It seems President Biden has decided to dabble in geopolitical poker, but with the stakes set on global security. His quiet approval of Ukraine using powerful long-range American missiles inside Russian territory is just the latest chapter in a saga that screams, “What could possibly go wrong?” Toss in the deployment of 10,000 North Korean troops to support Moscow, and we’re staring down the barrel of a dangerous new phase in this war.
Reports reveal that Biden’s administration has given Ukraine the green light to deploy Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) in Russia, a decision months in the making. These advanced weapons are being funneled to bolster Ukraine’s hold on Kursk, a region Russia has fortified with nearly 50,000 troops. The strategy? Prevent Kursk from becoming a bargaining chip in future peace talks. And while Biden’s team insists this move is to “help Ukraine hold on,” the real question is whether this will escalate tensions beyond repair.
Let’s not forget, Biden initially resisted providing ATACMS, citing readiness concerns and limited stockpiles. Producing these high-tech missiles is no quick task, and Washington had good reasons to hold back. But apparently, Zelensky’s persistent lobbying paid off. In September, during a White House meeting, Ukraine’s president presented Biden with a “victory plan,” complete with a target list inside Russia. While Biden remained noncommittal at the time, it’s clear Zelensky’s pitch struck a chord.
And now, missiles are speaking louder than words—literally. Zelensky’s cryptic comments on social media suggest Ukraine is wasting no time putting these weapons to use. Meanwhile, Putin’s warnings about nuclear retaliation loom ominously. The Kremlin has repeatedly stated that any attack supported by a nuclear power would be viewed as a joint strike. Are we seriously prepared for that kind of fallout?
What’s more baffling is the mixed messaging from Biden’s administration. For years, officials claimed that Ukraine’s homegrown drone industry could handle long-range operations more effectively than ATACMS. They even noted that the 200-mile range of these missiles was insufficient to strike critical Russian targets, as most were strategically relocated far from the front lines. So, why the sudden shift?
Then, there’s the financial elephant in the room. With $7.1 billion remaining in Presidential Drawdown Authority, it’s unclear whether more ATACMS will be supplied. This is the same administration that has bent over backward to “Trump-proof” security aid for Ukraine, aiming to lock in support until 2025. But let’s face it, this war likely wouldn’t have escalated to this point under a Trump administration.
President-Elect Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that the Ukraine-Russia conflict wouldn’t have started on his watch, and he’s vowed to end it within 24 hours if re-elected. His team hasn’t disclosed specifics, but the promise of decisive leadership is a stark contrast to Biden’s over complicated policies. While the media is busy parroting the administration’s talking points, Americans are left wondering how much more of their tax dollars will fund this endless quagmire.
Adding to the chaos, North Korea has sent thousands of troops to back Russia’s war effort. This not only bolsters Moscow’s offensive capabilities but frees up Russian forces for assaults elsewhere. Biden’s team seems alarmingly unprepared for the implications of such a development.
At its core, Biden’s decision to authorize missile strikes inside Russia feels like a reckless gamble with global stability. Peace talks are already a distant dream, and this latest move pushes us closer to direct confrontation between nuclear-armed powers.
It’s time to demand accountability. Biden’s approach isn’t just reckless; it’s perilous for the entire world. While Trump has offered a bold plan for peace, Biden continues to play with fire. The question is, how much longer can we afford to let him burn through America’s credibility?
