Is Biden Trying to Go Out With A Bang?

I have written several articles on our Presidential candidate Biden and President Biden. A list of the links have been provided at the bottom of this article for your convenience. This article will, however address different aspects on Biden’s presidency.

President Biden’s authorization for Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russia marks a significant shift in U.S. policy, potentially escalating the conflict and altering the strategic landscape.

At a Glance

Biden authorizes Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles for strikes inside Russia.
ATACMS can travel up to 190 miles, threatening Russian supply lines and bases.
Decision comes as North Korea deploys troops to support Russian forces.
Move aims to bolster Ukraine’s defense but may not be a game-changer.
Policy shift occurs shortly before President-elect Trump’s return to office.

Biden’s Strategic Pivot: Arming Ukraine with Long-Range Capability

In a bold move that reshapes the dynamics of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, President Biden has given Ukraine the green light to employ American long-range weapons, specifically the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), for strikes inside Russian territory. This decision marks a significant departure from previous U.S. policy and comes at a critical juncture in the ongoing war.

The ATACMS missiles, with a range of approximately 190 miles, provide Ukrainian forces with the ability to target Russian weapons stockpiles, logistical centers, and airfields deep within enemy territory. This newfound capability is expected to put increased pressure on Russian military operations and potentially disrupt their supply lines.

Escalating Tensions and International Reactions

The timing of this authorization is particularly noteworthy, as it coincides with reports of North Korean troops being deployed to the Kursk region of Russia to support Russian forces. This development has raised concerns about the potential for further escalation and the involvement of additional international actors in the conflict.

International reactions to Biden’s decision have been mixed. Poland, a staunch supporter of Ukraine, welcomed the move, with Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski emphasizing Ukraine’s right to defend itself. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously warned that such actions would signify NATO’s direct involvement in the Ukraine war, potentially leading to further escalation.

Impact on Ukraine’s Defense and Future Negotiations

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has long advocated for this policy change, emphasizing the importance of long-range strike capabilities for Ukraine’s victory. The authorization is seen as a strategic support for Ukraine to maintain leverage in potential future negotiations with Russia.

However, experts caution that while this development is significant, it may not be a game-changer due to the limited number of missiles available and Ukraine’s existing use of drones against Russian targets. The true impact of this policy shift remains to be seen as the conflict continues to evolve.

Uncertain Future: Trump’s Return and Continued Support

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, questions arise about the future of U.S. support for Ukraine. Trump has been critical of the aid given to Ukraine, and there are concerns that his administration may revoke the authorization or reduce overall support.

The U.S. has provided $175 billion in aid to Ukraine, making it the largest contributor to Ukraine’s defense. A reduction in this support could significantly impact Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian attacks and maintain its territorial integrity. As the conflict enters a new phase with the authorization of long-range missiles, the international community watches closely to see how this strategic shift will influence the course of the war and the balance of power in the region.

Why the US is giving Ukraine the green light to attack inside Russia

One hand may be coming untied. The White House announced Thursday that it will allow Ukraine to use US weapons for limited strikes inside Russia—a reversal of a policy that had been criticized for, in the words of the Czech foreign minister, leaving Ukraine to fight “with one hand tied behind its back.” We turned to our leading Ukraine-watcher to get his assessment.

Less than meets the eye

Facing pressure from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and NATO allies, the Biden administration has changed course, but it has “done so in its now well-known overly cautious way,” John tells us.
The decision comes with serious strings attached, he points out: “Ukraine may only use the weapons in Russian territory bordering northeast Ukraine.” Plus, strikes “can only be directed at massed troops on the border and weapons systems attacking or preparing to attack Ukraine.”
According to John, that seems to rule out letting Ukraine use the 300-kilometer range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)—which the United States first sent to Ukraine in March—even though the range of that system does not extend “very deep into Russia.” He adds that “it’s unclear” whether Ukraine will be allowed to use the 150-kilometer range ATACMS.

The Kharkiv conundrum

The urgency of the course correction has to do with Russia’s ongoing advance on Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, which sits just thirty kilometers from the Russian border.
Kharkiv “has been pounded mercilessly by artillery and bombs launched by Russian aircraft just over the border,” John notes, where Russian forces enjoyed “sanctuary” under the Biden administration’s previous rules blocking Ukrainian strikes into Russia with US weapons.
The White House’s decision “does the minimum to help Ukraine with a difficult situation in the northeast,” removing “a major burden on Ukraine’s efforts to defend civilians in Kharkiv and to stop the Russian offensive,” John concludes. At the same time, it “makes public a range of restrictions that seem designed to temper Moscow’s reaction.“
“This half step is certainly better than none,” he adds, but it “does not send the necessary message of American resolve to the Kremlin.”

