Biden Greenlights Long Range Missile Strikes Into Russia in Attempt to Cripple Trump’s Peace Plan

Just when you think Joe Biden is ready to go gentle into that good night, he turns around and does something stupid like this.

Do you think the doddering octogenarian made this call on his own? I don’t. Biden’s puppetmasters, those who hold the real power in today’s Democratic party, told him exactly what to do. The sore losers of the world.

Why? I’ll tell you why. It’s not out of any sudden change of heart or willingness to help the Ukrainian people. It’s being done out of spite and vengeance. It’s ultimately being done to destabilize the war in Ukraine so much that Donald Trump has a more difficult time establishing peace there. Biden’s decision is like a mean kid running up behind the school bully and kicking him hard in the balls, only to run away and have the bully turn around and think another kid did it. It’s a setup, and it could potentially cost a lot of human lives on both sides.

It was a significant policy shift when Joe Biden seemingly out of the clear blue sky authorized Ukraine to employ U.S.-supplied long-range missiles for strikes deep within Russian territory. It marks a significant departure from previous level-headed U.S. restrictions aimed at preventing escalation in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

It was one of the very few Biden policies that I agreed with, and he tossed it out in the 11th hour. Shame on him. Here at SOFREP, we see the writing on the wall, and we’re not afraid to share our thoughts and insights with you.

Background and Policy Shift

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States has provided substantial military aid to Kyiv, including advanced weaponry and intelligence support. However, Washington had imposed strict limitations on the use of these weapons, particularly concerning strikes inside Russian territory, to avoid direct confrontation with Moscow.

Until now, Biden had been hesitant to allow such actions due to several key concerns. First, there was the fear of escalation, with U.S. officials worried that hitting targets within Russian territory could provoke a more dangerous phase in the conflict. Second, intelligence reports warned of potential retaliation from Moscow, which could target the United States or its European allies in response to these strikes. Another factor was the limited supply of these advanced missiles; their complex production process and lengthy timelines had made U.S. officials cautious about depleting stockpiles.

Biden had also taken a more conservative approach compared to some European leaders, who have been more eager to expand Ukraine’s offensive capabilities. Finally, within the administration, official opinions were divided—some advisors supported the move as necessary for Ukraine’s defense, while others feared it could lead to an intensification of the conflict.

The recent authorization allows Ukraine to utilize the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a surface-to-surface missile with a range of up to 190 miles, enabling Ukrainian forces to target strategic locations deep within Russia. This move comes after persistent requests from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who argued that such capabilities are essential for effectively countering Russian aggression.

On the other hand, one may strongly argue that this is only “poking the bear,” and in the end, you’ll have an enraged, fully nuclear-capable bear on your hands.

Factors Influencing the Decision

According to information being released by the administration, several developments have influenced this sudden policy change. Despite these weak excuses, the real power brokers in DC are using this as an opportunity to make the situation in Ukraine much worse than it already is and, by doing that, make it more difficult for President-elect Trump to bring peace to the region. 

Russian Military Escalation: Russia has intensified its military operations, including deploying North Korean troops to support its efforts. Reports indicate that approximately 10,000 North Korean soldiers have been positioned along Ukraine’s northern border to assist Russian forces in reclaiming lost territories.

Ukrainian Setbacks: Ukraine has faced significant challenges on the battlefield, with recent Russian advances threatening key regions. The ability to strike deeper into Russian territory is seen as a means to disrupt supply lines and command centers, potentially altering the dynamics of the conflict.

International Pressure: Allies such as France and the United Kingdom have already permitted Ukraine to use their long-range missiles against Russian targets. This collective support has increased pressure on the United States to align its policies with those of its partners (peer pressure).

Implications and Reactions

The authorization has elicited varied responses:

• Ukrainian Perspective: President Zelensky has expressed cautious optimism, emphasizing that actions speak louder than words. The ability to target strategic sites within Russia is viewed as a critical component of Ukraine’s defense strategy.
• Russian Response: The Kremlin has condemned the U.S. decision, warning of severe repercussions. Russian officials have characterized the move as a direct escalation, with some suggesting it could lead to a broader conflict involving NATO members. Suppose NATO is drawn into the fray when a fairly clean solution to the problem could have been enacted in a matter of months. We’ve been directly warned by Putin, a man about as stable as a bottle of nitroglycerine bouncing around the back of a pickup truck headed down a back country road. 
• U.S. Domestic Reaction: The decision has sparked debate within the United States. Critics argue that it risks escalating the conflict and entangling the U.S. in a direct confrontation with Russia. Supporters contend that it strengthens Ukraine’s position and serves as a deterrent against further Russian aggression. For anyone who believes this, please re-read my opening paragraph. Kicking a bully in the balls strengthens no one. 

