As Joe Biden’s presidency comes to an end in the coming weeks, his foreign policy legacy risks being defined by escalation and reckless brinksmanship rather than tough but prudent efforts to foster peace and diplomacy. His recent decision to authorize Ukraine to use longer-range missile strikes, known as ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System), within Russia not only risks prolonging the war and escalating it into a global conflict but also raises questions about the intent behind his actions. While Biden may frame the actions of his administration as necessary efforts to support Ukraine’s defense strategy, we need to assess whether the current decision-making process of the U.S. and its NATO allies is truly leading to peace in the region or, merely steering toward what must be avoided at all costs — a direct U.S.-Russia conflict.

While some commentary focuses on Washington approving Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied weapons to strike inside Russia, it is important to remember that Ukraine has been striking targets within Russia for years — Belgorod has come under frequent attack and one Ukrainian drone even struck the Kremlin in Moscow. This is part of Ukraine’s strategy to pressure Russian troops on its own territory. Meanwhile, much of the political attention during the summer was dominated by the U.S. presidential election with the Democrats warning of the risks posed by a second Trump presidency — particular concerns were raised regarding his stance on Ukraine. Now that Trump has won the election, the Biden administration is bracing for a shift in foreign policy, making its final moves before Trump is inaugurated.

Amid the Trump comeback, President Biden approved an additional $725 million in military aid to Ukraine, including Stinger missiles, anti-drone weapons, and long-range HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) rocket munitions, as part of a broader effort to bolster Ukraine’s defenses before Trump assumes the presidency. The approval of advanced weaponry — capable of targeting critical Russian supply lines — and the repeal of restrictions on U.S. contractors repairing F-16s and tanks in Ukraine reflect Biden’s willingness to push the boundaries of direct support, raising concerns about escalating tensions with the Kremlin. By ensuring that complex systems such as F-16 fighter jets and Patriot air defense systems remain operational, alongside the approval of controversial anti-personnel mines, the Biden administration has added yet another layer of U.S. involvement. Moscow is likely to view these policies as an extension of U.S. military presence in the region.

Biden’s decision could be interpreted as an effort to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s defence, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding a second Trump presidency and its potential impact on Ukraine’s future. Alternatively, it could reflect a broader strategy — escalating to deescalate. Even if one views Biden’s strategy in the most favourable light, it should come as no surprise that the Kremlin reacts to American-made missiles striking its territory.

Shortly after Biden’s announcement, the Kremlin took a step that could be interpreted as one of Putin’s final warnings to the West, revising its nuclear doctrine, which underscores the gravity of the situation. Russia’s revision leaves critical questions unanswered, casting ambiguity over what specific attacks could cross its red lines for nuclear retaliation. By stating that any conventional attack on Russian territory — particularly one involving support from a nuclear-armed NATO member — could justify a nuclear response, the Kremlin introduces uncertainty about the threshold of escalation. It raises serious concerns about how far the West can go in supporting Ukraine without inadvertently triggering World War 3.

… when will our political leaders recognise that our very security and existence are at stake?

The current situation highlights a critical reality: when one nation makes bold moves, it inevitably provokes responses from its adversary. The escalating decisions from NATO, though intended to show unyielding support for Ukraine, may not be advancing Ukraine’s defense strategy. Instead, these decisions risk transforming Ukraine into a battleground between Russia and NATO. If the goal is to ensure Ukrainian independence and security, the West must reconsider its approach and recognize the limits of military intervention, as further escalation could undermine Ukraine’s long-term stability and survival.

The deployment of a new ballistic missile — referred to by the Kremlin as an “experimental bomb” — in Dnipro, marks a stark reminder of how the situation has already escalated. This missile test signals not only Russia’s willingness to push the boundaries as well but shows its preparedness to escalate the conflict in ways that could lead to catastrophic consequences not only for Ukrainians, but for Europeans as well. The pressing question remains: when will our political leaders recognise that our very security and existence are at stake?