Biden has pivoted to allow Ukraine to use US missiles in Russia. Why now? | War news between Russia and Ukraine

US President Joe Biden has made unrelenting support for Ukraine during Russia’s invasion a hallmark of his one-term presidency, using his office to send arms and aid to Kyiv while squabbling with Congress to keep the US purse strings loose .

But one issue has remained a major concern: Biden has refused to allow Ukraine to use US-supplied, long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) inside Russian territory amid warnings from Moscow that their use would represent the crossing of a red line.

But with just more than two months left in his term – and another administration of US President Donald Trump looming – Biden’s administration has pivoted on policy, with Ukrainian and US officials telling the Reuters news agency and several US media outlets that the weapons had been used in Russia for the first time.

Moscow also said on Tuesday that six ATACMS had been fired at its Bryansk region, in what it said represented a “new phase” in the war.

So why now?

Anatol Lieven, the director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, pointed to three possible factors: The “more negative way to look at this” is that the Biden administration is seeking to scuttle Trump’s promises to end the fighting; the “more positive” position is that the Biden administration is seeking to strengthen Ukraine’s hand before future negotiations; and the third alternative is that the political change was necessary to respond to changing conditions on the ground.

“It’s rare that a decision of this nature is made for just one reason,” he said.

“My own sense is that the Biden administration’s decision is a mixture of all these things.”

What has the Biden administration said?

The administration has not officially confirmed the policy change, but several officials have described the move to US media.

Speaking to The Washington Post, two unnamed officials said the missiles would initially be used in and around Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukrainian troops have continued to hold ground since launching a surprise attack in August. It was not immediately clear whether the missiles, which have a range of about 300 km (190 miles), could be used elsewhere.

While Ukraine has requested permission to use US weapons in Russia since the beginning of the invasion, which began in February 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy increased those appeals after the Kursk offensive. The continued presence of the Ukrainian military on Russian territory is seen as an important leverage point in any future negotiations with Russia.

Officials have told the Post and other US media that the change was largely motivated by Russia’s deployment of about 10,000 North Korean troops to the Kursk region as it pushes to expel Ukrainian forces. The move, they said, is intended to deter Pyongyang from sending more of its forces to help Russia.

Does this strengthen Ukraine’s hand before Trump’s second term?

It is no secret that the Biden administration and Trump have very different views on the future of the conflict in Ukraine.

Biden, a staunch supporter of NATO, has pledged undying support to Kiev with the goal of ultimately expelling Russia from Ukrainian territory. Trump has been skeptical of US aid to Kiev – and of the NATO alliance as a whole – and has said he will pressure both Ukraine and Russia to end the war.

A Trump campaign adviser this month suggested the screws could be turned on Ukraine to cede at least some territory to Moscow as Trump’s ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin further unnerve Kyiv.

The timing of the decision in the wake of the election could therefore be twofold, said Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It could strengthen Ukraine ahead of future negotiations, while increasing political stakes for Trump within his own party.

“Obviously, if ATACMS, which I suspect will have limited influence on the overall trajectory of the conflict, helps hold off Russian advances in the Kursk region, that would obviously prove beneficial,” he said.

“There are still a significant number of Republicans … who believe that defense of Ukraine is within the broadest conception of American national interests,” he said.

Therefore, according to Miller, Trump may choose not to undo Biden’s ATACMS decision.

What have Trump’s allies said?

Not surprisingly, Trump’s closest supporters have been unequivocal in their condemnation of the move. They broadly portrayed the switch as a cynical attempt to escalate the conflict as Trump prepares to take office.

In a post on X, Donald Trump Jr said the amendment was aimed at starting “World War 3 before my father has a chance to make peace and save lives”.

Trump’s pick for national security adviser, US Representative Mike Waltz, called it “another step up the ladder of escalation”.

“And nobody knows where it’s going,” he said on Fox News.

Former Trump cabinet member Richard Grenell also accused Biden of moving to “escalate the war in Ukraine during the transition period.”

“It’s like he’s launching a whole new war. Everything has changed now. All previous calculations are invalid,” he said.

What had changed on the battlefield before the decision?

But Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, largely dismissed those claims, characterizing the latest policy shift as consistent with previous Biden pivots on the war “with the same philosophy of delay and caution.”

The Biden administration had previously been slow-rolling before eventually giving in to requests for M1 Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets, to name a few. It had also opposed allowing Ukraine to use the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), which has a range of about 65 km (40 miles), inside Russian territory, but later allowed its limited use to defend the Kharkiv region.

O’Hanlon pointed to the introduction of North Korean troops into the fight as the main reason for the change, adding that he did not see it as a departure from “the same basic Biden approach to the war over almost three years”.

“If Russia escalates, we escalate,” he told Al Jazeera.

William Courtney, the former U.S. ambassador to Georgia and Kazakhstan, also said the permit does not in itself represent a major escalation, especially given supply constraints. Ukraine has reportedly received only a few dozen of the ATACMS systems.

“Ukraine is already attacking with its own drones targets much further away than ATACMS can reach,” he said. “So this is not a completely new strategic shift, if you like. What ATACMS is essentially good for is time-pressed objectives and objectives that are heavily defended.”

US defense officials have noted that Russia has already moved many of its most sensitive targets out of ATACMS range.

Could this backfire for Biden?

Putin has warned for months that if Ukraine allows it to attack Russia with Western-supplied weapons, it will change the conflict dramatically.

“This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia,” he said in September.

On Tuesday, Russia lowered its threshold for using nuclear weapons in an apparent response to the ATACMS attack.

The move has already sparked speculation that France and London may soon allow Ukraine to use their long-range SCALP and Storm Shadow cruise missiles, respectively, within Russian territory.

Analysts gave Al Jazeera varying assessments of how risky the Biden move could be.

Given ATACMS’ limitations, the Carnegie Endowment’s David Miller described the new authorization as “probably the least risky thing (the Biden administration) could have done”.

Quincy’s Lieven also explained that Russia has an incentive to remain contained until the Trump administration takes office.

He said direct confrontation with the United States remains unlikely, but did not rule out other responses, including sabotage targeting an ally.

“The Russians have always been really afraid of letting one red line after another be crossed,” he said.

“So yes, it’s still extremely dangerous.”