Biden’s Reckless Legacy Play: Long-Range Strikes on Russia Just Before Trump Takes Over

Biden’s recent decision to authorize Ukraine to use long-range U.S. missiles for strikes inside Russia has raised eyebrows and ignited fierce debate, particularly as he approaches the end of his presidency. This bold move, just two months before Donald Trump is set to take office, has been interpreted by many as a strategic gamble aimed at solidifying Biden's legacy while complicating the landscape for his successor.

A Significant Policy Shift

For the first time, President Biden has permitted Ukraine to deploy Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) against targets within Russian territory. This shift comes amid escalating tensions, particularly with the recent deployment of North Korean troops to support Russian military efforts in the Kursk region. Biden's decision appears to be a direct response to this development, aiming to bolster Ukraine's defensive capabilities while sending a clear message to both Moscow and Pyongyang about the risks of their military collaboration.

Timing and Implications

The timing of this decision is critical. As Biden prepares to hand over the presidency to Trump, who has expressed scepticism about continuing robust support for Ukraine, some analysts view this as a last-ditch effort by Biden to shape U.S. foreign policy in a way that aligns with his administration's vision. Critics argue that this move could escalate the conflict further, potentially leading to direct confrontations between NATO and Russia—an outcome that could have catastrophic consequences.

Escalation Risks and Consequences: While Biden’s decision aims to strengthen Ukraine’s defence, it significantly heightens the risk of retaliation by Russia. The Kremlin has already warned of "appropriate and tangible" retaliation, which could include a range of military responses, from cyber-attacks to direct strikes on NATO infrastructure or Ukrainian targets under U.S. protection. NATO’s role in this escalation is crucial; if Russia retaliates against Ukrainian targets with U.S. missiles, NATO members might be drawn into the conflict more directly. This raises the spectre of Article 5—the NATO collective defence clause—being invoked, which would compel U.S. involvement in a broader conflict, thus potentially destabilizing the European security situation.

Furthermore, the geopolitical consequences extend beyond Ukraine. With the U.S. deploying more advanced weaponry, European allies may have their own concerns about further Russian aggression on the continent. The European Union and NATO members, already under strain from economic repercussions of the war, will likely have to re-evaluate their own strategies, potentially recalibrating their support for Ukraine, depending on the severity of Russian retaliation.

Political Calculations

Biden's decision also raises questions about domestic political motivations. With Trump poised to take office—a leader who has promised to reduce U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts—Biden may be attempting to establish a narrative that underscores his administration's commitment to supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. By allowing Ukraine greater latitude in its military operations, Biden seeks to create a legacy of strong support for democratic allies in Eastern Europe, contrasting sharply with Trump’s more isolationist tendencies.

This approach has not gone unnoticed by Trump’s camp; figures like Donald Trump Jr. have criticized Biden for escalating military tensions at such a precarious time, suggesting that it could jeopardize any potential peace negotiations Trump might seek once in office. The implication is clear: Biden’s actions may complicate Trump's ability to pivot away from military engagement in Ukraine.

Legacy Versus Strategy: While Biden may be motivated by a desire to leave a strong foreign policy legacy, the strategic objectives behind this decision go beyond political calculations. Biden has long championed a firm stance against Russian aggression, and this move aligns with his broader strategy of countering Russian influence in Eastern Europe and reinforcing NATO’s credibility. The U.S. involvement in Ukraine has been framed not only as a defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty but also as a stand against authoritarianism. This decision underscores Biden's broader policy of containing Russian expansionism, particularly in light of Russia’s increasing military collaboration with North Korea.

Impact on Global Alliances

Biden’s decision raises critical questions about the broader impact on U.S. alliances, particularly within Europe. While Biden has often stressed the importance of transatlantic unity, this shift may strain relations with some NATO members who are wary of escalating the conflict further. Countries like Germany and France, which have taken a more cautious approach toward military involvement, may question whether this decision pushes the alliance too far into a direct confrontation with Russia. Additionally, NATO members may be divided on the extent of military aid to Ukraine, especially if the escalation leads to a direct confrontation with Russia.

The EU, which is already grappling with the economic and refugee crises caused by the war, could also face internal divisions. Some European nations may push for greater diplomacy and negotiation, fearing that Biden's actions could further destabilize the region. If European leaders perceive that U.S. actions are creating more instability rather than contributing to peace, it may lead to fractures in the transatlantic alliance, which could ultimately weaken NATO's ability to act as a cohesive unit.

Historical Context

This decision by Biden is not without precedent. Previous U.S. administrations have made similar moves in times of heightened geopolitical tension. In the Cold War, for instance, the U.S. supplied weapons to allies facing Soviet aggression, a policy that helped deter Soviet expansion but also raised the risk of direct confrontation. The Obama administration’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict after Russia’s annexation of Crimea similarly aimed to counter Russian influence, though it did so with a more restrained approach compared to the aggressive stance now being taken by Biden.

Comparing Biden’s approach with previous administrations, such as Reagan’s firm stance against the Soviet Union during the Cold War or Obama’s cautious engagement in Eastern Europe, sheds light on the evolution of U.S. policy in responding to Russian aggression. Biden’s decision represents the most assertive U.S. policy toward Russia since the end of the Cold War, and its consequences will likely reverberate for years to come.

Conclusion: The Path Ahead

Biden’s authorization of long-range strikes against Russia represents a pivotal moment in U.S.-Ukraine relations and poses significant risks to global stability. As he embarks on this controversial path just before transitioning power, questions remain about whether this bold move will be viewed as a courageous stand against tyranny or a reckless gamble that escalates an already volatile situation.

In the immediate future, Biden’s decision could complicate Trump’s foreign policy goals, potentially creating a legacy divide between the two administrations. The extent of U.S. involvement in Ukraine under Trump will be influenced by Biden’s actions, setting the stage for a dramatic shift—or a continued escalation—in U.S. foreign policy. Ultimately, how history judges this decision will depend on the unfolding dynamics of the conflict, the reactions of U.S. allies, and the subsequent actions of both Trump and Putin in the coming months.