On November 17, 2024, President Joe Biden made the controversial decision to authorize Ukraine to use longer-range weapons, allowing strikes deep into Russian territory. This move came as Moscow reportedly began deploying North Korean soldiers along the Ukrainian border, marking yet another bizarre twist in an already escalating conflict. For months, Ukraine had lobbied the United States to approve such actions, arguing that targeting Russian bases used to launch attacks was a necessary step in their defense strategy.
Two days later, Ukraine carried out its first strikes, hitting the Russian regions of Bryansk and Kursk with six U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). By November 21, the strikes expanded with British-made Storm Shadow cruise missiles targeting Russian positions. Moscow wasted no time retaliating, testing a hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missile and targeting Ukraine’s defense industrial complex in Dnepropetrovsk. The escalation sent shockwaves through international circles, raising fears of a broader and even more dangerous conflict.
Critics have questioned the timing and strategy behind Biden’s decision, suggesting it comes too late to significantly alter the course of a war where Ukraine appears to be losing ground. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis criticized the move, saying it unnecessarily provokes Vladimir Putin while complicating President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to resolve the conflict. Trump, who has promised a swift and decisive end to the war, reportedly laid the groundwork for peace during a recent call with Putin. Biden’s decision, however, risks undermining those efforts and handing Trump a diplomatic quagmire right as he begins his presidency.
Putin, predictably, responded with sharp warnings. He declared that any attack using Western-supplied weapons could justify Russian strikes against the countries providing them. The Russian leader accused the U.S. and its allies of escalating the conflict and highlighted his restraint in refraining from deploying intermediate-range missiles—restraint he suggested may not last if such provocations continue. Meanwhile, Russia’s parliament recently moved to solidify its claim over annexed Ukrainian territories, further entrenching the nation’s aggressive stance.
Supporters of Biden’s strategy argue that Ukraine can only prevail through decisive military victories, achieved by exhausting Russia’s resources through a prolonged conflict. Yet this optimistic view clashes with the reality on the ground. Russia has ramped up weapon production, bolstered its forces with support from China, North Korea, and Iran, and maintained an overwhelming advantage in manpower. Furthermore, Moscow’s updated nuclear doctrine raises chilling concerns, as it permits the use of nuclear weapons if a non-nuclear country like Ukraine, backed by a nuclear power, strikes Russian territory. Adding to the tension, Kremlin officials have framed Biden’s authorization as direct U.S. involvement in the war, a claim that could escalate the conflict far beyond its current scope.
