In a move representing a major policy change, President Joe Biden has permitted Ukraine to use U.S.-provided missiles to attack targets within Russian territory.

Officially presented as a response to growing threats, particularly North Korea's increasing support for Moscow, this decision comes just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office. For some, it is seen as a necessary measure to address evolving geopolitical challenges.

Others view it as a reckless escalation aimed at deepening U.S. involvement in the conflict and undermining Trump’s peace initiatives.

Official Justification: Addressing New Threats

The Biden administration cites North Korea’s participation in the Ukraine conflict as a key reason for the decision. Intelligence reports suggest that up to 12,000 North Korean troops have been sent to Russia, along with substantial munitions to support Moscow’s forces. This strengthening alliance between Russia and North Korea has raised concerns in Washington and NATO capitals, with fears of wider implications for global stability.

Biden's supporters argue that allowing Ukraine to target Russian military sites is a calculated risk intended to deter further aggression. They believe it’s necessary to counter the growing cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang, which could shift the balance in Russia’s favor.

Timing: A Political Chess Move?

However, critics question the timing of this decision. With only weeks remaining in his term, Biden's move coincides with President-elect Trump’s stated goal to end the war quickly. Trump’s peace plans, focusing on direct diplomacy and addressing the conflict's root causes, could threaten the U.S. defense industry’s financial interests in the ongoing war. Critics argue that by escalating the conflict now, Biden is effectively limiting Trump’s options, making a swift ceasefire more difficult.

“This isn’t just about Ukraine or Russia,” explains geopolitical analyst Jay Douglas. “This move ensures that the U.S. remains deeply involved 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 based on 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 assert that Trump’s unorthodox diplomacy could end the Ukraine war, saving lives and resources.

Trump has been outspoken about NATO’s role in igniting the conflict. He cites the breach of the Minsk Agreement—a deal that kept Ukraine neutral and prevented the militarization of its border with Russia. For eight years, this agreement kept the peace until NATO and Ukraine began arming and militarizing those areas, leaving Moscow feeling threatened and forced to respond.

“Trump’s critics often call him naive,” says Douglas. “But his emphasis is on resolving the conflict by addressing its underlying causes. This isn’t about granting Russia a victory—it’s about averting endless war.”

A Dangerous Precedent?

Biden's decision to permit strikes within Russian territory marks a notable shift from his administration’s previous caution. Up to now, the U.S. avoided actions that might provoke direct NATO-Russia conflict. Attacking targets inside Russia risks crossing a line that Moscow has explicitly warned against, possibly escalating the conflict into a wider war.

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

North Korea’s Role: A Natural Response

North Korea’s support for Moscow has been portrayed by the West as a significant threat. But Douglas suggests it’s a natural reaction to the overwhelming support Ukraine has received from NATO and other countries. “If numerous nations are arming Ukraine and financing its war effort, it’s logical for Russia to find allies of its own. This isn’t about morality—it’s about survival,” he explains.

North Korea’s involvement adds complexity to the conflict, but critics often overlook the symmetry in these alliances. While Ukraine benefits from Western support, Russia’s partnerships, including with Pyongyang, are presented as sinister. “Both sides are doing what they believe is necessary to protect their interests,” Douglas adds. “Further escalation only complicates the situation.”

Escalation or Entrenchment?

As Biden's decision sends shockwaves through international politics, the implications remain deeply divisive. Supporters see it as a necessary step to strengthen Ukraine’s stance against increasing threats. Critics, however, view 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 coming weeks will shape not just the future of this conflict but also the global power balance for years to come.”

The Path Forward

Biden's gamble highlights the tension between two very different approaches to the Ukraine conflict. His escalation risks extending the conflict and further destabilizing the region. Meanwhile, Trump’s plan seeks a return to diplomacy and peace, though it faces criticism for potentially giving too much away to Moscow.

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