#Title

Could Biden’s gambit lead to a larger catastrophe?
A group of US Air Force personnel is busy at an ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) facility. They have just launched a strike targeting a weapons depot near the town of Karachev in Russia’s Bryansk region, about 70 miles from Ukraine. Crews perform around-the-clock alert duty in the launch control centre. A specially configured E-6B airborne aircraft with fully qualified missile combat crews hovers nearby, ready to assume control if the ground team is incapacitated. The missiles come from the US, paid for by its taxpayers, use American software and satnav guiding systems, and hit Russian targets. Located in Ukraine, this ATACMS facility can hit 225 Russian military installations within its 300 km range. The stakes are high as US President Joe Biden has authorised the use of ATACMS against Russia.
The ramifications of this policy shift could be disastrous for humanity, potentially leading to wider wars. How could a president who has already lost a public mandate against the president-elect promising to end the war make such a significant policy decision in his final months? This controversial move could alter the course of the war in Ukraine, with impacts extending far beyond Eastern Europe’s battlefields, and it raises complex questions.
A strategic legacy or a political statement?
Supporters may consider this an effort to leave a lasting foreign policy legacy. While his presidency is nearing its end, Biden may attempt to bolster Ukraine’s military strength before any likely policy shift by the incoming administration. However, this move could complicate Trump’s approach to Ukraine, as he often leaned toward reducing American involvement in the conflict. He could find himself in a position where reversing Biden’s policies becomes a politically fraught endeavour. Though there is no clear indication that Biden is trying to undermine his successor, the timing and scale of this decision suggest a desire to lock in US support for Ukraine that could prove difficult to undo.
Could the defence contractors’ financial interests be at play? Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the ATACMS, stands to gain from the continued flow of military aid to Ukraine. The billions of dollars spent on military aid—much of it directed toward defence companies—raise legitimate concerns about their influence on the policies of both political parties.
Risks of escalation and Europe’s role
While Biden’s decision may appear to be a calculated effort to disrupt Russia’s military operations and bolster Ukraine’s position in future negotiations, the risks are enormous. Moscow has already signalled that it would consider such strikes an escalation, potentially opening the door to more aggressive Russian retaliation. This could lead to a broader conflict, one that could spill over into NATO countries or even provoke a catastrophic nuclear exchange. Although the likelihood of a nuclear strike remains low, the risks associated with heightened tensions between nuclear powers cannot be overstated.
Europe finds itself caught in a delicate balancing act. On one hand, the European Union and NATO allies have largely supported Ukraine’s right to defend itself. On the other, many European leaders are wary of escalating the conflict further, fearing confrontation with Russia or destabilisation of the region. The war has strained Europe’s energy security, economic stability, and political cohesion. Energy prices have surged, inflation is hitting consumers hard, and the spectre of rising military tensions looms large. The recent uptick in hybrid warfare tactics, including cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, only adds to the uncertainty. Future hybrid attacks could include expanding Moscow’s campaign of sabotage and assassinations in Europe or further arming US adversaries in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific regions. With suspected Russian support, two undersea fibre-optic communication cables in the Baltic Sea have already been sabotaged.
Is Biden desperate?
The legacy of his presidency—one marked by global challenges, economic turbulence, and the rise of authoritarianism—will, in part, be defined by how the war in Ukraine unfolds. It was Joe Biden who decided to hurriedly withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving it to the Taliban in August 2021 after two decades of futile attempts and the loss of many American lives and money to stamp them out. That was when the Ukraine crisis was about to surface, probably timed to salvage American credibility lost in Afghanistan. Biden wouldn’t want to leave a similar legacy in Ukraine.
The future of US support for Ukraine
With ATACMS in hand, Ukraine now has a tool to strike at Russia’s military infrastructure, disrupting supply lines and potentially shifting the balance of power. However, that doesn’t mean Kyiv can use them at will. The facilities are controlled, managed, and operated by US personnel, who have the final say on when and how the missiles are used. This means that the US has a significant degree of control over the situation and can potentially prevent Ukraine from using the missiles in ways that could escalate the conflict. However, the presence of the missiles also increases the possibility of more destructive Russian attacks, as they may see the US as directly involved in the conflict.
For Russia, the situation is fraught with danger. The Kremlin’s response could involve a ramping up of military operations—with the ever-present threat of cyber warfare and the use of unconventional weapons.
As President Trump prepares to take office, the question remains: Will he seek to reverse Biden’s policy or adopt a different strategy? Trump’s previous comments suggest he may push for a swift end to the conflict, potentially at the expense of Ukrainian territorial integrity. If he succeeds in scaling back US military aid, Ukraine could be at a disadvantage, with a weakened negotiating position against a more aggressive Russia.
The world will be watching closely in the months ahead. Biden’s decision may reshape the course of the war, the future of US-Russian relations, the stability of Europe, and the global balance of power.
Russia launched a barrage of hypersonic missiles at Ukraine in retaliation within days after Ukraine’s strike (after notifying Washington 30 minutes prior). The world holds its breath, hoping the risks don’t spiral into something far worse.