Washington, D.C. — In what could become one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency, Joe Biden is reportedly considering allowing Ukraine to strike targets deep within Russian territory using U.S.-supplied long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). The potential policy shift, reported in Beltway-focused publications known for intelligence community leaks, has sparked fierce warnings from Moscow and raised fears of an escalation that could widen the conflict.
Until now, the Biden administration has restricted Ukraine’s use of ATACMS to targets within its borders, citing concerns that strikes on Russian soil could provoke the Kremlin into treating the United States as a direct participant in the war. However, Ukrainian officials argue that targeting military assets inside Russia is essential for crippling its war machine before its forces reach the frontlines.
The Kremlin wasted no time responding to the reports, with figures close to Russian President Vladimir Putin issuing dire warnings. Leonid Slutsky, a leader of Russia's systemic opposition party, condemned the potential decision, accusing the outgoing Biden administration of recklessly escalating the conflict.
“The Biden administration cannot help but understand that it leaves the Trump team with the problem of resolving not only the Ukrainian conflict but also an even more acute one – preventing a global confrontation,” Slutsky stated, referencing the looming transition of power in Washington. He warned that such a move would lead to the U.S. being seen as a direct combatant, inviting "the harshest response" from Moscow.
Slutsky went further, suggesting that if Biden's actions pushed the world closer to a broader conflict, he would earn the moniker "Bloody Joe" in Russian media circles. The remarks echo Moscow’s long-standing narrative that Western support for Ukraine is a primary driver of instability.
The timing of this potential policy change has not gone unnoticed. With President-elect Donald Trump set to take office in January, the Biden administration’s final months have been marked by a flurry of activity on the international stage. Critics argue the move could saddle the incoming administration with a deepened conflict, while supporters claim it demonstrates a commitment to helping Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression.
White House officials have not confirmed the reports, but analysts note the shift could be aimed at deterring Russia’s continued missile barrages and forcing Moscow to reconsider its strategy. Ukraine has long lobbied for greater freedom to strike inside Russian territory, arguing that such operations are essential for neutralizing threats before they reach the battlefield.
The implications of such a decision could be profound. While Ukraine has conducted drone strikes and other limited operations within Russia, the use of U.S.-supplied ATACMS would mark a significant escalation. Russian officials have previously warned that such actions could cross a "red line," potentially prompting direct retaliation against U.S. assets or allies.
Despite the rhetoric, some experts believe Russia’s threats are tempered by its own strategic limitations. "While Moscow is issuing fiery statements, its confidence in thwarting Ukrainian strikes suggests a degree of posturing," said a defense analyst. "Still, the risks of miscalculation on both sides remain dangerously high."
As President-elect Trump prepares to take office, the Biden administration's final foreign policy moves will undoubtedly shape the geopolitical landscape he inherits. Trump, who has expressed a desire to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, faces the challenge of navigating heightened tensions if the ATACMS policy change proceeds.
The decision underscores the delicate balancing act in Washington as it supports Ukraine’s sovereignty while trying to avoid a broader conflict. Whether Biden's reported move is a calculated show of strength or a gamble that raises the stakes in an already volatile war, its consequences will likely reverberate far beyond his presidency.
Comments