AP
Why did the U.S. provoke with long-range missiles during the power transition?
President Joe Biden appears to have approved Ukraine’s use of American long-range ATACMS missiles (albeit limited to a range of 150 km) to attack Russian border regions. The New York Times was the first to report the leak, citing unnamed officials.
«Two months before the end of his term, the president for the first time authorized the use of the ATACMS system by Ukrainian forces to defend their troops in the Kursk region», the publication said. The formal pretext was Russia’s «unexpected decision to use North Korean troops in combat», according to the report. However, Washington reportedly intends to authorize such deep strikes on a case-by-case basis.
A few days later, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that Ukrainian forces had attacked the Bryansk region with six missiles on the night of November 19. This is the standard payload for a HIMARS launcher. Five missiles were intercepted by Pantsir and S-400 air defense systems, while another was damaged. The missiles landed in the technical area of a military facility, causing a fire, which was immediately extinguished. Specialists are now determining the launch site (presumably in the Chernigov region of Ukraine) and the firing range. It appears that cluster warheads were used.
Similar attacks occurred this summer on the beaches of Sevastopol, as well as attempts to attack the Crimean Bridge, Perekop, and Lugansk with these munitions.
The Kiev regime continues to consider these locations as part of its territory, using this justification for its actions. On November 21, a combined strike with British Storm Shadow systems targeted a command center in Russia’s Kursk region.
But Bryansk and Kursk are a different story. They are internationally recognized parts of Russian territory.
In response, Russian forces launched a ballistic missile in a non-nuclear hypersonic configuration known as the «Oreshnik». It struck one of the largest weapons facilities in Dnepropetrovsk, and further «retaliatory strikes» with this formidable weapon are planned.
The Pentagon declined to comment on the missile strike. In particular, Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh did not confirm whether the U.S. had authorized strikes on Russian territory with these missiles. Earlier, the State Department also did not confirm media reports about the lifting of such restrictions.
It is worth noting that on November 13, Donald Trump met with Joe Biden at the White House, where Biden promised a peaceful transition of power without abrupt moves. Yet here we are. A deception? Moreover, Biden seems to be dragging London and Paris into this provocation with their missiles.
Curiously, Trump has been unusually silent, leaving the commentary to his allies. His foreign policy adviser and former ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, noted on social media: «No one expected Joe Biden to escalate the war in Ukraine during the transition. It’s like starting a whole new war».
There are several theories, but let’s consider this: Biden and Trump may be acting in tandem to test Russia’s potential response and force Putin to negotiate on unfavorable terms. The goal is to end the operation in Ukraine in a way that makes Moscow look like the loser and the U.S. look like the winner.
However, there is a sense of unease among the Yankees. The New York Times mentioned a peculiar «seesaw» dynamic. Some officials reportedly fear that using missiles for cross-border strikes «could provoke the Kremlin to retaliate against the United States and its allies». But others (equally influential) argue that «these concerns are exaggerated».
It’s long been established that official Washington and its European allies are actively using controlled media for probing and indirect communication with Moscow. The uproar has already had an effect. On November 19, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree defining the principles of state policy in the area of nuclear deterrence. The updated doctrine expands the list of military threats that justify the use of such weapons. Specifically, it includes aggression by a non-nuclear state backed by a nuclear power, with such an alliance considered a joint attack on Russia. Previously, Putin had made it clear that Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles was impossible without American and European satellites, NATO instructors, and Western equipment.
And yet, despite this warning, the Kiev regime carried out its strike.
Let’s return to the theory of a joint conspiracy of the two presidents: Biden cannot leave office with the burden of a lost war, while Trump must fulfill his campaign promise to end the Ukrainian conflict.
One piece of evidence supporting this hypothesis is the recent phone call by outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to the Russian leader. It’s clear that he acted strictly within the framework set by the U.S., probably on the instructions of one of the presidents — or perhaps in coordination with both. Shortly after Putin made clear Russia’s objectives in the special military operation, which he would not abandon, the leak of Biden’s missile decision followed. Coincidence? Unlikely.
It’s possible that «Joe and Don» are, as the Chinese say, pulling the tiger’s whiskers together to gauge the possible reaction. Meanwhile, once in office, Trump still has the option of reversing his predecessor’s decision. This would give him a significant bargaining chip to negotiate with Putin from a position of strength.