ANALYSIS | Biden’s green light for Ukraine to use long-range weapons on Russia only raises the stakes in a war Trump will inherit

() – US President Joe Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range US missiles on Russia follows a familiar pattern.

The White House has refused for months to grant an arms request from Ukraine, fearing it would be an escalation. Kyiv loudly denounces the refusal, and just when the request seems to have been shelved, the Biden administration approves it.

Ukraine’s request for HIMARS, Abrams tanks, F16s, all followed a similar pattern of rejection and prevarication, and then concession, almost at the point when it is too late.

Is it too late for U.S.-made military tactical missile systems, or ATACMS, to make a difference if they hit targets deep inside Russia?

The answer is complex and may explain some of the Biden administration’s reluctance to grant permission.

Firstly, Ukraine has a limited supply of long-range anti-aircraft missiles, so even the fact that Kyiv can strike deeper into Russia (and the maximum range of anti-aircraft missiles is 100 km) is not worth it. to produce a sudden change on the battlefield.

Analysts have enumbered the volume of Russian targets that are within range of these missiles (the Institute for the Study of War has listed hundreds of targets) after the Biden administration apparently reported that Russian airfields within range of anti-aircraft missiles had spotted their attack evacuees in deeper areas of Russia.

But in reality, Ukraine will not get enough long-range anti-aircraft missiles to alter the course of the war.

Second, Ukraine has been able to penetrate deeper into Russia using cheaper, domestically-made drones. The United States has agreed to help finance the development of these devices, which appear to have wreaked havoc on Moscow airports and throughout Russia’s energy infrastructure.

Third, the permission to use American precision missiles to strike deeper into Russia is, as it seems, quite provocative.

It is true that Moscow is currently weak militarily and is unlikely to seek an all-out conflict with NATO or the US.

But at some point, the Kremlin will try to regain its deterrence capacity. Moscow’s intelligence services have been blamed for sabotage of civilian targets across Europe, including recent reports that explosive packages on courier planes within Europe.

Joe Biden’s administration was right to weigh the practical utility of long-range strikes against the potential for civilian collateral damage to NATO member states if Russia felt compelled to retaliate in some way.

So it was not as simple or obvious a decision as some advocates in Kyiv claimed. The broader goal appears to have been to get the Biden administration more involved in the Ukraine war, to really take off the gloves.

However, the White House is eager to emphasize that the deployment of North Korean soldiers in Kursk prompted his decision, which is the US response to Moscow’s escalation.

Western officials have noted that the North Korean deployment represents the expansion of the conflict in Ukraine and its becoming something in which the United States’ adversaries in the Indo-Pacific now have a role; which has made the war a little more global for the United States.

In Biden’s eyes, this is an escalation, in response to an escalation.

But the fact that it took so long because of the extraordinary symbolism of granting this permission only increases the power of the decision you just made.

President-elect Donald Trump may think he can talk peace, but he will inherit a war in which the stakes have just risen significantly.