.png)
Many western commentators are frantically predicting the imminent onset of World War III following Joe Biden's decision to permit the use of US ATACMS missiles inside of Russia. The Russian media and political establishment will undoubtedly respond furiously to this move. But much depends on how the missiles are used. With a Trump Presidency on the horizon on a mandate to end the war in Ukraine, I believe Putin will be measured in his response.
Republican commentators have condemned the move by Biden as escalating risk of WWIII
Unlike in 2016, there has been fairly widespread condemnation from supporters of Trump at Biden's move, which has been viewed as a blatant escalation. Donald Trump Junior went to X to claim the Biden administration was trying to 'get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives.' Other Republican politicians including Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene in Georgia have echoed the World War 3 warning. Venture Capitalist and Trump Support David Sacks asked if Biden's goal was 'to hand Trump the worst situation possible?'
Biden copies Obama's final move, to break up the diplomatic ground for an incoming Trump Presidency
Biden's move was designed to make the diplomatic terrain harder for Trump to navigate on Ukraine policy.
Putin will view it in those terms too.
He will remember that President Obama pulled a similar - though less dangerous - stunt during this final days in office. In one of his final foreign policy moves Obama announced sanctions against Russia for alleged election meddling, and expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the USA. This prompted a frenzy of reporting about how Putin might respond, much like we have seen over the past twenty-four hours. In the end, Putin chose not to respond and, instead, he paused to see where US policy would go under the incoming Trump administration.
ATACMS decision not as significant as it appears as Zelensky's hands still tied
Biden's decision is an extension of the decision from May to allow limited use of US HIMARS systems to hit military installations in the borderlands of Russia to reduce attacks on Kharkiv. Zelensky won't have weapons free to strike at will within Russia. While escalatory, it is not as significant as it seems.
The indications coming out of the US administration are that the ATACMS missiles may only be used to quell an expected major Russian assault on Ukrainian formations dug in in Kursk oblast.
Biden's decision an attempt to help Zelensky save face after blunder of Kursk offensive
Ukraine has lost around half of the territory in Kursk that it occupied during its audacious raid in August. Clinging on to that territory until peace talks inevitably happen to end the war, Zelensky has said, will allow him symbolically to trade Russian land for Ukrainian land occupied by Russia. Since the Kursk offensive, Ukraine has lost more land to the relentless, grinding Russian advance in the Donbas, which takes small steps most days. Losing the foothold in Kursk will reveal what many commentators already point out, that the Ukrainian incursion was a strategic blunder by Zelensky that won't change the outcome of a war he is losing. So, a US decision to permit the use of ATACMS at best is an attempt by the Biden Administration to help Zelensky save face.
Russia's response will depend on actual ATACMS strikes
With the use of ATACMS entirely dependent on US intelligence and targeting, it is unlikely that the outgoing Biden administration will permit wider attacks outside of the Kursk theatre or in military centres that are in range of Kursk. However, we have yet to see how the missiles will be used and Putin will take his cue from that, rather than acting pre-emptively.
Putin will have to respond in some way
Despite the use of HIMARS already inside of Russia, Putin will have to reciprocate in some way, having said on screen in St Petersburg in September that he would. He doesn't have the political space not to act.
Putin has been here before and probably won't overreact
Putin knows that a major Russian retaliation that targeted US military or other assets would make it far harder for Trump to sue for peace between Russia and Ukraine, as he has promised to do. I assess it unlikely that Putin would escalate to a nuclear level on the back of what is essentially a tactical change in western weapons' use. He won't want to close off any space that Trump has to negotiate, which is Biden's aim in taking the ATACMS decision.
While he has the resources and political support to continue bleeding Ukraine white, the war in Ukraine still comes at a significant economic and human cost to Russia. Trump offers a potential off-ramp that would leave Putin in a better position that he was in March 2022, when the US and UK blocked the Istanbul peace agreement.
Putin will be happy for Russian state commentators to whip up the risk of over-escalation
As happened in late 2016, Putin will undoubtedly encourage Russian talking heads to sow panic in the western media about a possible Russian over-escalation. That will give him space to respond in a moderate way and illuminate the western press as hysterical and Russophobic, a common attack line.
More likely, he will:
up strategic attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine;
possibly target NATO weapons' distribution hubs in Poland;
make a limited and pre-signaled strike on a US military facility in Europe or elsewhere.
The risk to the UK and France
There are signals that the UK and France are following America's move in possibly authorising the use of Storm Shadow and Scalp Cruise Missiles inside of Russia. I believe the same limitations on targeting would apply, as above. The same risks of a limited Russian strike on UK and French assets therefore apply.
However, the bigger risk is that a Trump Administration will reverse the decision on ATACMS use inside of Russia, leaving both countries on a limb in which Ukraine still hits Russia with their weapons while Trump pushes for peace talks between Zelensky and Putin.
That will mean France and Britain have a bigger climb down from their position of unquestioning support for war in Ukraine, when ceasefire talks start. In Britain in particular, that may increase pressure on the government's enormous spending on supporting the ongoing war, at a time when taxes are taking a massive hike and the cost of living crisis continues. There is more scope for France to pivot its position within the EU, which will be unable to match US financial military support for Ukraine if Trump pushes, instead, for peace.
Keir Starmer has already got off to a bad start with Trump by sending Labour party activists to support the Harris campaign. He risks leaving the UK increasingly isolated and irrelevant on Ukraine policy. Plus ca change!
For now, don't expect World War III to start overnight. Keep calm and carry on pressing for this mindless war to end.
Noticeable that you've gone straight to the US domestic politics angle. This move has been threatened for a long time so if we ask "Why now?" the obvious answer has already been aired by Trump Junior, as you noted. It's an act of 'Trump-proofing'.
Something in the back of my mind says this sort of thing couldn't happen in the UK, in what should be the doldrums of a governing party having been voted out of office. But this is the USA. Anyway, UK policy seems constant no matter who is notionally in charge.
I'm not convinced this is an ingenious move by Biden and his entourage of wet nurses. Trump doesn't strike me as the sort of man who…