Long-range strikes will not deter Putin

Ukraine’s pursuit of authorization for long-range strikes into Russian territory appeared to be resolved in October when the Biden administration decided not to give the green light after hearing Zelensky’s “victory plan.” Now that the dust has settled on Trump’s overwhelming presidential victory, Biden’s about-face from that position last Sunday was an unexpected escalation. The coverage shifted from how the new government would approach the peace talks to sensational images of missiles and more war. On the occasion of the thousandth day of the war, Ukraine fired Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACM) into Bryansk Oblast. Russia responded by officially announcing its new nuclear doctrine, clearly emphasizing its willingness to go “to extremes” if necessary. Now it is unclear whether we are on the brink of World War III or whether everything is just another flash in the pan of information warfare.

Biden administration and Pentagon officials have not provided clear statements to explain the reasons for the decision. Why give permission now, two months before Trump takes office and attempts to strike a peace deal in Ukraine? In most reports, the green light is usually portrayed as a response to Russia’s impending deployment of North Korean troops to retake Kursk Oblast. U.S. and NATO officials have explained North Korea’s involvement as an escalation on Russia’s part, although the presence of North Korean soldiers on the battlefield remains controversial.

If we assume that this decision is not simply based on Biden’s desire to annoy Trump, then what could be the reason for it? One reading is that it is an attempt to deter escalation – by threatening escalation. Understandably, Washington wants to prevent Ukraine’s situation from worsening before negotiations begin. But why do that when Biden is a lame-duck president with no mandate to justify his escalating actions? Furthermore, the credo of “standing with Ukraine for as long as necessary” seems to have quietly collapsed. Now various analysts are saying that a deal with Putin is inevitable. Trump’s return to the White House is expected to accelerate this process.

The real reason for the green light is the deteriorating situation on the ground in Ukraine. The same weekend that Biden’s decision was announced, Russia launched its largest airstrike in months, targeting substations and energy infrastructure that connect Ukraine to its western neighbors. Moscow is signaling that it may shut down Ukraine’s energy grid this winter, which could not only have catastrophic humanitarian consequences but also hasten Ukraine’s military collapse. In this context, America’s ATACMs endorsement is a weak riposte. There is no valid reason to believe that the use of these missiles could have a serious impact on the course of the war. Sources informed The times that Ukraine currently only has about fifty missiles. Even after their dismissal, Ukraine will still be on the path to defeat. Russia will most likely be angrier, more stubborn and more vindictive. The degeneration of the West’s strategy in Ukraine has reached an end that few would have expected in 2022. Long-range strikes are a desperate gamble to deter Russia from aggressively pursuing gains ahead of negotiations that could well pressure Kiev to give in by increasing its territory by 20 percent.

So the timing and form of authorizing deep attacks cannot change the basic facts of the war, a point acknowledged by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. But the decision creates a dangerous moment in which escalation could lead to all-out war between NATO and Russia and a deadly nuclear exchange. Fortunately, several factors counteract this. The first is the simple fact that Kiev was not given carte blanche to use these missiles in a massive, coordinated major surprise attack, as was the case with the Kursk Offensive in August. Second, since Russia is winning the war, common sense makes it very unlikely that it would use nuclear weapons, which it would reserve as a last resort in the event of defeat.

Putin has other reasons for choosing restraint in response to deeper attacks. He is balancing tough talks over Russia’s terms with a more peaceful tone toward partners like India and Brazil. Any hasty and disproportionate reaction by Russia would damage the country’s reputation in the global south. Domestic factors also play a role. Although public opinion largely supports the regime’s handling of the war in Russia, Putin cannot afford to appear openly as a warmongering monster. He must publicly demonstrate his willingness to talk or risk alienating his diverse support base, many of whom want an end to the war.

While the public theater of threat and counter-threat will continue, perhaps for another two months until Trump takes office, the reality for Ukraine remains grim. Russia has a window in which it can wage the war more aggressively, knowing full well that when Trump takes office there will be a reset and new rules drawn up. If there is a dispute with the West over deep attacks, Putin is confident that he can go straight to the brink of nuclear war – and we will back down. Meanwhile, Russia will continue its attacks on Ukraine with the aim of destroying social cohesion, economic viability and political stability in Ukraine.

Moscow is currently waiting for Trump to make peace proposals. Putin has made Russia’s conditions clear: the four annexed territories and Crimea must be recognized as Russian; Ukraine’s neutrality must be fixed on paper with ironclad guarantees from the West. Putin has made it clear that there will be no ceasefire or a virtual freeze in the conflict before an agreement is reached. Rumors in Republican circles that Putin would accept a frozen conflict in its current form or a twenty-year delay in Ukraine’s accession to NATO seem completely unrealistic compared to what the Kremlin says and does. There is no reason to believe that Russia can be bought off by donating territory in Donbass without reaching an agreement that addresses its fundamental strategic concerns in Ukraine.

In the event of some spectacular explosions by ATACMs in Russia, some Ukraine advocates will repeat their claim that the West can cross Russia’s red lines at will without serious consequences. If in reality Russia is showing restraint, it is most likely an expression of cold reasoning that it is on the way to victory and hot-headed aggressive reprisals will not help the cause. In any case, there is little reason to believe that Russia’s resolve will weaken; As with the ill-advised invasion of Kursk, heavy attacks will only make Russia more intransigent and determined. Biden’s parting gift to Ukraine, like some of his other past donations, could prove to be a poisoned chalice.

Matthew Blackburn is a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Research group on Russia, Asia and international trade. He is also an associated researcher at the Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University. His research focuses primarily on the politics of contemporary Russia and Eurasia, including both domestic political systems and interstate relations. He is engaged in research on cooperation between Iran, Russia and China Norwegian Geopolitics Center and is research coordinator for The Civilizationalism Project based at Stanford University.

Image: Vblinov / Shutterstock.com.