\u2019s return to the White House is expected to\u00a0accelerate\u00a0this process.<\/p>\n
The real reason for the green light lies in the\u00a0worsening\u00a0situation on the ground in Ukraine. On the same weekend that Biden\u2019s decision was reported, Russia launched its\u00a0largest air strike\u00a0in months, targeting nuclear power substations and energy infrastructure connecting Ukraine to its Western neighbors. Moscow is signaling it can shut down Ukraine\u2019s energy grid this winter, which could not only have catastrophic humanitarian consequences but also accelerate Ukraine\u2019s military collapse. In this context, America\u2019s ATACMs permission slip is a feeble riposte. There is no strong reason to think the use of these missiles can have any serious impact on the course of the war. Sources informed\u00a0The Times\u00a0that Ukraine only has around fifty missiles at this time. After they have been fired, Ukraine will still be on the road to defeat. Russia will most likely be more\u00a0infuriated, stubborn, and vindictive. The degeneration of the West\u2019s strategy in Ukraine has reached an endgame few would have expected back in 2022. Long-range strikes are a desperate gamble to deter Russia from aggressively pursuing gains prior to the opening of negotiations in which Kyiv may well be pressured to give up 20 percent of its sovereign territory.<\/p>\n
The timing and form of permission for deep strikes, then, cannot change the basic facts of the war, a point\u00a0conceded\u00a0by U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. The decision does, however, create a dangerous juncture in which escalation could spiral into an all-out NATO-Russia war and a deadly nuclear exchange. Thankfully, several factors work against this. The first is the simple fact that Kyiv has not been given carte blanch to use these missiles in a massive coordinated major surprise attack, as it did in its August Kursk offensive. The second is that, as Russia is winning the war, in commonsense terms, they are very unlikely to use nuclear weapons, which they would save as a last resort when facing defeat.<\/p>\n
Putin has other reasons for choosing restraint in reaction to more deep strikes. He balances the hard talk on Russia\u2019s terms with more peaceful sentiment for partners such as India and Brazil. Any rash and disproportionate response from Russia would cause reputation damage in the Global South. There are also domestic factors at play. Although\u00a0public opinion\u00a0is largely supportive of the regime\u2019s handling of the war inside Russia, Putin cannot afford to operate openly as a warmongering ogre. He must publicly show a willingness to talk or risk alienating his diverse support base, many of whom\u00a0want\u00a0an end to the war.<\/p>\n
While the public theater of threat and counter-threat will continue, perhaps for the next two months until Trump takes office, the reality of the situation remains grim for Ukraine. Russia has a window where it can prosecute the war more aggressively, knowing that when Trump comes in, there will be a reset, and new rules will be worked out. If a game of chicken starts with the West over deep strikes, Putin is confident he can go right to the brink of nuclear war\u2014and we will back down. Meanwhile, Russia will continue its assaults on Ukraine with the aim of causing a breakdown of social cohesion, economic viability, and political stability in Ukraine.<\/p>\n
At the current stage, Moscow is waiting for Trump to come up with proposals for peace. Putin has made Russia\u2019s terms\u00a0clear: the four annexed oblasts and Crimea must be recognized as Russian; Ukraine\u2019s neutrality must be fixed on paper with ironclad guarantees from the West. Putin has made it clear there will be no ceasefire or de facto freezing of the conflict prior to achieving a deal. Talk in\u00a0Republican circles\u00a0that Putin will accept a frozen conflict on the current lines or a twenty-year delay on Ukraine joining NATO looks utterly unrealistic next to what the Kremlin is saying and doing. There is no reason to think Russia can be bought off with a gift of territory in the Donbas without a deal that resolves their fundamental strategic concerns in Ukraine.<\/p>\n
In the event of some spectacular explosions caused by ATACMs in Russia, some of Ukraine\u2019s supporters will repeat their claim that the West can cross Russia\u2019s redlines at will without serious consequences. In reality, if Russia shows restraint, it is most likely a reflection of the cold reasoning that they are on the path to victory and hot-headed aggressive reprisals do not help the cause. In any case, there is little reason to expect Russia\u2019s resolve to weaken; as was the case with the ill-judged\u00a0Kursk incursion, deep strikes will only make Russia more intransigent and determined. Biden\u2019s parting gift to Ukraine may, like some of his other previous donations, turn out to be a poisoned chalice.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Matthew Blackburn\u00a0is a Senior Researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs\u2019\u00a0Research Group on Russia, Asia, and International Trade.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n