Trump, Putin, and Biden’s Eleventh Hour Ukraine Gambit
Share
Is Biden laying a trap for Trump by forcing his hand on Ukraine, or is this merely an eleventh-hour bid to secure his legacy?
Earlier this week, the outgoing U.S. administration approved the use of ATACMS, signaling an eleventh hour policy shift; Ukraine has been pressing the U.S. for authorization to use them for over a year, arguing that they were necessary for Ukraine to be able to put up a better fight with Russia.
The Biden administration had been reluctant to allow their use, due to the expected responses from Russia, arguing that their use could lead to rapid escalation of the conflict, providing Russia with a justification to use even more sophisticated weaponry.
The week before, the U.S. inaugurated the ballistic missile defense base in Redzikowo in northern Poland, which has been in the works for years and is part of the broader NATO missile shield dubbed Aegis Ashore.
Predictably, Russia responded, launching a new medium range hypersonic ballistic missile – Oreshnik- at Dnipro in Ukraine.
This late-stage decision by the Biden administration raises an important question: is this a tactical move to shift the balance of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, or a strategic maneuver designed to lock future U.S. policy into a course that even a transactional Trump administration would find difficult to undo?
Poison Pill or Tactical Decision
The question of why Biden’s outgoing administration approved the use of this weaponry mere weeks before their departure from office has been a staple in analyses across the world. With Trump’s victory in the U.S. election and his stated positions of ending the war rapidly, and his constant criticism of the unconditional support offered by the U.S. to Ukraine over the course of the past 2 years, the decision’s timing is under the spotlight.
This timing suggests a deliberate effort to cement U.S. involvement in Ukraine, ensuring that any moves to reverse course by the incoming administration would carry significant geopolitical and domestic consequences. The approval of ATACMS not only escalates the conflict but also raises the stakes for Trump, making a quick resolution appear less like pragmatic diplomacy and more like a retreat from U.S. leadership.
The expectation of a Trump transactional approach whereby he pressures Ukraine to accept a deal even if that were at the expense of territorial concessions may have been at the forefront of decision makers’ minds. If Trump were to move forward with this decision, he would threaten to dismantle years of efforts to consolidate U.S. dominance over the European security sphere.
Since late 2021, the U.S. has worked tirelessly through diplomatic channels to ensure European adherence to the U.S. position on NATO, securing that support in early 2022 when it successfully shifted Germany’s position from reluctant partner to fully invested into the confrontation with Russia.
Biden’s team was aware of the Russian reaction to the approval of use of the ATACMS, and possibly were counting on it. The move seemed to be calibrated to elicit an overreaction on Russia’s part; Putin, despite being fully aware of the motivations behind the decision would be forced to respond because not doing so would signal weakness.
The Russian response, through the use of the Oreshnik hypersonic missile (which despite having nuclear warhead capacity was not carrying a nuclear warhead), is likely going to be leveraged by strategists within the U.S. administration to attempt to stay the course.
By eliciting Russian responses, and through successfully enticing Russia to use advanced weaponry, the necessity of maintaining a solid U.S. presence and involvement in Europe becomes more difficult to ignore, even for the more reluctant isolationist Trump administration. Ignoring advances in Russian weapon capability could be described as being irresponsibly weak on international security, and withdrawing or making concessions in the wake of Russian escalation could be framed as a retreat on the part of the U.S., something that could be difficult even for Trump to sell as a victory.
The use of ATACMS will also increase Ukraine’s reliance on NATO partners in an escalating theatre, where Russian responses will increase Ukraine’s need for continued U.S. and western supplied weaponry, making Ukraine’s ability to resist further contingent on continued Western and NATO support. The escalation provided Russia with the justification it needed to engage with more advanced weaponry, requiring advanced defense systems to mitigate and defend from, systems that Ukraine can only obtain through its Western and U.S. support channels.
This achieves the goal of entrenching support for Ukraine, and because NATO has successfully tied Ukraine’s victory to its effectiveness as a defensive alliance, Ukraine’s loss would be NATO’s loss and by extension a U.S. loss. This symbiotic mutual need between the Ukraine and NATO could serve as a line in the sand that ensures continued support despite the incoming administration’s reticence to do so.
However, this strategy is not without its risks. By escalating the conflict through ATACMS deployment, the Biden administration opens the door for unintended consequences. Russia’s response, while calculated, could escalate beyond hypersonic missiles to other forms of retaliation that destabilize the region further, such as cyberattacks or covert operations against NATO allies. This kind of escalation risks reinforcing Russia's narrative of NATO aggression, potentially undermining European unity rather than strengthening it.