Biden dismisses Putin’s warnings of war with the West if Ukraine allowed to strike inside Russia

The meeting comes just days after a British newspaper said the US and UK had reportedly made the decision to allow Ukraine to use Storm Shadow missiles to strike targets deeper inside Russia.

US President Joe Biden has brushed off a threat from Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin about a war with the West if Ukraine’s allies allow it to use weapons to strike targets deeper inside Russia.

It’s a shift that Kyiv has been pressing for for weeks but no decision was immediately announced following a meeting between Biden and Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer.

“The United States is committed…to help Ukraine as a defence against Russia’s onslaught of aggression. Make it clear that Putin will not prevail in this war. The people of Ukraine will prevail,” said Biden, without making any reference to Western long-rang missiles.

Asked what he thought about Putin’s threat, Biden answered, “I don’t think much about Vladimir Putin.”

Starmer made no mention of missiles either in brief comments before official talks got under way, saying only that Ukraine was an important topic and, “I think the next few weeks and months could be crucial. Very, very important that we support Ukraine in this vital war of freedom.”

Starmer’s comments come two days after the British newspaper The Guardian reported that the US and UK had made the decision behind closed doors to allow Ukraine to use partly British-made Storm Shadow missiles to strike targets deeper inside Russia.

Two anonymous US officials said they believed Starmer was seeking Biden’s approval to allow Ukraine to use the missiles as some of their components are made in America.

The US, concerned about any steps that could lead Russia to escalate the conflict, has moved cautiously before granting a series of earlier requests from Ukraine for specific arms, including advanced tanks, missiles and F-16 fighter jets.

Meanwhile, at the United Nations in New York, Moscow’s ambassador told the Security Council that NATO would be conducting “direct war” against Russia if approval were given to use Western-donated weapons to strike Russia.

“In this case, we will have to, as you understand, take the relevant decisions with all the consequences for this that the western aggressors would incur,” Vasily Nebenzya said.

“We’re not talking about a game here. The facts are that NATO will be a direct party to hostilities against a nuclear power. I think you shouldn’t forget about this.”

Those remarks echoed comments Vladimir Putin made in Saint Petersburg on Thursday, in which he warned the West of consequences if Kyiv was granted the permission it is seeking.

Meanwhile the former Russian president – and now Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council – Dmitry Medvedev said on Saturday that Russia could destroy Ukraine’s capital Kyiv with non-nuclear weapons.

“What arrogant Anglo-Saxon dimwits fail to admit, though, is that you can only test someone’s patience for so long. It will turn out in the end that certain moderate Western analysts were right when they warned: ‘True, the Russians are not likely to use this response, although… it’s still a possibility. Besides, they may use new delivery vehicles with conventional payloads”, Medvedev wrote both in Russian and English on the Telegram messaging app.

Despite the warnings from the Kremlin, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy remained resolute that permission to strike military targets in Russia is crucial to turning the tables in the war.

Speaking at the Yalta European Strategy Meeting in Kyiv he said Putin doesn’t need approval to hit targets in Ukraine.

“When we hear that new missiles have arrived in Russia from Iran, it is the same evil that the allies have already had to shoot down in the skies of the Middle East,” he said.

“If the allies are jointly shooting down missiles and drones in the skies over the Middle East, why is there still no similar decision to jointly shoot down Russian missiles and Iranian ‘Shaheds’ [drones] over Ukraine?”

Why Biden and Starmer are preparing to let Ukraine use western missiles deep inside Russia

A green light for the use of the Storm Shadow missile has been billed as a defining moment in the war – and Vladimir Putin has threatened that its use “would mean that Nato countries … are at war with Russia”. Is it a risk worth taking?

Keir Starmer’s visit with Joe Biden at the White House this afternoon is undoubtedly the most high-profile meeting with a foreign leader of his premiership so far – but for today, at least, the overwhelming focus is on one issue: the war in Ukraine.

At stake, after a week of intense diplomatic choreography between the two sides, is an agreement reported by the Guardian on Wednesday to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of western-supplied long-range missiles to attack targets deep inside Russia. The gravity of finalising that decision was underlined by comments from Vladimir Putin yesterday: any such move, he said, “would mean that Nato countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia”.

