Ukraine’s push for permission to launch long-range strikes on Russian territory appeared to have been resolved in October when the Biden administration, after hearing Zelensky’s “victory plan,” decided not to give the green light. Now, with the dust settling on Trump’s resounding presidential victory, Biden’s reversal of this position on Sunday was one unexpected escalation. It shifted reporting from how the new administration would approach peace talks to sensationalized images of rockets and more war. To highlight thousandth day of the war, Ukraine fired Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) into the Bryansk Oblast. Russia has responded by officially releasing its own new nuclear doctrinewhich strongly underlines its willingness to go “all the way” if necessary. Now it is unclear whether we are on the brink of World War III or if it is, once again, just another flash in the pan of information warfare.

Officials from the Biden administration and the Pentagon have not made any clear statements to justify the reasons behind the decision. Why give the permission now, two months before Trump takes office and tries to make a peace deal in Ukraine? Most reporting usually presents the green light as a response to Russia’s imminent use of North Korean troops to retake Kursk Oblast. US and NATO officials have explained North Korea’s involvement an escalation on the Russian side, despite the presence of North Korean soldiers on the battlefield is still in question.

Assuming this decision isn’t just based on Biden’s desire to defy Trump, what could the reason be? One reading is that it is an attempt to deter escalation — by threatening escalation. Understandably, Washington wants to stop a deterioration in Ukraine’s position before negotiations begin. But why do this when Biden is a lame-duck president with no mandate to justify his escalating action? Moreover, it seems that the credo of “standing with Ukraine as long as it takes” has quietly collapsed. Now a number of analysts are talking about inevitability to make a deal with Putin. Trump’s return to the White House is expected to do so accelerate this process.

The real reason for the green light lies in getting worse the situation on the ground in Ukraine. The same weekend that Biden’s decision was reported, Russia launched its largest air raid in months, targeting nuclear substations and energy infrastructure connecting Ukraine with its western neighbors. Moscow is signaling that it may shut down Ukraine’s energy grid this winter, which could not only have catastrophic humanitarian consequences but also hasten Ukraine’s military collapse. In this context, the US ATACM authorization letter is a weak response. There is no strong reason to believe that the use of these missiles could have any serious effect on the course of the war. Sources informed The Times that Ukraine currently has only about fifty missiles. After they are fired, Ukraine will still be on the verge of defeat. Russia will most likely be more upsetstubborn and vindictive. The degeneration of Western strategy in Ukraine has reached an endgame that few would have expected as early as 2022. Long-range strikes are a desperate gamble to deter Russia from aggressively pursuing gains ahead of negotiations where Kiev may well be pressured to give up 20 percent of its sovereign territory.

Thus, the timing and form of authorization for deep strikes cannot change the basic facts of the war, period granted by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. However, the decision creates a dangerous juncture where escalation could spiral into an all-out war between NATO and Russia and a deadly nuclear exchange. Thankfully, there are several factors that counteract this. The first is the simple fact that Kiev has not been given carte blanche to use these missiles in a massive coordinated major surprise attack, as it did in its Kursk offensive in August. The second is that when Russia wins the war, in common sense, it is highly unlikely that they will use nuclear weapons, which they would save as a last resort when facing defeat.

Putin has other reasons for choosing restraint in response to deeper strikes. He balances the tough talk on Russia’s terms with more peaceful sentiments for partners like India and Brazil. Any rash and disproportionate response from Russia would cause damage to the reputation of the Global South. There are also domestic factors at play. Even if public opinion largely supportive of the regime’s handling of the war inside Russia, Putin cannot afford to act openly as a warmongering ogre. He must publicly demonstrate a willingness to talk or risk alienating his diverse support base, of which there are many lack an end to the war.

While the public theater of threats and counter-threats will continue, perhaps for the next two months until Trump takes office, the reality remains grim for Ukraine. Russia has a window in which to prosecute the war more aggressively, knowing that when Trump comes in, there will be a reset and new rules will be drawn up. If a game of chicken starts with the West over deep strikes, Putin is confident he can go right to the brink of nuclear war – and we will back down. At the same time, Russia will continue its attacks on Ukraine with the aim of causing a breakdown of social cohesion, economic viability and political stability in Ukraine.

At the current stage, Moscow is waiting for Trump to come up with proposals for peace. Putin has made Russia’s terms clear: the four annexed oblasts and Crimea must be recognized as Russian; Ukraine’s neutrality must be fixed on paper with iron-clad guarantees from the West. Putin has made it clear that there will be no ceasefire or de facto freeze on the conflict before an agreement is reached. Speak in Republican circles that Putin will accept a frozen conflict on the current lines or a twenty-year delay in Ukraine joining NATO looks completely unrealistic next to what the Kremlin is saying and doing. There is no reason to believe that Russia can be bought off with a gift of territory in Donbas without a deal that solves their fundamental strategic problems in Ukraine.

In the event of any spectacular explosions caused by ATACM in Russia, some of Ukraine’s supporters will repeat their claim that the West can cross Russia’s red lines at will without serious consequences. In reality, if Russia shows restraint, it is most likely a reflection of the cold reasoning that they are on the way to victory and hot aggressive retaliation will not help matters. In any case, there is little reason to expect Russia’s resolve to weaken; as was the case with the badly condemned Kursk invasiondeep strikes will only make Russia more intransigent and determined. Biden’s parting gift to Ukraine, like some of his other past donations, may turn out to be a poisoned chalice.

Matthew Blackburn is a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Foreign Policy The Research Group for Russia, Asia and International Trade. He is also an affiliated researcher at Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University. His research focuses primarily on the politics of contemporary Russia and Eurasia, including both domestic political systems and intergovernmental relations. He is engaged in research on Iran-Russia-China cooperation for Norwegian Geopolitical Center and is the research coordinator for The Civilization Project based at Stanford University.

Image: Vblinov / Shutterstock.com.