The Regional Context
European NATO members have varied in their stances on allowing Ukraine to use the longer-range missiles, with France and the UK expressing continued support for their use; both have donated similar weaponry -the SCALP and Storm Shadow missiles respectively- to Ukraine but had been limited by U.S. disapproval of their use.
Germany continues to oppose the use of its Taurus missiles, citing concerns about escalation and a possible Russian over reaction that would drag the conflict into more dangerous territory. The German Chancellor reached out to the Russian president for the first time since the breakout of hostilities shortly after Trump’s election victory, signaling a more compromising stance toward Russia. Similarly, Italy expressed unease with escalating the conflict through the use of more advanced weaponry by Ukraine.
Trump’s election shifted much of the European strategic perspective on the context of the war, and the role of NATO versus a more European centric defense strategy. Whereas the Biden administration invested heavily into the common defense approach, Trump’s position on NATO is less comprehensive in its outlook; he has repeatedly questioned automatic support for NATO members in conflict, raising doubts among European allies on the reliability of the U.S. as a consistent defense partner.
This shift puts Biden’s recent decisions into sharper focus. By emphasizing NATO’s unity and the indispensability of U.S. support, Biden’s administration aims to underscore the risks of a fragmented alliance. European states recalibrating their strategies must now weigh the cost of moving independently against the perceived stability of continued U.S. leadership, even under a more isolationist administration
Some European states remain supportive of increasing support for Ukraine, and others are recalibrating their outlooks; heavily investing in support for Ukraine in the coming period would be disastrous if the U.S. decided to withdraw its support come January. They could find themselves staring down the Russian bear alone, with Trump’s administration pressuring Ukraine for a fast resolution and fragmenting NATO’s cohesion.
While Biden’s administration may be taking steps to lay the groundwork for broader policy strategies that ensure continued U.S. and European support for continued support for Ukraine and Russian containment, European allies will likely see it in their best interest to avoid tying themselves to any policies or strategies adopted by the outgoing administration; the stark differences in approach between Biden and Trump signal that doing so may force them to reverse course when the new administration takes office.
Russia
Putin is not blind to the attempts by Biden to draw Russia into a compromising situation that would reinforce NATO and European cohesion; Biden’s move was not subtle.
However, and despite knowing full well that the U.S. wanted Russia to retaliate, Putin had to make the decision to do so. As a strongman, and a leader who built his foundation to build Russian strength in Europe and beyond standing up to what he describes as NATO encroachment on the Russian security sphere, he had to respond.
His response, a calculated move designed to showcase Russian power, was both predictable and strategic; he used the platform to signal Russia’s renewed weapons capacities, and signal to European states that they are not beyond reach. The new hypersonic missile that he launched proved capable of evading defenses and striking its target with a high degree of accuracy and impact.
However, this may have been exactly the outcome that Biden hoped for; in responding with the new missile, almost as if he were eager to show it off, Putin raised alarm bells across Europe; growing Russian offensive missile capabilities justify the enhanced presence of missile defense systems across the continent, and they may provide the incentive for European states to pressure the incoming Trump administration to commit more heavily in NATO defense cooperation.
This response serves as a key element in Biden’s broader strategy. By demonstrating Russia’s growing capabilities, Biden’s administration reinforces the argument that U.S. presence in Europe is essential for countering an emboldened Moscow. The more formidable Russia appears, the harder it becomes for Trump to justify scaling back U.S. involvement without facing accusations of undermining global security.
Putin may also leverage this decision by the U.S. and NATO to justify further aggressive moves in Ukraine; the decision to allow Ukraine to escalate signals to Russia that NATO and the U.S. are intent on threatening its security.
On the other hand, Putin, if he adopts a more measured response, would signal that he is willing to reach a compromise with the U.S. when Trump takes office in January. He may use the missiles to neutralize targets that have been difficult to reach until now, and then stay a more reasoned course until January, improving his negotiating position considerably when it comes to discussing the resolution of the conflict.
Yet, Putin’s response may not follow the script Biden’s administration anticipates. Some argue that Russia could exploit the situation to rally domestic and global support, portraying itself as a victim of Western escalation. This could embolden Moscow to expand its ambitions in Ukraine or beyond, pushing the conflict into an even more dangerous phase. By escalating first, the U.S. risks being seen as the aggressor in certain international circles, potentially alienating neutral states that might otherwise condemn Russia’s actions.