So how serious is that risk – and why are Ukraine’s allies now ready to supply these missiles after months of lobbying from Kyiv? For today’s newsletter, I spoke to Dan Sabbagh, the Guardian’s defence and security editor, about what’s changed – and what it could mean for the course of the war.

“It’s being billed as a broad strategic discussion,” Dan Sabbagh said, shortly before joining a flight to Washington with Starmer and foreign secretary David Lammy. “It’s likely that the first explicit sign we’ll have of any change is a loud ‘bang’.”

The reticence about the change that now appears close to being signed off is one piece of evidence for how sensitive a subject this is. “Ukraine has been desperate for this to happen for a long time,” Dan said. “But the White House has been grappling with whether it’s an escalatory move. Make no mistake: what you’re talking about here is a change that could take the war to Russia in a meaningful way.”

What are Storm Shadow missiles, and why does Ukraine want them?

Storm Shadow missiles can hit targets up to 250km from their launch site – meaning that they could strike well within Russian territory. They are powerful enough to penetrate bunkers and ammunition stores and damage airfields, and they can be precisely targeted.

They were developed in an Anglo-French collaboration, and manufactured by a joint venture which also involves Italy – and using components supplied by the US. All four countries would have to sign off on any change to the conditions attached to their use, even if they are not the direct suppliers themselves. The missiles in question are expected to be supplied by Britain and France, not the US – but the New York Times reports that a decision could follow about the comparable US ATACMS missiles in the coming weeks.

Ukraine already has Storm Shadow – but it is only permitted to use the missiles within its own territory. Kyiv has been lobbying for months for that to change so that it can direct them at targets on Russian soil, arguing that it is being severely hampered in its efforts to defend itself against regular missile and glide bomb attacks launched from within Russia. While it does have drones and cruise missiles that can strike within Russia, it doesn’t have anything like enough of them to make a significant impact – and they are often intercepted.

“There is an acknowledgment in Ukraine that they aren’t going to win by slogging it out on the eastern front,” Dan said. “But they believe they have success when they are innovative, and they think they could use these weapons to make Putin think again.”

Why are the US and UK ready to give the go-ahead now?

Throughout the war, the US and its allies have sought to strike a balance between giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself – while avoiding any move that could be viewed as a provocation, and lead to direct involvement in the war. But it appears that Kyiv’s lobbying has swayed western diplomats.

“Everyone in the west is very careful about getting out of step with the Americans,” Dan said. “But while the US has been reluctant, the British have been trying to be a bridge between Washington and Kyiv.” Over the last week, he noted, the choreography between the US and UK has been striking – with defence ministers talking to Volodymyr Zelenskiy last Friday, then CIA chief Bill Burns at a joint event with MI6 chief Richard Moore on Saturday, then US secretary of state Anthony Blinken and Lammy’s trip to see Zelenskiy in Kyiv on Wednesday (pictured above).

“We don’t know definitively what the order of the discussions was, because nobody wants the Russians to know exactly what’s going on,” he added. “But it looks like everyone was waiting for Biden, and now the US is onboard, it’s essentially a done deal.”

Some of the factors in that change: the pressure Ukraine is facing on the frontline, and fears of a very difficult winter ahead; Ukraine’s surprising cross-border incursion, which has reframed thinking on the use of weapons on Russian soil and acted as a reminder that Ukraine is at its most effective when it is changing the dynamic of the conflict; and the news that Russia has been furnished with a new batch of deadly ballistic missiles by Iran.

The Ukrainian incursion “helped with the argument that they can force the Russians into talks by hitting them where it hurts,” Dan said. “But the Russians are starting to recover their position in Kursk now, and there is a need to change the focus again.” The Iranian missiles, meanwhile, may be as important as a pretext as for their battlefield impact.

“It’s a bit of both, but I would slightly lean towards saying that it’s diplomatic cover for allowing the use of Storm Shadow in Russia,” Dan said.

David Lammy was at pains to blame Putin for any change in the battlefield calculus: “The escalator here is Putin,” he said. “Putin has escalated with the shipment of missiles from Iran.” Starmer struck a similar note after Putin’s threat of direct war yesterday: “Russia can end this conflict straight away. Ukraine has the right to self-defence.”

What are the benefits and risks of allowing Storm Shadow to be used within Russia?

The message from the west, Dan said, has been that Ukraine needs to give a detailed plan of how the weapons would be used, and what the limits on their deployment would be. “They have said that if there’s a clear rationale for why it would be useful, maybe they can buy into it.”

