By Ed Wallace, 1st year, Politics and Social Policy
Since Russia launched its full-scale assault on Ukraine in February 2022, the devastation has been colossal: nearly one million lives lost, a jaw-dropping $810 billion spent, and seven million people uprooted and displaced within their own country. Standing firm in Ukraine’s corner, the US has funnelled a world-leading $64.1 billion in military support, including the provision of high-impact weapons like ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) and Patriot missile batteries.
During President Joe Biden’s administration there has been a series of decisive policies aimed to bolster Ukraine’s defences while punishing Russia economically. Central to these aims, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) has provided $183 billion for the Operation Atlantic Resolve to deter Russian aggression against NATO. The United States has taken a sledgehammer to Russia’s economy through sweeping economic sanctions, most notably targeting the energy sector. A comprehensive ban on imports of Russian crude oil, which has affected nearly 100 major firms, has significantly cut off a major lifeline for Moscow’s war chest. Adding to the economic chokehold, the U.S. and its allies froze $350 billion—roughly half—of Russia's foreign currency reserves, restricting the Kremlin's financial manoeuvrability.
These actions dealt a sharp blow to Russia’s economy, causing it to contract by 2.1% in 2022. However, Moscow has scrambled to soften the blow, leveraging a surge in oil exports to countries like India and China. This pivot has partially stabilized the economy, which has since managed to grow by 3.3%, although still 0.7% lower than what pre-sanction forecasts had predicted.
On November 18, 2024, the United States took a decisive step in bolstering Ukraine's defence capabilities, officially approving the delivery of advanced missile systems. This included granting Ukraine the authorization to use long-range U.S.-manufactured missiles, which have a range of up to 300 kilometres. Within just 24 hours, Ukraine demonstrated the potency of this new arsenal, deploying the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) in a high-profile strike on Russia’s Bryansk region.
This new arsenal marks a seismic shift in Ukraine’s strategic playbook, allowing precision strikes on critical Russian assets previously considered untouchable. Key military installations, sprawling supply depots, and high-level command centres are now squarely within Ukraine’s crosshairs. These attacks threaten to unravel Russia’s logistical web, crippling supply lines and forcing Putin’s forces to reassess their hold on key frontlines.
For Ukraine, the advantage is game-changing: with the ability to neutralise Russia’s artillery dominance and undermine its air superiority, these precision assaults could significantly accelerate the liberation of occupied territories. Russia maintains control over approximately 18% of Ukraine’s total land area, and with the USA’s recent increased support, Ukraine’s military has gained a formidable advantage in regaining these contested territories.
However, the use of these long-range military systems could heighten the risk of escalation in the conflict. Putin has repeatedly warned against Ukrainian missile strikes, implying that such attacks would lead to severe retaliatory measures, and it is a very real possibility that the Bryansk strike may provoke a more aggressive Russian response.
On the global scale, the heightened use of missile systems could destabilise already fragile geopolitical relations. Countries such as India and China, who are dependent on Russia’s energy exports, may face economic repercussions which could ultimately lead to their involvement in the conflict. Therefore, there may be an escalation of military actions which could raise the spectre of a larger, potentially global war, especially if Russia retaliates against NATO members.
Biden’s decision to grant Ukraine the use of long-range missiles is likely a response to the outcome of the recent US Presidential Election where the Republicans were victorious. Although the majority of the Western world has advocated for its support of Ukraine, Trump goes against the norm. Trump has previously expressed admiration for Putin and suggested an isolationist approach, which could potentially undermine current Western support efforts in Ukraine. Trump’s stance on negotiations, where he has touched on the idea of negotiating peace deals with Russia, may result in Kyiv having to make painful compromises. This may include relinquishing occupied regions like Crimea and parts of the Donbas, as well as reducing US sanctions on Russia, which could help boost its economy.
Ultimately, Biden’s decision to escalate military support for Ukraine may prove to be "too little, too late." With just two months remaining before Trump assumes the presidency, Ukraine is likely to see only fleeting benefits from Biden's initiative. While Biden has publicly backed Ukraine since Russia's invasion in February 2022, his cautious, reactive stance now risks being overshadowed by Trump’s more isolationist policies, potentially undermining all of Ukraine’s hard-won gains. Time may have run out for Biden to cement lasting change.
