Escalation in Ukraine War Before Trump’s Inauguration

The Biden administration’s decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range missile systems against targets inside Russia has marked a significant escalation in the war. Ukrainian leaders had long struggled to persuade Washington to take this step, but reports suggest that Russia's deployment of North Korean troops may have been the tipping point for Biden. Determined to fulfill his promise of full military support to Ukraine, Biden appears intent on ensuring Kyiv enters potential negotiations—expected under Trump’s presidency—with a strong hand. On the other side, Russia's response, including updates to its defense and nuclear doctrines, suggests a strategic move to bolster its position before any talks commence. However, the ongoing military escalation underscores both sides' determination to continue the fight.

The Trump Factor

President-elect Trump’s campaign heavily focused on ending the Ukraine war and cutting off unconditional U.S. military aid. Aware of the public's waning support for Ukraine, Trump linked the conflict to domestic economic woes, presenting a compelling narrative. He accused the Biden administration of prioritizing Ukraine’s borders over America’s and proposed converting aid into loans to ease the burden on U.S. taxpayers.

Reports indicate that Trump engaged in an early discussion with Putin, allegedly urging him to avoid further escalation. While Trump did not deny the meeting, Russian state media's broadcast of footage from Melania Trump's modeling days sparked speculation about tensions between the two leaders. Kremlin sources denied the meeting altogether, but Trump's intent to initiate negotiations immediately after taking office is well-known. Until his official inauguration on January 20, Biden, Zelensky, and Putin seem focused on strengthening their respective positions.

The Nuclear Threat

Biden's approval of Ukraine’s use of American ATACMS (190-mile range) and British Storm Shadow (155-mile range) systems to strike Russian ammunition depots and supply lines has heightened the risk of a nuclear escalation. Russia’s revised nuclear doctrine now claims the right to use nuclear weapons even in response to conventional threats to its territorial integrity. It also designates countries supplying weapons to Ukraine as parties to the conflict, raising the specter of a nuclear standoff.

While the U.S. and Russia avoided nuclear confrontation throughout the Cold War, the relentless escalation in Ukraine shows no signs of de-escalation. Should Russia resort to tactical nuclear weapons, the nature of the conflict will change dramatically, compelling the West to respond. Even if Russia refrains from such measures, its new defense strategy could target NATO countries supporting Ukraine, further altering the conflict's dynamics.

NATO, Sabotage, and Europe's Role

Recent disruptions to Finland and Sweden’s internet cables highlight Russia’s intent to impose costs on NATO countries backing Ukraine. These asymmetric attacks aim to discourage European support for Kyiv, especially as Trump’s potential presidency could signal the end of U.S. military aid. Without American backing, Europe's resolve may falter, making Russia’s strategy of intimidation more effective. However, should Russia escalate to nuclear weapons, NATO and the U.S. would be compelled to respond, potentially deepening fissures within the Western alliance.

Prospects for Negotiation

Trump’s negotiation strategy is expected to focus on recognizing many of Russia’s demands as legitimate to persuade Putin to end the war. However, Moscow may prefer a frozen conflict over a comprehensive peace deal. Although Trump seeks to position himself as the dealmaker who ends the war, it is unlikely that Russia will relinquish its goals without significant concessions. Similarly, the West is unlikely to pressure Ukraine to accept territorial losses, making any agreement fragile at best.

In the current climate, marked by renewed fears of World War III, Trump’s leverage over U.S. aid to Ukraine could force both sides to negotiate. However, if this approach fails, Trump may need to devise an alternative strategy to bring the parties to the table—or risk perpetuating a slightly modified version of Biden’s policies.