In August, Politico reported that Ukrainian officials visiting Washington would present a list of long-range targets within Russia that could be hit. While the White House has argued that Russia has been moving key assets out of range, it now appears to have been persuaded that enough meaningful targets are available to have an impact.

The Nato allies may also have been emboldened by a pattern: when Putin’s red lines on operations within Russia have been crossed previously, he has not escalated the conflict.

On the other hand, permitting the use of Storm Shadow would mean allowing the use of western weapons deeper into Russian territory than ever before. And there is an inherent tension in how Ukraine believes the weapons can be effective: by degrading Russia’s ability to strike against targets in Ukraine, yes, but also by making the toll of the war more acute within Russia for its own sake.

“However many men Russia loses while it makes progress on the frontline, there is very little political cost to Putin,” Dan said. “So the question is what would make him pay attention.” Part of that is making ordinary Russians fearful of the impact. But doing that without causing a dangerous escalation is a narrow tightrope to walk.

“The theory would be that you lean very hard into aiming at military targets well within Russia, and hope that that ripples into how people in Moscow feel about the war,” Dan said.

“But if there’s a strike that has civilian casualties, say, that is potentially a big problem for the west. And whereas with a drone strike on a remote airbase it can be deniable that there was any western assistance, you can’t mistake a big boom from a Storm Shadow. So you would hope that they will deployed in a very careful way.”

Putin’s options for Ukraine missiles response include nuclear test, experts say

Vladimir Putin’s options to retaliate if the West lets Ukraine use its long-range missiles to strike Russia could include striking British military assets near Russia or, in extremis, conducting a nuclear test to show intent, three analysts said.

As East-West tensions over Ukraine enter a new and dangerous phase, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and U.S. President Joe Biden are holding talks in Washington on Friday on whether to allow Kyiv to use long-range U.S. ATACMS or British Storm Shadow missiles against targets in Russia.

President Putin, in his clearest warning yet, said on Thursday that the West would be directly fighting Russia if it went ahead with such a move, which he said would alter the nature of the conflict.

He promised an “appropriate” response but did not say what it would entail. In June, however, he spoke of the option of arming the West’s enemies with Russian weapons to strike Western targets abroad, and of deploying conventional missiles within striking distance of the United States and its European allies.

Ulrich Kuehn, an arms expert at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy in Hamburg, said he did not rule out Putin choosing to send some kind of nuclear message – for example testing a nuclear weapon in an effort to cow the West.

“This would be a dramatic escalation of the conflict,” he said in an interview. “Because the point is, what kind of arrows has Mr Putin then left to shoot if the West then still continues, apart from actual nuclear use?”

Russia has not conducted a nuclear weapons test since 1990, the year before the fall of the Soviet Union, and a nuclear explosion would signal the start of a more dangerous era, Kuehn said, cautioning that Putin may feel he is seen as weak in his responses to increasing NATO support for Ukraine.

“Nuclear testing would be new. I would not exclude that, and it would be in line with Russia shattering a number of international security arrangements that it has signed up to over the decades during the last couple of years,” he said.

Gerhard Mangott, a security specialist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, said in an interview he also thought it was possible, though in his view not likely, that Russia’s response could include some form of nuclear signal.

“The Russians could conduct a nuclear test. They have made all the preparations needed. They could explode a tactical nuclear weapon somewhere in the east of the country just to demonstrate that (they) mean it when they say we will eventually resort to nuclear weapons.”

Russia’s U.N. ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told the U.N. Security Council on Friday that NATO would “be a direct party to hostilities against a nuclear power,” if it allowed Ukraine to use longer range weapons against Russia.

“You shouldn’t forget about this and think about the consequences,” he said.

Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power, is also in the process of revising its nuclear doctrine – the circumstances in which Moscow would use nuclear weapons. Putin is being pressed by an influential foreign policy hawk to make it more flexible in order to open the door to conducting a limited nuclear strike on a NATO country.

BRITISH BLOWBACK

In the case of Britain, Moscow was likely to declare that London had gone from a hybrid proxy war with Russia to direct armed aggression if it allows Kyiv to fire Storm Shadow missiles at Russia, former Kremlin adviser Sergei Markov said on social media platform Telegram on Friday.

Russia was likely to close the British embassy in Moscow and its own in London, strike British drones and warplanes close to Russia, for example over the Black Sea, and possibly fire missiles at F-16 warplanes that carry the Storm Shadows at their bases in Romania and Poland, Markov predicted.

