Ukraine’s quest for authorization to launch long-range strikes on Russian territory appeared to have been resolved in October when, after hearing Zelensky’s “Victory Plan,” the Biden administration decided not giving the green light. Now that the dust has settled after Trump’s resounding presidential victory, Biden’s speech reversal from this position last Sunday was a unexpected escalation. He shifted reporting on how the new administration would approach peace talks to sensational images of rockets and more war. To mark the a thousandth day of the war, Ukraine fired Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACM) in the Bryansk Oblast. Russia responded by officially promulgating its new nuclear doctrineemphatically emphasizing his desire to go “to the end” if necessary. Today it is not clear whether we are on the brink of a Third World War or whether, once again, this is just another flash in the information war.

Officials from the Biden administration and the Pentagon have made no clear statements to provide the rationale for the decision. Why give this authorization now, two months before Trump takes office and attempts to secure a peace deal in Ukraine? Most report generally gives the green light in response to Russia’s imminent use of North Korean troops to retake Kursk Oblast. U.S. and NATO officials said North Korea’s involvement an escalation on the Russian side, even if the presence of North Korean soldiers on the battlefield is still contested.

If we assume that this decision is not simply based on Biden’s desire to antagonize Trump, what could be the justification? One interpretation is that this is an attempt to deter escalation – by threatening escalation. Naturally, Washington wants to put an end to the deterioration of Ukraine’s position before the start of negotiations. But why do this when Biden is a lame-duck president with no mandate to justify his escalatory action? Furthermore, it appears that the credo of “staying with Ukraine as long as it takes” has quietly collapsed. Today, many analysts talk about inevitability to reach a deal with Putin. Trump’s return to the White House should accelerate this process.

The real reason for the green light lies in the deterioration situation on the ground in Ukraine. The same weekend Biden’s decision was announced, Russia launched its largest airstrike in a matter of months, targeting nuclear substations and energy infrastructure linking Ukraine to its western neighbors. Moscow is signaling that it may shut down Ukraine’s energy grid this winter, which could not only have catastrophic humanitarian consequences but also accelerate Ukraine’s military collapse. In this context, the US authorization form for ATACM is a weak response. There is no serious reason to believe that the use of these missiles could have a serious impact on the course of the war. Informed sources The times that Ukraine currently only has around fifty missiles. After being dismissed, Ukraine will still be on the path to defeat. Russia will probably be more furiousstubborn and vindictive. The degeneration of Western strategy in Ukraine has reached a final stage that few could have expected in 2022. Long-range strikes are a desperate gamble to deter Russia from aggressively seeking gains before opening negotiations during which kyiv could well be forced to give in. up to 20 percent of its sovereign territory.

The timing and form of authorization of deep strikes cannot therefore change the fundamental facts of the war, period conceded by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. This decision, however, creates a dangerous context in which the escalation could degenerate into an all-out war between NATO and Russia and a deadly nuclear exchange. Fortunately, several factors work against this. The first is the simple fact that kyiv did not have carte blanche to use these missiles as part of a massive, coordinated surprise attack, as it did during its Kursk offensive in August. The second is that, since Russia is winning the war, it is very unlikely, in common sense terms, that it would use nuclear weapons, which it would retain as a last resort in the face of defeat. .

Putin has other reasons for choosing restraint in response to deeper strikes. He balances fierce discussions about Russian conditions with a more peaceful sentiment toward partners such as India and Brazil. Any rash and disproportionate response from Russia would damage its reputation in the Global South. National factors also come into play. Although public opinion While the country largely supports the regime’s handling of the war in Russia, Putin cannot afford to openly act like a warmongering ogre. He must publicly demonstrate his willingness to speak, otherwise he risks alienating his diverse support base, many of whom to want an end to the war.

Although the public theater of threats and counter-threats 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 to pursue the war more aggressively, knowing that when Trump takes office there will be a reset and new rules will be made. If a game of chicken starts with the West over deep strikes, Putin is convinced he can go to the brink of nuclear war – and we will back down. Meanwhile, Russia will continue its attacks on Ukraine with the aim of causing a breakdown in the country’s social cohesion, economic viability and political stability.

At the current stage, Moscow is waiting for Trump to present peace proposals. Putin agreed to Russia’s conditions clear: the four annexed oblasts and Crimea must be recognized as Russian; Ukraine’s neutrality must be written on paper with ironclad guarantees from the West. Putin has made it clear that there will be no ceasefire or de facto freezing of the conflict before reaching an agreement. Speak in Republican circles Whether Putin would accept a frozen conflict along current lines or a twenty-year delay before Ukraine joins NATO seems completely unrealistic given what the Kremlin says and does. There is no reason to think that Russia can be bought off by a donation of territories in Donbass without a deal that resolves its core strategic concerns in Ukraine.

In the event of spectacular explosions caused by ATACM in Russia, some Ukraine supporters will repeat their claim that the West can cross Russian red lines at will without serious consequences. In reality, if Russia is showing restraint, it is most likely a reflection of cold reasoning that it is on the path to victory and that aggressive, brash retaliation does not help the cause. Regardless, there is little reason to expect Russia’s resolve to weaken; as was the case with the misjudged Kursk incursiondeep strikes will only make Russia more intransigent and determined. Biden’s parting gift to Ukraine could, like some of his other previous donations, turn out to be a poisoned chalice.

Matthew Blackburn is a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs Research Group on Russia, Asia and International Trade. He is also a researcher affiliated with the Institute of Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University. His research focuses primarily on the politics of contemporary Russia and Eurasia, including national political systems and interstate relations. He conducts research on Iran-Russia-China cooperation for Norwegian Geopolitical Center and is research coordinator for The civilizationalism project based at Stanford University.

Image: Vblinov / Shutterstock.com.