Rising Tensions: Biden’s Long-Range Missiles for Ukraine and Putin’s Nuclear Doctrine Update 

The war in Ukraine after 1000 days is edging ever closer to a potentially catastrophic escalation as recent decisions from both the United States and Russia highlight the increasing risks of a broader conflict. US President Joe Biden has reportedly approved the use of US-supplied long-range missiles to Ukraine, despite significant concerns that this could provoke a harsh reaction from Russia. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree updating Russia's nuclear doctrine, signalling a more aggressive posture in the event of a conventional attack by non-nuclear nation supported by nuclear country. Ukraine was quick to encash Biden’s nod by targeting the Bryans (Russia) by firing six ATACM missiles, Russia is yet to respond, which brings the war to a crucial moment that could reshape the course of international geopolitical tensions in the coming months. 

Biden’s Decision: A Risky Gamble  

President Biden’s authorisation to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles, such as the ATACMS, to target Russian infrastructure has sparked heated debates among military analysts. While the official word from the White House and Pentagon remains unconfirmed, U.S. media reports suggest that Biden has given the green light for these weapons to be used in the ongoing conflict. The logic being given is the involvement of North Korean troops to support Russia was an escalation, which demanded US to concede to Ukrainian demand of such permission to boost its firepower and sagging morale. It is believed that firing these weapons requires expertise and guidance system of USA, which Russians presume as direct involvement of NATO in kinetic, contact war demanding appropriate response. 

Also read | Biden approves antipersonnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report

Some analysts highlighted the potential for this move to escalate the conflict, warning that "Biden has lost the election and has nothing more to lose from the decision, which only furthers the cause of fighting Russia till the last Ukrainian standing" to help out its deep state/arms lobby and hoping to save an embarrassment for Democrats if Ukrainian defences crumble before Trumps Presidency. With Ukraine’s use of these missiles to strike Russian territory now, a significant Russian military response can be expected, which can create conditions of involving the U.S. directly in hostilities with Russia.  

Politically, domestically, Biden's decision could also be viewed as an effort to entangle future U.S. administration under President elect Donald Trump in war, derailing his election promise of ending it. Interestingly neither White House nor Pentagon, nor President Zelensky have openly declared the decision, perhaps to maintain deniability to tone down Russian retaliation. 

Since Ukraine is likely to bear the brunt of any Russian retaliation resulting from such decisions, some NATO nations that support Ukraine believe they have little to lose militarily if Ukraine escalates its conflict with Russia as long as their soldiers are not engaged in combat and do not receive body bags. They believe that in order to keep Zelensky's defences from collapsing until early 2025 or to put him in a position where he can engage in meaningful discussions, it is crucial to provide him with continuous military and financial support as well as to raise his morale.  

Also read | Russia-Ukraine war: Putin signs decree allowing nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states

Miscalculations and Battlefield Realities 

The Biden administration's decision to send long-range weapons to Ukraine seems to have been driven by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's persistent demands for more advanced weaponry to push back Russian forces, however, it might be a calculated risk/miscalculation on two counts depending on Russian response. 

First, by supplying long-range missiles with potential NATO guidance, the U.S. is effectively defying President Putin’s warnings. Earlier in ongoing war there were occasions when Putin did not follow up his threats of escalation when battle tanks and F-16 aircrafts were supplied to Ukraine; hence, Biden’s advisers feel that Putin may not follow up with nuclear options or striking some NATO target.  

Second, the use of long-range missiles may not be a game-changer on the battlefield. While these missiles could damage Russian infrastructure, they are unlikely to alter the fundamental dynamics of the war, where Russian forces have been making steady territorial gains in the east and south of Ukraine. The use of advanced weapons, while symbolically important for Ukraine, may not be enough to reverse Russia's momentum or lead to a decisive shift in the conflict's trajectory; hence, may not provoke a violent response of the magnitude that NATO can’t handle. Ukraine is short of trained manpower to hold on to its frontline and standoff strike weapons can’t compensate for this weakness.  

Putin’s Nuclear Doctrine: A Dangerous New Path 

As tensions rise, President Putin has also taken steps to reinforce Russia's military posture. In a move that signals an increasing willingness to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional aggression, Putin signed a decree updating Russia's nuclear doctrine. The decree includes several key provisions that could fundamentally alter the strategic calculus in the region. 

Under the new doctrine, nuclear deterrence is explicitly aimed not only at individual adversary states but also at military coalitions—especially those that possess nuclear weapons. Crucially, the doctrine now considers the participation of nuclear states in supporting a non-nuclear state's aggression against Russia as grounds for considering the conflict a "joint attack." This update marks a significant shift in Russia's stance, emphasizing that any attack on Russia by a non-nuclear state—if supported by a nuclear power—could trigger a nuclear response. 

Furthermore, the updated doctrine asserts that nuclear deterrence will be in effect at all times: in peacetime, during periods of immediate threat, and in wartime, right up until the potential use of nuclear weapons. These revisions suggest that Putin's government is willing to escalate the conflict further, with nuclear retaliation now seen as a legitimate response to conventional attacks supported by nuclear powers, such as NATO. Maintaining a strong, battle-ready nuclear arsenal has been a part of Russian strategy and it has invested heavily in it.  

The Impending Escalation 

The risk of escalation is now clearer than ever. In the coming months, both Russia and Ukraine are likely to continue jockeying for advantage before the new year. Ukrainian forces are focused on resisting further Russian territorial advances, particularly in areas like Kursk and Donbas, where Russia has made notable gains. On the other hand, Russia is aiming to solidify its control over critical areas and create conditions that make Ukraine's NATO membership virtually impossible. 

Russia continues to ramp up its offensive, launching missile and drone barrages targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure, cracking Ukrainian defences in intense attrition warfare. Ukraine is boosting its firepower by using U.S.-supplied long-range missiles, the most recent incident saw Ukraine firing six ATACMS missiles at the Russian Bryansk region. While five of the missiles were intercepted by Russia’s advanced S-400 and Pantsir air-defence systems, one missile was damaged and its fragments caused a fire at a military facility. This attack, while not decisive, underscores the growing risks of a broader conflict as both sides trade blows on the battlefield.  

NATO’s Strategic Blind Spot? 

The broader question remains: Has NATO truly thought through the long-term implications of its support for Ukraine? Apparently the alliance may not have adequately considered the ultimate goals of the conflict, particularly in terms of conflict termination and avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. The prospect of a prolonged, protracted war could endanger Europe’s stability and security in ways that have not been fully accounted for. 

For Russia, the objectives are relatively clearer: solidifying territorial gains in eastern Ukraine, securing the Donbass region, and preventing Ukraine's NATO accession. For the West, the stakes are higher, as NATO’s involvement risks a direct clash with Russia. As both sides continue to escalate, the international community must be prepared for the possibility of even intensified war—and the potential for a nuclear confrontation that could impact the world in a catastrophic manner, that no one would like imagine. 

As the war completes thousand days to get into the final months of 2024, the risk of escalation remains ever-present. Ukraine’s use of U.S. long-range missiles can trigger a strong Russian response, while Putin’s nuclear doctrine update has created a dangerous new path toward the potential use of nuclear weapons, reminding of Cuban missile crisis. How deeply these decisions will plunge the opposing sides further into war risking humanity, remains to be seen, but the clock is ticking, with peace remaining a distant dream. 

Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.