Staff Reports
President Joe Biden has officially given the green light for Ukraine to use American long-range missiles against the Russian mainland. This marks a notable shift in strategy, especially since the Biden administration had previously kept a tight leash on these missiles to prevent any unnecessary escalation of the conflict. After a lengthy hold-up, and with the added motivation of North Korea allegedly sending troops to assist Russia, the restrictions were lifted over the weekend, making it a significant game-changer on the battlefield.
In a past life, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stood firm against such aggressive maneuvers, often promising a strong reaction to any cross-border antics from Moscow. However, it seems that standard operating procedures are getting tossed out the window faster than the price of gasoline under Biden’s economic policies. With the transition to a potential Trump administration looming and the former president’s commitment to putting an end to the conflict, one can’t help but wonder if this move is more about legacy-preserving than it is about strategy. After all, allowing Ukraine to launch attacks deep into Mother Russia isn’t exactly a low-risk play.
The decision to utilize Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) has sent Biden’s advisers into a tizzy, splitting perspectives on whether this is a smart move. Some seem to think that allowing Ukraine to strike further into Russian territory could provoke a drastic backlash, resulting in retaliation against U.S. interests. It’s a classic case of “What could possibly go wrong?”—a feeling that seems to accompany nearly every major action taken by this administration. The notion that this artillery could trigger a ramp-up in aggression from Russia, or worse, lead them to supply advanced weaponry to hostile actors, has not entirely fallen on deaf ears.
However, the most curious aspect of this strategic decision is that, according to some military experts, the window of opportunity might be closing faster for Ukraine than a discount store on Black Friday. Most high-value targets in Russia have reportedly been relocated outside the operational range of the ATACMS, which begs the question: What’s the point? It’s like giving someone a shiny new hammer but reminding them that the closest nails are two hundred miles away—ideal for all-important moral victories, but not particularly useful in the heat of battle.
Biden approves Ukraine using long-range US missiles as Russia targets infrastructure https://t.co/y2QnJ29PD7 via @dcexaminer
One more step towards a much larger war.
— Gene Pavlova (@GenePavlova) November 17, 2024
As if that weren’t enough, recent developments on the ground suggest that while the West plays a strategic chess game, Russia is rolling out brutal missile assaults targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure just in time for winter. With the implications of old-school geopolitics at play, Zelensky claims that Russia recently unleashed a missile barrage consisting of 120 cruise and ballistic missiles alongside 90 drones. Perhaps Biden’s newfound belief in giving Ukraine the ability to strike deeper into Russian territory isn’t just about the front lines but is also a way to distract from the real issues at home—like a high-stakes game of “Look over there!” aimed at diverting attention from rising energy costs brought on by the same administration.
Ultimately, the next few months will be telling regarding how Biden’s gambit will resonate with the American people and the incoming Trump administration. Former President Trump has made clear his intention to put an end to what he considers a forever war, possibly at the expense of Ukrainian territory. Biden’s latest maneuver might very well complicate that approach, as Russia seemingly has no plans to ease pressure on Ukraine anytime soon. The tension continues to build, and conservative Americans are left witnessing the unfolding saga, all while hoping for a coherent strategy that doesn’t involve forcing a game of geopolitical roulette.
