Why did Biden approve Ukraine strikes deep inside Russian territory?

US President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use long-range Western missiles to strike deep into Russian territory.

This decision, arguably one of the most significant escalations since the onset of the Ukraine conflict in early 2022, has sparked intense debate and heightened geopolitical tensions.

With Moscow warning of nuclear reprisals, conservatives in the West accusing Biden of edging toward World War III, and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky celebrating as though victory is assured, the move has intensified an already precarious situation.

Yet, the question remains: does this decision signal strategic foresight or reckless brinkmanship?Despite the dramatic escalation, there are valid reasons to doubt whether Biden’s authorization will alter the war’s trajectory significantly.

Since 2023, Ukraine has deployed long-range systems like the British Storm Shadow and French SCALP missiles, and, more recently, the American ATACMS, to target Russian military installations. Yet these strikes have yielded limited results.

Even Zelensky, publicly exuding optimism, faces stark realities: missile stocks are depleting, battlefield advancements are stalling, and the intended objectives-crippling Russian infrastructure and morale-remain unmet.

Estimates suggest Ukraine has fewer than 50 ATACMS missiles and around 100 Storm Shadow/SCALPs in its arsenal. With such limited reserves, Ukraine risks exhausting these critical resources without achieving substantial gains.

Short-term successes, such as damaging airbases or disrupting supply lines, might prove more symbolic than strategically decisive.

Moreover, these strikes have provoked increasingly assertive responses from Moscow, including the deployment of advanced hypersonic missile systems like the Oreshnik, further complicating the calculus for Ukraine and its allies.

In this context, Biden’s decision to greenlight deeper incursions into Russian territory appears fraught with military risks, undermining his previously cautious approach to managing the conflict.

If the military rationale for this decision appears dubious, the motivations behind it may lie in the political sphere. Biden’s decision represents a significant departure from his administration’s earlier, more measured stance on arms supplies to Ukraine.

Initially, the US withheld advanced weapons such as long-range missiles to avoid provoking Russia or escalating the conflict into a direct NATO-Russia confrontation. So why change course now?

A widely held theory posits that Biden’s move is designed to undermine the prospects of Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner in the upcoming US presidential election, who has signaled his intent to broker peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv.

Biden’s authorization may be an attempt to complicate Trump’s future efforts by escalating the conflict to a point where immediate negotiation becomes untenable.

This strategy banks on Putin escalating further to appease hawkish factions within Russia. If Trump were forced to maintain US support for Ukraine to avoid being perceived as a “loser” who abandoned American interests, it could undercut his appeal to a war-weary electorate.

However, the approach is risky: if the American public blames the Biden administration for dragging the US deeper into a seemingly unwinnable conflict, it could bolster Trump’s position as the candidate capable of extricating the US from the crisis.While Biden’s authorization may serve his short-term political goals, it also raises questions about its implications for Ukraine.

Zelensky appears to be the sole unequivocal beneficiary of this decision, as it bolsters his image domestically and internationally. Striking targets deep inside Russia provides a morale boost to Ukraine’s military and citizens, showcasing the ability to take the fight to the enemy.

However, beneath the surface lies a grim reality: Ukraine’s strategic situation is deteriorating. Western support, while still substantial, faces increasing scrutiny as the war drags on with no end in sight.

Public and political fatigue in NATO countries threatens to erode the unity of the coalition backing Kyiv.

Additionally, Ukraine faces an acute manpower shortage on the battlefield, a reality that even Biden’s advisors acknowledge. Advanced weaponry alone cannot offset the absence of sufficient troops.

The decision to authorize strikes on Russian territory carries profound risks. Moscow’s immediate reaction has been to escalate its nuclear rhetoric, with Kremlin officials reiterating that any attacks on “old” Russian territories cross a critical red line.

Although such threats have become a recurring feature of the conflict, they should not be dismissed outright. As the stakes rise, so too does the possibility of miscalculation or accidental escalation.

Furthermore, the psychological and political impact of strikes deep inside Russia could galvanize domestic support for Putin’s government, which has, at times, faced criticism for its handling of the war.

By portraying these strikes as Western aggression, the Kremlin may rally public opinion more effectively than before, strengthening its resolve to continue the conflict.

Despite the risks, Biden’s decision could be interpreted as a move to strengthen Ukraine’s position in anticipation of eventual peace negotiations.

With a growing consensus in both Russia and the West that Ukraine will have to come to the negotiating table, Biden’s strategy may aim to delay this inevitability until Kyiv can secure a more favorable bargaining position.

The use of long-range missiles could serve as leverage, enabling Ukraine to pressure Russia on key territorial disputes, including Crimea and parts of the Kursk region.

However, this leverage comes at the cost of escalating tensions and prolonging the suffering of civilians on both sides of the conflict.Russia’s response to this latest provocation will likely be twofold: a show of military strength combined with political maneuvering.

The launch of the new Oreshnik hypersonic missile, reported last week, is a clear signal of Moscow’s capability and willingness to retaliate.

Simultaneously, the Kremlin will likely intensify its nuclear rhetoric, aiming to deter further escalation by the West.While some argue that the Kremlin’s “red lines” have been diluted over time, the potential for a major escalation remains.

Putin’s administration, under pressure from hawkish factions, may be forced to adopt even more aggressive tactics, including targeting NATO supply lines or ramping up cyberattacks on Western infrastructure.

Biden’s decision to authorize Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles against Russia is a bold and risky maneuver that reflects both strategic desperation and political calculation.

While it may temporarily bolster Ukraine’s position and complicate Trump’s potential peace plans, the move risks further destabilizing the region and prolonging the conflict.

The ultimate outcome of this decision will depend on how Russia responds, how much further the West is willing to escalate, and whether Ukraine can achieve meaningful gains before its resources are depleted.

For now, Biden’s gamble underscores the precarious balance between achieving short-term political objectives and avoiding long-term geopolitical catastrophe.

As the conflict continues to evolve, one thing is clear: the stakes have never been higher.