Strategic Considerations

Advanced missiles, such as ATACMS,  significantly enhance Ukraine’s operational capabilities, with a range of up to 300 kilometers (190 miles) and the precision to hit critical military targets such as airfields, ammunition depots, and other key infrastructure. This expanded reach enables Ukraine to disrupt Russian military operations and supply lines far from the front lines, potentially altering the conflict’s dynamics. They could also be used to kill lots and lots of civilians. Even if the Ukrainians don’t do it on purpose, I would not put it past the Russians to enact a “false flag” operation where they harm their own people and blame it on the enemy.

Beyond the immediate military benefits, the decision carries potential strategic advantages. Allowing strikes within Russia could serve as a powerful deterrent, forcing Moscow to rethink its military strategy and resource allocation, but I doubt it. It may temporarily boost the morale of Ukrainian forces and civilians by demonstrating that Ukraine can take the fight directly to Russian soil. Additionally, the increased military capability could provide Ukraine with greater leverage in any future peace negotiations, in theory.

Another factor influencing this decision is Russia’s deployment of North Korean troops in the conflict. Reports suggest that the initial use of ATACMS may focus on areas like the Kursk region, where North Korean forces have been stationed. This move sends a clear message to both Russia and North Korea, signaling that these troops are within striking range and potentially deterring further deployments. How do you think a lunatic like Kim Jong Un is going to react to US missiles being used to kill North Korean Troops? Now we’ve pissed off not one but TWO nuclear powers with unstable leaders.

However, the decision is not without risks and limitations. Strikes deep inside Russia could escalate the conflict, prompting a stronger response from Moscow. There’s also the issue of supply—ATACMS missiles are not widely available, and their complex production means Ukraine’s stockpile will be limited. Furthermore, Russian forces have had time to adapt, relocating some of their critical assets beyond the missile’s range, which could reduce the overall strategic impact.

Politically, the timing of this decision is notable. It comes just months before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, signaling an effort by the Biden administration to strengthen Ukraine’s position ahead of a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy. Whether this policy shift will have a lasting impact on the war remains to be seen, but it underscores the delicate balance between providing Ukraine with powerful new tools and managing the risks of escalating a volatile conflict.

Future Outlook

As Donald Trump prepares to take office in January 2025, U.S. policy toward the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia is expected to shift significantly. Throughout his campaign, Trump voiced skepticism about providing large-scale aid to Ukraine, suggesting that his administration may reduce military assistance or push for peace negotiations, potentially involving territorial concessions. This could signal a broader shift in U.S. focus, moving away from Eastern Europe’s conflict.

The incoming administration will also face immediate challenges. Russia’s ongoing counteroffensive in the Kursk region, which involves around 50,000 troops, including North Korean forces, remains a critical issue. Additionally, Trump will inherit President Biden’s recent decision to allow Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles for strikes within Russia—a move that will complicate U.S.-Russia relations and strain ties with NATO allies who have been steadfast in their support for Ukraine.

Strategically, Trump’s approach may aim for a swift resolution to the war, even if it comes at the cost of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. His administration is likely to reevaluate the U.S. role in European security and might seek to improve relations with Russia, potentially altering the current support structure for Ukraine. This could impact recent developments, including Ukraine’s use of ATACMS missiles to target Russian military assets. When Trump reverses or limits this authorization, Ukraine’s ability to conduct deep strikes will be curtailed, possibly shifting the military balance in the conflict. Such changes might also influence the willingness of key allies, like the UK and France, to continue allowing the use of their long-range missiles.

Diplomatically, Trump’s leadership could lead to direct negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, a shift in U.S. support for NATO, and even a reevaluation of sanctions against Moscow. These moves would likely reshape the geopolitical dynamics, affecting not only the conflict but also the broader U.S.-European alliance. However, this transition introduces uncertainties. European allies may question the U.S. commitment to Ukraine, while Russia could see an opportunity to further its strategic goals. Additionally, any reduction in U.S. support could impact Ukrainian morale and military strategy, potentially weakening their position on the battlefield.

Summing Up

Yes folks, President Biden just ensured a whole lot of bad is going to happen before Trump can come in and clean up the mess. Have no doubts though, the Dems last minute dirty play won’t end up hurting anyone but the the Ukrainians. Regardless of the outcome, President Trump will set things straight. It may just take a little more effort than it would have otherwise.