In a move marking a significant policy shift, President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied missiles to strike targets inside Russian territory.

Officially framed as a response to rising threats, particularly North Korea’s growing support for Moscow, the decision comes just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. For some, it’s a necessary step to counter evolving geopolitical challenges.

For others, it’s a reckless escalation designed to entrench U.S. involvement in the conflict and undermine Trump’s peace plans.


The Official Justification: Countering New Threats

The Biden administration cites North Korea’s involvement in the Ukraine war as a critical factor behind the decision. Intelligence reports suggest that as many as 12,000 North Korean troops have been deployed to Russia, with significant amounts of munitions sent to support Moscow’s forces. This growing alliance between Russia and North Korea has raised alarms in Washington and NATO capitals, with fears of broader implications for global stability.

Biden’s supporters argue that allowing Ukraine to strike Russian military targets is a calculated risk aimed at deterring further aggression. They believe it’s necessary to counterbalance a deepening cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang, which could tip the scales in Russia’s favor.


The Timing: A Political Chess Move?

However, critics question the timing of this decision. With just weeks left in office, Biden’s move coincides with President-elect Trump’s declared intention to end the war swiftly. Trump’s peace plans, built on direct diplomacy and addressing the conflict’s root causes, threaten to dismantle the U.S. defense industry’s financial interests in the ongoing war. By escalating the conflict now, critics argue, Biden is effectively tying Trump’s hands, making a quick ceasefire more challenging.

“This isn’t just about Ukraine or Russia,” explains geopolitical analyst Jay Douglas. “This move ensures that the U.S. remains deeply entrenched in this war, regardless of Trump’s plans to negotiate peace.”


Trump’s Peace Plan: Bold or Naive?

Trump’s approach to the Ukraine conflict is grounded in his promise to prioritize American interests over prolonged wars. His track record includes landmark peace agreements, such as the Abraham Accords, which saw several Arab nations normalize relations with Israel. Supporters argue that Trump’s unconventional diplomacy could bring an end to the Ukraine war, saving lives and resources.

Trump has been vocal about NATO’s role in triggering the conflict. He points to the violation of the Minsk Agreement—a deal that ensured Ukraine remained neutral and avoided militarizing its border with Russia. For eight years, this agreement maintained peace until NATO and Ukraine armed and militarized those regions, leaving Moscow feeling cornered and compelled to act.

“Trump’s critics like to paint him as naive,” says Douglas. “But his focus is on resolving the conflict by addressing its root causes. This isn’t about handing Russia a victory—it’s about preventing endless war.”


A Dangerous Precedent?

Biden’s decision to authorize strikes inside Russian territory marks a significant departure from his administration’s earlier caution. Until now, the U.S. had avoided steps that could provoke direct NATO-Russia confrontation. Striking targets inside Russia risks crossing a red line that Moscow has explicitly warned against, potentially escalating the conflict into a broader war.

Supporters argue this is a necessary deterrent, demonstrating to Russia and North Korea that their actions will have consequences. Critics, however, see it as reckless. “Once you cross this line,” Douglas warns, “you can’t control what happens next.”


North Korea’s Involvement: A Natural Counterbalance

The involvement of North Korea in supporting Moscow has been framed by the West as a significant threat. But Douglas suggests it’s a natural response to the overwhelming support Ukraine has received from NATO and non-NATO countries. “If dozens of nations are arming Ukraine and funding its war effort, it’s only logical for Russia to seek allies of its own. This isn’t about morality—it’s about survival,” he explains.

North Korea’s support adds a new layer of complexity to the conflict, but critics of its involvement often overlook the symmetry in these alliances. While Ukraine benefits from Western support, Russia’s partnerships, including with Pyongyang, are framed as sinister. “Both sides are doing what they feel they must to protect their interests,” Douglas adds. “Escalating further only makes the situation messier.”


Escalation or Entrenchment?

As Biden’s decision sends ripples through international politics, its implications remain deeply divisive. Supporters view it as a necessary step to strengthen Ukraine’s position against escalating threats. Critics, however, see it as a dangerous attempt to cement U.S. involvement in a war that Trump has vowed to end.

“This is high-stakes geopolitics,” says Douglas. “The next few weeks will shape not just the future of this conflict but also the global balance of power for years to come.”


The Path Forward

Biden’s gamble underscores the tension between two starkly different approaches to the Ukraine war. His escalation risks prolonging the conflict and further destabilizing the region. Trump’s plan, meanwhile, seeks a return to diplomacy and peace, though it faces criticism for potentially conceding too much to Moscow.

As the world watches, one thing is clear: the decisions made in the coming weeks will have profound and far-reaching consequences. Whether Biden’s move proves to be a calculated strategy or a dangerous misstep, the future of U.S. foreign policy hangs in the balance.