Timing of Biden's okay for Ukraine use of long-range missiles

Question

President Biden has allowed Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike military targets deep inside Russia. This development comes immediately after Olaf Scholz phone conversation with Vladimir Putin, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy own admission that the war will probably end soon after the new (old) US administration (re)takes the office.

Previously Biden administration resisted Ukrainian demands for using long-range missiles, motivating it by the risk of escalation of the conflict:

Biden had remained opposed, determined to hold the line against any escalation that he felt could draw the US and other NATO members into direct conflict with Russia.

Suddenly taking such a risk in his lame duck period is somewhat surprising. I also wonder, whether there is any connection with the Scholz-Putin call, and strengthening the Ukrainian position prior to the ceasefire/peace talks.

Has the Biden administration provided any justification for the timing of the announcement (i.e., in lame duck period, and right after the Scholz-Putin call)?

Answer 1

I mean unless he outright says so, any possible answers can only be speculative. Also there's a good chance that this has nothing to do with U.S. internal politics, but is a reaction to Russian war efforts.

For example since Western countries have, for a long time restricted the usage of their weaponry for purposes within Ukraine, Russia changed it's strategy and often launched attacks from Russian territory so that they became increasingly hard to defend against without being able to strike the aggressor. Hence Biden has already permitted Ukraine to attack some targets within Russia.

Since then Ukraine has taken some land in the Kursk region, while Russia has apparently recently gathered large amounts of North Korean troops within it's borders, that apparently already attack Ukrainian (and depending on the source also Russian targets...). So Ukraine has for a long time argued that they need those kinds of weapons and that they are effectively fighting with one hand behind their back.

So rather than a "surprising", "early inauguration present" for Trump, that might be a long discussed reaction to a changing situation that has nothing to do with U.S. internal politics and people might just have not been paying as much attention to that conflict as the president and his advisors (kinda is also part of their job).

Also depending on whom you ask that is somewhere between a threat leading directly to WWIII or "too little too late".

Like apparently the ATACMS are actually to short in range to strike against Russian-fired glide bombs. Though argue that even just the ability to make a few deeper strikes would require Russia to react and disperse their troops making it at least a little harder.

Edit:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in the U.S. back in September, he presented President Joe Biden with a list of targets that he wanted to hit. Biden didn't refuse the request outright. Effectively, they agreed to keep discussing it. Finally, though, that decision was made to grant Ukraine this long-standing request, to allow them to use these long-range missiles deeper inside Russia. At least part of the reason for the rather abrupt policy change here is that the U.S. viewed the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia. Thousands of them, in fact, as an escalation, one that merited some sort of response. So, this, at least in theory, is part of that response granting source

So North Korean troops were indeed cited as the reason.

Answer 2

It seems like a simple attempt to allow for Ukraine to have more options before Trump takes office and not an attempt to let them win before that happens.

It is unlikely that Ukraine regains all of its territories before any Trump-sponsored ceasefire/peace deal. Biden authorization then might be the last-ditch effort to help Ukraine to regain as much as possible before the war ends.

While this is true is is also unlikely that a deal will be accepted by both sides as it will likely not be what they want.

Biden might try to escalate the conflict and thus scuttle Scholz and Trump's efforts to end the war.

This just seems like a conspiracy theory as Russia has done more to escalate the conflict then anyone else with all the attacks they have done on civilians.

(Far fetched) Biden hopes to drag NATO and the US inn war and use it as a pretext to stay in power.

This also sounds like a conspiracy theory as the election has already been decided and the transition of power is in progress. There is nothing that can happen at to stop that and any conflicts will just pass on to Trump.

In short this is the last opportunity to give them this option as it is unlikely to happen when Trump takes office and he could even work to remove this new permission.

Answer 3

Has the Biden administration provided any justification for the timing of the announcement (i.e., in lame duck period, and right after the Scholz-Putin call)?

First, the White House was reluctant to comment, with no official announcement of the kind you imply for days.

The Biden administration hasn't publicly confirmed the ATACMS policy change. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told journalists at a Monday briefing he would not confirm or deny approval for ATACMS use inside Russia, but said the U.S. response to Russian and North Korean military cooperation in the war "would be firm."

Likewise:

In a Monday [Nov 18] morning briefing in Rio de Janeiro, U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Jonathan Finer evaded questions from reporters about Biden's [ATACMS] authorization.

"I'm not confirming any decisions that have or have not been made about U.S. assistance when it comes to these operational questions," Finer said. "I will say, with regard to the comments that came out of Russia, the fire was lit by Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

Eventually,

The White House for the first time on Monday [Nov 25] publicly acknowledged easing restrictions over Ukraine's use US-supplied longer-range missiles, allowing Kyiv's forces to strike targets deeper inside Russia.

National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said Washington "did change the guidance" over Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, "and we gave them guidance that they could use them to strike these particular types of targets."

"Right now, they are able to use ATACMS to defend themselves in an immediate-need basis. And right now, understandably, that's taken place in around Kursk, in the Kursk Oblast," he told reporters, referring to the Russian territory Ukrainian forces have been operating in since August.

"I'd let the Ukrainians speak to their use of ATACMS, and their targeting procedures, and what they're using them for, and how well they're doing," he added.

There's the full WH press conference of Nov 25 transcript available, but it doesn't say much more about this.

There's not been a lot of these strikes, despite all the press. Perhaps two strikes by Ukraine with ATACMS in Bryansk and on a airfield in Kursk, to date. Commentators who were saying that their impact would be limited because of limited supply were probably correct.

BTW, I don't see why the WH would have to be terribly concerned about the Scholz-Putin call, of all things. Despite some (ahem, CNN) headlines that the call was "ending Western isolation" for Putin (headline that they've changed in the meantime, by the way), little of that sort came out from the summary of the call. And Scholz has now visited Ukraine again. The call appears to have been more of an attempt to placate domestic opposition (ahead of the elections) that Germany was not doing enough diplomacy. Anyhow, no WH press corps journalist seems to have made the connection with ATACMS to ask something like that. However, based on Dec 2 press conference with Kirby, the general gist of what the WH is doing is (in their opinion):

White House national security spokesman John Kirby emphasized Monday [Dec 2] that the Biden administration’s job is to put Ukraine in the best position of strength to give Zelenskyy leverage when negotiations begin. He underlined that it’s Zelenskyy “who gets to decide if and when he’s ready to negotiate, and he gets to decide what if anything he’s willing to negotiate.”

Answer 4

Biden did so because he lost the election. Trump was campaigning on quickly ending the war, if Biden had sent weapons earlier then Trump would be able to campaign on the Dems starting wars etc and expanding this Ukraine conflict instead of trying to end it.

Trumps plan for stopping war in Ukraine is to demand a ceasefire and then to negotiate a peace treaty. If Ukraine didn’t agree to it he’d cut their aid. If Russia didn’t agree to it, he would increase Ukrainian aid. This is a high level IQ move because it puts Putin in a bind — either he stops hostilities, giving Ukraine time to regroup and recuperate, which hurts him long time. Or he doesn’t stop and Ukraine gets more weapons and Putin will seem even more of a warmonger. In this regard, Trump masterfully appears both as a peacemaker while also essentially advancing same policies as Biden