What’s Next?
Biden is attempting to put Trump in a position whereby any deal he makes with Russia looks like a retreat from a position of weakness. However, given Trump’s campaign success on the promise of reducing U.S. involvement in foreign wars and putting America First, he is unlikely to be swayed by Biden’s attempt to embroil the U.S. into a persistent conflict with Russia. Trump’s transactional approach, and his focus on reducing unconditional aid to Ukraine and NATO allies has not wavered throughout his campaign, and is not expected to shift unless something truly extraordinary breaks out.
Rather than frame a deal brokered with Russia as coming from a position of weakness, it is more likely that Trump will hail it as a victory and use it to sharply criticize the involvement of the U.S. in wars that do not serve its interests. It is likely that upon assuming office, he will pivot considerably away from the current administration’s approach, and press forward toward a deal with Russia, even if that were to entail Ukraine making territorial concessions.
This potential pivot underscores the stakes of Biden’s decisions in his final weeks. By embedding U.S. support for Ukraine into NATO’s broader strategic framework, Biden’s administration is not just shaping the battlefield in Ukraine but also creating political minefields for any future leader who might seek to undo those policies. For Trump, navigating these dynamics will require not only tactical skill but also a willingness to redefine what constitutes victory in a conflict entrenched in U.S. strategic interests.
There is a chance, slim as it may be, that Marco Rubio, with a history of hawkish stances on Russia, may advocate for continued U.S. engagement, but his influence could be limited by Trump’s inner circle, which prioritizes a transactional foreign policy approach.
On the European side, shifting positions may be expected. As European states brace for the incoming U.S. administration’s different vantage point, they may lean towards a more Eurocentric approach to Russia. Trump and his team have made it clear that their investment in NATO, like most of their foreign policy approaches, is transactional.
As a result, we are already seeing signs that Europe may be reevaluating its approach to Russia, with Germany’s outreach to Russia as one indicator, we may see less hardline European stances on Russia, possibly even attempts to reframe any negotiations as a collective European/NATO/U.S. victory.
Russia’s actions in the next few weeks will also determine the course of negotiations when Trump takes office. It may use the developments instigated by the U.S. as justification to intensify its efforts and maximize its gains in the leadup to expected negotiations early next year. In doing so it would consolidate its gains and reduce any future losses.
If Russia’s responses remain measured in the short term, the Biden administration may escalate tensions further in attempt to make it more difficult for the stakeholders to come to the table. After investing heavily in consolidating U.S. presence in Europe, and securing European reliance on the U.S. over the past four years, losing the gains made is a dispiriting concept to accept.
The fallout of a U.S. withdrawal from commitment to European security would not be limited to the military and defense spheres. An unreliable U.S. makes it imperative upon Europe to chart its own course. The rapprochement of Europe and Russia would likely involve a resumption of engagement on political and economic levels as well, tying European and Russian interests toward common goals of continental stability and sidelining the U.S. role on the continent, which is the precise outcome that the Biden administration worked so hard over the past few years to avoid.
In addition to the geopolitical security considerations, there are also long-term economic implications. A more collaborative European Russian relationship would inevitable resume much of the economic engagement that was paused with the breakout of conflict in Ukraine, an outcome that would result in reduction of economic gains made by the U.S. during that same period; the resumption of natural gas flows to Europe would inevitably mean a reduction of imports of U.S. liquified natural gas at the same time. Tying that to the Trumpian tariff policy, the economic roadmap for Europe changes starkly: suddenly, looking east is not as bad as it once was.
Furthermore, there is a broader question of whether the Biden administration's strategy of entrenching support for Ukraine could inadvertently backfire. If European states view this escalation as reckless or unsustainable, it could accelerate moves toward a more Eurocentric security strategy that sidelines the U.S. rather than reinforces its role. The very cohesion Biden seeks to cement might fracture under the weight of diverging interests and perceived overreach.
Ultimately, Biden’s eleventh-hour moves may not just be about supporting Ukraine but about safeguarding the framework of U.S. dominance in European security. By escalating the stakes and binding U.S. allies to its strategic goals, Biden ensures that any future attempts to pivot away from these commitments will be viewed as a retreat, attempting to force Trump to engage in a geopolitical landscape where disengagement is not an option.
Read next
Beyond Economics: Egypt’s Political Play at the D8 Summit
The Architect of Conflict? Mark Rutte’s Role in a Precarious Global Order