Putin has tried and failed to draw red lines for the West before, prompting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy – who is urging the West to be less cautious when it comes to confronting Moscow – to dismiss their importance.

But Putin’s latest warning on long-range missiles is being seen inside and outside Russia as something he will have to act on if London or Washington allow their missiles to be used against Russia.

University of Innsbruck’s Mangott said the way Putin’s warning has been shown repeatedly on Russian state television created an expectation that he would need to deliver.

Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, told a press briefing on Friday that Putin’s message had been “extremely clear and unambiguous.”

Markov, the former Kremlin advisor, said “Russia has decided to break” the strategy of “boiling a frog on a slow flame,” referring to the West’s incremental increases in help to Ukraine aimed at not provoking a sharp Russian response.

“The step that the West is now planning next, it’s a small step, but it crosses a red line that we will actually be forced to respond to. We will consider that you are at war with us.”

Sergei Mironov, the leader of a pro-Kremlin political party, said in a press statement on Friday: “The moment of truth has come for the West, whether it desires a full-scale war with Russia.”

UKRAINE ESCALATION

Short of nuclear sabre rattling or strikes on British assets, more predictable responses might include Russia stepping up attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, Kuehn said.

Mangott predicted Kyiv would bear the brunt of Russia’s military response if the West gave it the requested green light, and he did not expect a Russian military attack on NATO territory.

Another option would be for Russia to escalate “hybrid” actions such as sabotage in Europe or interference in the U.S. election campaign, Kuehn said.

Mangott said the danger for the West was that it did not know where Putin’s red lines really were.

“Allowing Ukraine to use Western weaponry, assisted with Western satellite images (and) Western military advisers is something that very closely encroaches on vital Russian interests,” he said.

“So I think those (people) are wrong who say ‘Well nothing will happen, let’s just do it.'”

Conclusion: My Thoughts

Is this decision one final Fuck You to not only Trump and those Dems that basically forced Biden out of power? Or is Biden not in control and it is the puppet masters who are pulling the strings? One thing is for certain Putin is not someone you can fuck with. He is menatlly unstable. He also sees taking Ukraine as his way to make history. He wants to go down as the leader that brought back Russia to its former greatness. If we force his hand or make it impossible for him to “achieve his destiny”, he could just push the “RED Button” and his button is a lot bigger than ours. This is referring to a comment made by Trump to the “Little Rocket Man” of North Korea, when he was our 45th president. Biden made a comment to Trump in their last meeting, saying that he wanted a peaceful transfer of power. How is starting either world war three or a nuclear conflagration a peaceful transfer of power? Maybe he is trying to change his place in history? Because right now he is going to go down as one of the worst presidents in American history, if not the worst. This war would certainly change that place to something much different. He could go down as the President that ended life as we know it.

Resources

conservativeinsider.org, “Biden Approves Long-Range Weapon Use Against Russia.” By The Conservative Insider; atlanticcouncil.org, “Why the US is giving Ukraine the green light to attack inside Russia.” By The Atlantic Council; euronews.com, “Biden dismisses Putin’s warnings of war with the West if Ukraine allowed to strike inside Russia.” By Euronews; theguardian.com, “Friday briefing: Why Biden and Starmer are preparing to let Ukraine use western missiles deep inside Russia.” By Archie Bland; reuters.com, “Putin’s options for Ukraine missiles response include nuclear test, experts say.” By Andrew Osborn and Mark Trevelyan;

Common Sense and Ramblings In America

Is Biden Trying to Go Out With A Bang?

At a Glance

Biden’s Strategic Pivot: Arming Ukraine with Long-Range Capability

Escalating Tensions and International Reactions

Impact on Ukraine’s Defense and Future Negotiations

Uncertain Future: Trump’s Return and Continued Support

Less than meets the eye

The Kharkiv conundrum

BRITISH BLOWBACK

UKRAINE ESCALATION

Like this:

At a Glance

Biden’s Strategic Pivot: Arming Ukraine with Long-Range Capability

Escalating Tensions and International Reactions

Impact on Ukraine’s Defense and Future Negotiations

Uncertain Future: Trump’s Return and Continued Support

Less than meets the eye

The Kharkiv conundrum

BRITISH BLOWBACK

UKRAINE ESCALATION

Share this:

Like this:

Discover more from Common Sense and Ramblings In America