All’s Fair in … War ?
Escalation Policy in Ukraine
Following Donald Trump’s re-election, the US and Russia anticipating an upcoming foreign policy change, have been going tit for tat to redefine weaponry procedures for Ukraine.
In Trump’s previous interviews, he declared that he would “settle the war in 24 hours” as president. Despite his general wariness of US involvement in foreign conflicts, to Trump’s critics, he has been seen as Russian President Vladamir Putin’s ally, supporter, and friend.
Even with the Trump administration reluctantly providing weapons to Ukraine in 2019, before the onset of the conflict, the general consensus now among the GOP is to cut US funding for this war - or at least to reexamine the continuation of funding. VP-elect J.D. Vance has also provided his solution to the problem: force Ukraine to give up Russian-occupied territory to end the war.
Despite Trump’s apparent support for Russia, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was one of the first world leaders to publicly congratulate Trump for his election victory. Issuing a statement on X, Zelenskyy stated his admiration for Trump’s “peace through strength” approach to foreign affairs. Putin, on the other hand, was not as quick to praise, largely due to the US’s $108 billion spending on military, humanitarian, and economic aid to support Ukraine since the beginning of the war over 1,000 days ago.
President Joe Biden has had to deal with the Russia-Ukraine War for nearly his entire presidency, and has thus witnessed the Russian strikes wiping out cities, towns, and energy grid, and destroying much of Ukrainian livelihood.
Despite this, Biden was staunch in withholding permission for Ukraine to fire the US-made ballistic missile system ATACMS into Russia, largely out of fear of escalation, cost, and logistical concerns over the efficacy of this weapon.
However, on November 17, a few weeks following the confirmed addition of up to 10,000 North Korean troops aiding Moscow’s war effort, as well as the stationing of nearly 50,000 Russian troops in the southern Kursk region, Biden made a remarkable shift in his policy. He gave Ukraine the green light to fire ATACMS in Russia. This decision would allow Ukraine to strike infrastructure and military targets within Russian territory, as well as potentially prevent the deployment of more North Korean troops.
This decision, while applauded by Zelenskyy and even EU High Representative Josep Borell, concerned many Republicans, including Donald Trump Jr. Trump Jr. described Biden as dangerously leveraging the burden of the war over his father and aiming to “get World War Three going”. He isn’t alone: Kremlin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the decision as adding “oil to the fire and provoking the buildup of tensions.”
Following this decision, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that Ukrainian forces fired six of these missiles into Russian territory, but all were either shot down or damaged. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicated that this attack using ATACMS signified that the West “want escalation.” This statement comes even though many Ukrainian officials and Western analysts believe that the missiles will not mark a significant shift in the war, and that the Kremlin’s response was predictable.
In response to Biden’s policy change, Putin moved from issuing threats to taking action, officially signing a document on November 19 to lower Russia’s threshold for using a nuclear weapon.
Spokesman Peskov described the updated doctrine as a “requirement” given the “current political situation.” The doctrine now states that Russia can launch a nuclear attack against a country assisting a non-nuclear country in aggression against Russia that has potential to threaten Russian “sovereignty and territorial integrity,” or when “the very existence of the state is at risk.”
This doctrine turns the US into a direct target for a Russian nuclear strike.
While lowering the requirements for nuclear warfare is worrisome, there are a handful of logistical concerns, such as mutual destruction and NATO response. Further, there is general doubt that Russia, the “boy who cried wolf” when issuing nuclear weapon threats, will follow through on this doctrine.
Biden’s quick policy shift means that Trump will encounter a great deal of both domestic and foreign policies when deciding how to move forward on inauguration day.
Russian MP Maria Butina expressed her hope that “Trump’s people…can overturn [Biden’s] decision” on the ATACMS missile policy. However, Trump also faces pressures from Zelenskyy to be unyielding to Russia and provide unwavering US support for Ukraine.
Domestically, Trump is also influenced by the GOP and many American citizens’ concern about government spending on Ukraine, as well as by his cabinet’s general disregard for US involvement in the war.
It is likely that one of Trump’s first foreign policy moves will be the overturning of Biden’s decision to permit Ukrainian usage of ATACMs in Russian territory, but we shall see.