Ukraine aims to gain leverage with Biden’s missile edict before Trump’s inauguration

The Biden administration’s choice to permit Ukraine to attack Russian territory with US-supplied missiles is unlikely to significantly alter the course of the war. Russia has had ample time to adjust to this decision, which has been the subject of intense speculation for months.

This decision comes at a time when America’s support for Ukraine is diminishing, with a new administration that appears more inclined to negotiate with Vladimir Putin rather than back Ukraine’s defense efforts.

Although the decision is not insignificant, it has sparked hysterical reactions from Putin’s political allies in Russia (“a major step towards the start of the third world war,” said one Duma member) and in Europe (seen as an illustration, according to Hungary’s foreign minister, of a “pro-war force” eager to “escalate the war in Ukraine globally”).

Ukraine’s increased firepower provides the nation with a chance to hold onto the small piece of Russian territory it has controlled since its successful incursion into the Kursk region earlier this year.

This territorial control could serve as leverage for Kyiv in upcoming negotiations.

It may be the only card Zelensky has to play, which is why Russian forces, aided by North Korea, are aggressively pushing Ukrainians out.

Those who argue that wars ultimately end at the negotiating table are not entirely incorrect. However, they overlook the fact that negotiations often formalize outcomes achieved on the battlefield.

If Russia succeeds in its war efforts — indicated by their steady advancements — they will likely make bold demands on the Trump administration and President Zelensky, potentially leading to the end of Ukraine as an independent nation.

President Trump is likely to agree to many of these conditions, in part because neither he nor his inner circle value Ukraine deeply.

Removing Ukraine’s NATO membership from consideration poses no risk for a US leader who never entertained the idea of admitting Ukraine into the alliance to begin with.

Would Trump care about a de facto ousting of Zelensky and Russia having veto power over Ukraine’s foreign policy decisions in the future, also known as “Finlandization”? Probably not.

Control over a small portion of Russia’s Kursk region is not Ukraine’s ticket out of trouble, but it is a valuable bargaining tool, especially if Trump is eager to quickly end the conflict, freeze military actions, and reach a negotiated settlement.

On its own, it may not be sufficient. Therefore, in the remaining two months of the Biden administration, the United States and its allies should do everything possible to secure Ukraine’s long frontline and bolster Kyiv’s position for upcoming negotiations.

Those with influence and credibility with the Trump administration should emphasize that the terms of the resulting agreement are crucial for America’s European interests.

Rushing through Ukraine at the negotiation table increases the likelihood of Putin making moves once Trump exits office or of turning Ukraine into a failed state through hybrid warfare, preventing its EU membership.

This outcome will determine whether the deal Trump’s administration desires leads to peace or leads to a larger European conflict.

Hopefully, Ukraine and the West will take full advantage of the upcoming opportunity to undermine Russia’s war efforts, while President Trump reflects on the legacy he wants to leave behind as a leader.

Dalibor Rohac is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. Twitter: @DaliborRohac.