Mehdi Seif Tabrizi – Researcher on Russia and the Caucasus

Joe Biden’s authorization for Ukraine to attack targets deep in Russian territory pursues several goals:

First, an attempt to invade deep into Russian territory and target the country’s military bases and vital infrastructure to assist and support Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region. Ukraine and the West need a trump card at the negotiating table with their Russian counterparts to enter any peace negotiations with Russia. The attack on the Kursk region began with this goal from the beginning. Still, the conditions on the ground did not go according to the wishes of the Western side, and currently, the Russian side is reclaiming its territories. Therefore, Kyiv and Brussels are trying to control this region in any way possible in the next few months and before any possible peace negotiations begin.

Second, authorizing a long-range missile attack on Russia before Trump takes office could be an action by the Democratic Party to maximize tension in relations between the West and Russia and create obstacles to any possible agreement to end the war in Ukraine quickly. In this situation, the West wants to cause maximum damage and costs, especially in the field of refineries and energy export terminals, rather than forcing Russia to come to the negotiating table on Western terms, which, of course, takes the credit for ending the war away from Trump and puts it in the Democrats’ basket. In another way, it will intensify and even spread the war to NATO, which will deprive Trump of the possibility of peace in the short term and embroil him in a significant crisis. In other words, Biden and other Western capitals have set a trap for Trump regarding any negotiations with Russia.

Third, another possibility is that Biden’s decision was coordinated with Trump and his advisors. The West and the United States should exert every possible political, economic, and military pressure on Moscow during these two months and bring as many field achievements to Kyiv as possible so that at the beginning of Trump’s presidency, which could be by cutting off or minimizing Washington’s aid to Ukraine or starting any/ negotiations with Russia, the West would hold the upper hand in the talks. Moscow would be encouraged to come to the negotiating table, albeit with a weaker position. A few months ago, Putin had warned about NATO’s involvement in targeting some centers deep inside Russian territory with Western weapons and had threatened them with countermeasures. Moscow is said to have taken steps in military-intelligence cooperation with Yemen, as well as countries such as Ivory Coast, Senegal, and Niger, in line with this strategy, to harm the interests of Western countries involved in attacks on Russian soil. However, this Western move to authorize long-range missile strikes deep into Russian soil presents the Kremlin with two solutions:

First, according to Putin, Western capitals could be targeted, or, according to the country’s new nuclear doctrine, which was approved at the same time as the Atkmaz Kyiv attacks on the Bryansk region, they could be attacked by the Russians with tactical nuclear missile strikes, in which case the level of tension in Europe would rise incredibly, and Europe would incur huge costs.

An all-out war between the West and Russia would take shape in this situation. Trump’s presence in the White House could no longer lead to peace between the parties in the short term, and it is possible that Trump would be forced to continue the Biden administration.

Another behavioral model for Moscow could be for the Kremlin to sharply increase its pressure on Kyiv and cross the red lines it had set for itself in attacking sensitive points in Ukraine, causing the most tremendous possible damage to Ukraine during this time while simultaneously avoiding any conflict with Europe until the Biden era ends and with Trump coming to power, the paths for reducing tension increase.

It seems that Moscow has thought about the consequences of using nuclear weapons. As long as there is no destructive attack on areas such as Moscow or St. Petersburg, the Kremlin will not resort to expanding the war to European capitals, even using nuclear weapons. Although the country’s new nuclear doctrine states that widespread and destructive attacks on any part of the country could face a nuclear response, it does not seem that Russia will resort to a nuclear reaction in the current situation when there is a possibility of change in the West’s approaches with Trump coming to power.

It is a complicated and ambiguous matter to say that a possible Russian nuclear attack in response to Kyiv’s attacks using long-range missiles would be the start of World War III. The change in the White House and the emergence of differences in the North Atlantic Alliance with the new US President and his political and security team have led to a lack of consensus on important decisions in the West. Yet, this issue could be the only point and window of hope in preventing another world war.