US and Russia Intensify Actions in Ukraine Conflict Ahead of Trump’s Potential Return

Within a short timeframe, the administration of US President Joe Biden and Russia have undertaken distinct, yet impactful, actions designed to shape the trajectory of the conflict in Ukraine, occurring two months before Donald Trump’s potential re-entry into the White House. An impression exists that Moscow is striving to maximize its territorial acquisitions, while President Biden appears to be moving past previously established boundaries, prior to Trump’s anticipated effort to fulfill his assertion of concluding the war within 24 hours. Ukraine has already implemented President Biden’s authorization, permitting Kyiv to launch long-range Atacms missiles into Russian territory. Concurrently, as Kyiv endeavors to maintain control over its eastern regions, Biden has pledged to supply anti-personnel landmines as well, forming part of a new military aid package valued at almost $300m (£239m). The apparent catalyst for Biden’s shift in policy seems to be the deployment of thousands of North Koreans to the front line, an event the US characterizes as a “massive escalation”. However, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has intensified the situation even more by relaxing the criteria for employing Russia’s nuclear weapons. Moscow asserts that this “effectively eliminates” the possibility of defeat in combat. A Russian commentator proposed that Putin might perceive the present circumstances as an “in-between” phase, leading him to believe he holds a strategic advantage in Ukraine. Earlier this week, Russia initiated its most extensive aerial assault on Ukraine in nearly three months. Due to concerns about another attack on Wednesday, multiple Western embassies temporarily ceased operations. Mykhaylo Samus, who leads the New Geopolitics Research Network in Ukraine, stated, “It’s all connected.” He contends that Russia has been accumulating hundreds of Iskander and Kinzhal missiles for several weeks, intending to conduct attacks and thereby convey a psychological message before the change of administration in Washington DC. While Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, might have avoided an attack on Wednesday, the intended message was received. The objective is “Everything is about preparing for a strong position for talks with Trump, to understand Russia is not going to make compromise and everything depends on [Ukraine’s President Volodymyr] Zelensky.” Jade McGlynn, from the war studies department at King’s College London, concurs, stating, “There’s clearly an effort ahead of Trump to maximise their standings.” She expresses strong doubt about the feasibility of an agreement with Putin, suggesting his ultimate goal is to subjugate Russia’s south-western neighbour. On Tuesday, Ukraine observed 1,000 days since Russia’s full-scale invasion, as Russian forces continued persistent assaults in an attempt to capture vital centers in eastern Ukraine. Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center indicates that the prevailing sentiment in Moscow suggests Ukraine’s control is merely a matter of time. Nevertheless, starting in January, Putin will need to account for additional considerations, she notes: “He will have to deal with the fact that Trump now is responsible for the situation. If Putin escalates, it can worsen the chances for a deal. He will have to be more flexible, more open to different options.” The Biden administration declared a new package of military aid for Ukraine, encompassing ammunition, missiles, drones, and anti-personnel landmines. The US leader’s choice to permit Kyiv to commence launching Atacms into Russian territory was evidently intended to assist Kyiv, yet it also resonated with the Trump entourage. While Trump has remained silent thus far, his chosen National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, commented on “another step up the escalation ladder and nobody knows where this is going”. His remarks were not as extreme as those from some within the Trump team. Donald Trump Jr expressed dissatisfaction, alleging Biden was attempting to “get World War Three” started before his father could even re-enter the White House. State department spokesman Matthew Miller stated, “There’s one president at a time.” He added, “When the next president takes office, he can make his own decisions.” Certain Republicans have supported Biden’s action, though Sen Lindsay Graham remarked that he should have done it “to help Ukraine and he’s playing politics with it”. Russia’s response could potentially be a genuine threat or merely a bluff. According to its updated nuclear doctrine, Moscow will now possess the capability to employ nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations supported by nuclear powers, and also if it experiences a “massive” air attack. Alexander Yermakov of the Russian International Affairs Council suggests that this modification is less an operational guide for nuclear weapon deployment and more “primarily it serves as a declaration to potential adversaries, outlining the scenarios in which such measures could be considered”. This, then, represents another message from Putin directed at the West. Tatiana Stanovaya holds the view that his intention is not to initiate World War Three, but rather because “he believes he must scare the Western elites to show they are playing with fire”. The events unfolding after January remain uncertain. Individuals within the Kremlin have already started providing information regarding their minimum requirements for any Trump-led effort to conclude the war, and Volodymyr Zelensky has also started articulating his stance. When questioned in a US TV interview about the consequences for Ukraine if Washington reduced military assistance, he responded unequivocally: “If they will cut, I think we will lose. Of course, anyway, we will stay and we will fight. We have production, but it’s not enough to prevail.” Putin maintains that Ukraine must maintain neutrality for any diplomatic relations to be viable, despite Ukraine’s constitution now including provisions to join both Nato and the European Union. A report from the Reuters news agency on Wednesday quoted Russian officials indicating that Putin might be amenable to withdrawing from comparatively minor areas of territory, but nothing more substantial. On Tuesday, Zelensky unveiled his 10-point “resilience plan” to parliament, and a particularly defiant message resonated within the Verkhovna Rada. The message conveyed was, “Maybe Ukraine will have to outlive someone in Moscow in order to achieve all its goals… to restore the full integrity of Ukraine.” In essence, Russia would eventually be without Putin, but Ukraine would remain steadfast. Mykhaylo Samus states that for Ukrainians, this waiting period could span years, yet they would never agree to relinquish Crimea or any other region under Russian occupation. He believes that the maximum Zelensky might be willing to sign is a ceasefire devoid of commitments. Any other agreement, he suggests, would provoke internal strife, as many would perceive it as a betrayal. Prior to any negotiations, Mykola Bielieskov of the National Institute for Strategic Studies in Kyiv considers it crucial to avert any significant Russian advance in the east. He emphasized, “For us it’s just necessary to localise [Russian] advances… using Atacms, anti-personnel landmines or whatever. Because if the Russians are successful they would try to dictate terms.” Speaking to the BBC from Kharkiv, Jade McGlynn observed that few Ukrainians held the belief that Trump could facilitate any enduring peace agreement. She added that any resolution leaving Ukraine in a significantly disadvantaged state would result in political instability. She concluded, “Europe needs to step up,” and “ultimately we know that the Scandinavians, Baltic states and Poland are not enough.”