Ukraine War Phase 2: Biden’s last-ditch push to redraw frontlines

This month has witnessed important developments in Ukraine. On November 21, two days after this war reached its 1,000-day milestone, Russia pounded the central-eastern Ukrainian city of Dnipro with an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The target was a military facility that dates back to the Soviet era, with a senior Ukrainian military official indicating it was RS-26 Rubezh hypersonic weapon.

This unprecedented strike has alarmed Western observers. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk described the escalation as signalling that the war is “entering a decisive phase” and “taking on very dramatic dimensions.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that this ICBM attack was retaliation for Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles to strike Russian territory beginning just two days earlier. Kiev’s assault targeted sites in Russia’s Bryansk region with US-made MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) ballistic missiles. These strikes were enabled by a shift in US policy with the Biden administration granting Ukraine permission to use these weapons for cross-border attacks on November 17. London quickly followed suit, authorising Ukraine to attack Russia with long-range British-made missiles.

Another major shift in Washington’s policies toward Ukraine came on November 20. The White House decided to give the Ukrainians antipersonnel mines to use in the Donbas as part of a wider effort aimed at slowing down the Russian offensive in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kherson. This marked a departure from the previous US stance, which limited the use of such mines to the defence of South Korea.

With President-elect Donald Trump returning to the White House in less than two months, there are critical questions to raise about the trajectory of the conflict and the prospects for diplomacy between the West and Russia next year.

One of the first consequences of the Biden administration authorising Ukraine to fire US missiles deep into Russia’s territory will probably be the slowing down of Moscow’s ongoing offensive because these Ukrainian strikes will force Moscow to move their capacities further away from the war’s frontlines. But this most likely will be temporary, according to some experts.

“The more Ukrainians use these weapons, the heavier Russian retribution against their infrastructure will be, which will return the situation into balance,” Vladimir Trapara, a senior research fellow at the Belgrade-based Institute of International Politics and Economics, tells TRT World.

Istvan Gyarmati, a former Hungarian ambassador and current president of the Budapest-based International Centre for Democratic Transition, believes the White House’s decision to reverse the ban on Ukraine launching these missiles into Russia constitutes an “important but not decisive move.”

Although these missile attacks into Russia may help the Ukrainians “stabilise their situation on the frontline, it will not decide the future outcome of the war,” maintains the former Hungarian diplomat. He believes that the Biden administration’s decision to permit Ukraine to fire these US and UK-produced missiles deep into Russian territory was made too late. This is because it “gave the Russians time to prepare and therefore the [many] of the potential targets the Russians moved back from the frontline to such a distance that these new enhanced distance-capable missiles cannot hit them,” Gyarmati tells TRT World. Further internationalisation of the Ukraine War With Western countries deeply involved in the Ukraine war on Kiev’s side, and Iran and, more recently, North Korea increasing their involvement on Moscow’s side, there has been a steady internationalisation of the war.

On November 19, the day in which Ukraine started hitting targets in the Bryansk region with US-provided ATACMS missiles, Moscow revamped its nuclear doctrine.

The new version of Russia’s “Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence” has lowered the threshold for Putin’s government to use nuclear weapons, giving Moscow the option of responding with its atomic arsenal to any non-nuclear attack backed by the nuclear-armed US, UK, or France, which would include the missile attacks which Kiev has been waging against Russia this month.

This change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine has led to growing talk of the Ukraine conflict leading to World War III.

Although Gyarmati acknowledges that NATO and Russia are slowly moving up an escalation ladder, he thinks World War III is a long way off. “The threat of World War III [was] in the propaganda arsenal of the Soviet Union. If you think back to the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, whenever the US did something the Soviets cried, ‘That will lead to World War III.’ That never happened and I don’t think it will happen at this point either,” he tells TRT World.

Trapara emphasises the importance of understanding the rhetoric around World War III in context. “Putin and his associates use it to deter the West from escalation of its involvement in the war, and to convince their Russian public opinion that Russia is [at] war not just with Ukraine, but is a victim of Western aggression. When Trump and his associates warn of World War III, they do it to convince their own public opinion and European allies [of] the necessity of stopping the war,” says the Serbian scholar. As the war becomes increasingly globalised, these competing narratives will likely shape how the conflict evolves and how the international community responds.

The uncertain diplomatic road ahead

Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have shown high levels of skepticism toward the West’s role in the Ukraine war. As a presidential candidate, Trump vowed to resolve the war within 24 hours.

As much as that promise is unrealistic, the incoming US administration could begin the process of negotiating a freeze of this conflict, though whether Trump will actually pursue that course of action is another question.

On November 24, Congressman Michael Waltz, who is Trump’s pick for national security adviser, explained that the president-elect is “incredibly concerned” about the new weapons being brought into this war. Waltz stated that the Biden administration permitting Ukraine to use these land mines makes the war in eastern Ukraine somewhat similar to the “trench warfare” of World War I, adding that “it is just an absolute meat grinder of people and personnel on that front,” underscoring the severe human toll.

When addressing Russia’s ICBM attack on Dnipro, Waltz called it a “clear escalation” and questioned the direction of this intensifying conflict. “How do we get both sides to the table (for peace negotiations)?” he asked.

In terms of Ukraine firing into Russia long-range US and UK-produced missiles, the impact on Trump’s peace initiative could prove complicated. However, over time, these missile attacks might also provide the incoming administration with bargaining power. Sustained strikes could pressure Moscow, giving Trump an opportunity to use the Biden administration’s escalatory policies as leverage in peace negotiations.

“Trump could use these weapons as [a] bargaining chip in convincing Putin to stop the offensive beyond [the] borders of Donbas and accept a ceasefire,” Trapara tells TRT World.

“In some respects, it can help [Trump] that this decision was made by the Biden administration,” holds Gyarmati, who notes that it takes the burden off the president-elect to make this decision himself while he can still “enjoy the positive consequences of it” after his term begins in January 2025.

At this point, this war has turned into a stalemate and Ukraine lacks a viable path to a decisive military victory that could restore its 1991-2014 borders.

“There is no hope either for the Russians to conquer the entire Ukraine, which they’d want to, but also no hope for the Ukrainians to liberate all the territories that the Russians occupy,” Gyarmati tells TRT World.

“The conclusion is that continuing the war makes very little sense because nobody will even think about victory…nobody can even think about territorial gains. The time has come for some arrangement, and I think Donald Trump is trying to do it,” added the former Hungarian diplomat.

Nonetheless, Trump’s unpredictable nature complicates forecasting how his administration might handle Ukraine. Trump is “probably the most unpredictable US president ever,” noted Gyarmati, who observes that Trump “says one thing today and he says one thing tomorrow.”

Although this tactic can serve to widen Trump’s room for maneuverability, the net result is Europeans have no idea where he will stand when it comes to any serious international issue.

“I think what he definitely wants to do is create peace (in Ukraine) because he…wants to go into history as a peacemaker,” holds Gyarmati.

“The price for this peace? I don’t think he takes a very big interest in this.”