Department of Research, Strategic Studies and International Relations 20-11-2024

1- Background to This Authorization

President Joe Biden’s decision to authorize Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied long-range missiles represents a significant shift in U.S. policy. For much of the conflict, the Biden administration resisted allowing Ukraine to use American-made weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, citing concerns over escalation and NATO’s involvement. However, this decision follows months of lobbying by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who argued that the inability to target Russian infrastructure and supply chains inside its borders limited Ukraine’s defense capabilities.

The policy change coincides with North Korea sending thousands of troops and munitions to support Russia, further complicating the geopolitical balance and tilting momentum in favor of Moscow.

2- Why It Was Taken Now

Biden’s authorization comes mere weeks before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, who has repeatedly criticized Biden’s approach to the Ukraine conflict and signaled a desire to limit U.S. involvement. By approving this action now, Biden appears to lock in a trajectory for U.S. policy that will be challenging for the incoming administration to reverse. Critics have argued that this move is not only provocative but also deliberately undermines Trump’s stated goals of de-escalation.

Additionally, Biden’s decision may reflect frustration with Moscow’s recent gains and the introduction of North Korean troops. This response could be interpreted as an attempt to send a final, strong message to adversaries while consolidating support among NATO allies.

3- Reactions from Republicans and Americans

Republican leaders were swift in their condemnation of Biden’s decision. They accused him of reckless escalation and sabotaging Trump’s ability to chart a different course for U.S. foreign policy. Many Republicans have argued that this authorization risks drawing the United States into a broader conflict with Russia, contrary to Trump’s campaign pledge to reduce tensions.

Among the public, reactions are mixed. While some Americans support aiding Ukraine to counter Russian aggression, others express concern about the financial burden and potential for direct U.S. involvement in the conflict. The $56.2 billion in security aid provided to Ukraine since 2022 has fueled these domestic debates.

4- International Reaction

The decision has sparked diverse reactions globally. NATO allies are cautiously supportive, with many nations wary of direct escalation but recognizing the importance of a robust response to Russian aggression. Conversely, countries like Hungary have expressed concern about the U.S. decision, particularly with Trump signaling a potential rollback of support for Ukraine.

China has remained largely silent on the decision, reflecting its balancing act between tacit support for Russia and avoiding outright alignment that could invite global criticism. Meanwhile, North Korea’s involvement in supporting Russia adds complexity to the global response.

5- Russian Response

Russia has condemned the authorization as a dangerous escalation. The Kremlin argues that allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory crosses a red line and undermines prospects for peace negotiations. Moscow has also signaled that it views these actions as evidence of direct U.S. involvement in the war, heightening tensions and rhetoric.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree expanding the legal framework for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons in specific scenarios. The decree, published by Russian media, introduces new scenarios that may justify the use of nuclear weapons. These include deterring existential threats to the state or responding to strategic attacks with conventional weapons targeting vital infrastructure or leadership centers.

In his statements, Putin emphasized that the decree represents a “necessary step to bolster national security” in response to what he described as “increasing Western challenges.” He reaffirmed Russia’s willingness to use all means necessary to protect its sovereignty.

Experts view this move as a significant escalation in Russia’s stance, positioning nuclear deterrence as a more prominent tool in its defense policy. The decree is seen as sending a strong warning to Moscow’s adversaries in the West, particularly given the military support NATO countries continue to provide to Ukraine.

In contrast, the United States and its allies expressed deep concern over this development, accusing Moscow of heightening the risk of nuclear confrontation. International organizations have called for restraint and renewed efforts at dialogue to avert catastrophic scenarios that could jeopardize global security.

The growing tension between Russia and the West raises critical questions about whether the situation can be contained or if it will escalate further, increasing uncertainty in the current global order.

6- Potential Impacts on Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S.

Biden’s decision is poised to have wide-ranging implications:

– For Russia:

The strikes could disrupt logistics and infrastructure critical to Russia’s war effort, forcing it to stretch its military resources further. However, this may also harden Moscow’s resolve to retaliate more aggressively.

– For Ukraine:

The use of long-range missiles could bolster Ukraine’s ability to regain territory and defend itself, but it risks further alienating nations that support a negotiated settlement.

– For the U.S.:

Domestically, this decision exacerbates political polarization. Internationally, it could damage America’s ability to act as a neutral mediator under Trump’s leadership, while straining relations with NATO allies opposed to direct escalation.

 Conclusion

Biden’s decision, coming during a politically sensitive transition, raises serious questions about its timing, motivations, and potential consequences. By authorizing Ukraine to strike deep within Russia, the administration risks escalating an already volatile conflict, drawing criticism from Republicans, and complicating U.S. foreign policy under a new administration. While aimed at countering perceived gains by Russia and its allies, this move may deepen global divisions and prolong the devastating conflict.