Could Biden’s Ukraine missile move trigger world War III? Experts’ verdicts

A recent shift in U.S. policy has sparked intense debate, as President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to deploy American long-range missiles, including the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), against targets inside Russia.

Finalized on November 17, 2024, this decision overturns prior restrictions that had limited Ukraine from using U.S.-supplied weapons exclusively within its own territory, which could mark a significant development in U.S. involvement in the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia.

The decision to approve Ukraine’s use of ATACMS against targets inside Russia came after Moscow stationed nearly 50,000 troops in the southern region of Kursk. This area, the site of a major Ukrainian counteroffensive during the summer, is now a focal point for Russia’s efforts to reclaim lost ground.

Adding to the tension, thousands of North Korean troops have reportedly joined Russian forces in Kursk, raising concerns in Washington.

Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that allowing Ukraine to fire U.S. missiles into Russian territory would signify direct involvement in the conflict by the United States, thereby escalating the war.

Donald Trump Jr. criticized the decision, suggesting it could lead to a major conflict before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office in January.

“The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives,” Trump Jr said.

In contrast, some European leaders have shown support for the decision. Josep Borrell, the European Union‘s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, welcomed the move, emphasizing Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

Newsweek has reached out to experts for their perspectives on the potential implications of this policy change.

Michael C. Desch, Packey J. Dee Professor of International Relations, University of Notre Dame

I think President Biden’s decision to sanction Ukrainian use of U.S. weapons, capable of hitting targets deep in old Russia, is both dangerous and pointless.

It is dangerous because I believe that to use deep strike systems like ATACMS may require direct U.S./NATO involvement, primarily in targeting.

I doubt it will lead to WWIII, but it will further escalate a bloody and dangerous war that should have never happened, and should have been shut down long ago. It likely has already escalated the scope of the conflict—the Houthis, for example, seem to have acquired some advanced weaponry that likely came from Russia.

Running the risk of the escalation of the conflict is also pointless because I believe the West is unlikely to provide the Ukrainians with sufficient numbers of these systems to change the course of the war on the ground, which the Russians are likely winning at this point.

The optimistic take on President Biden’s decision is that he is hoping to find some leverage against the Russians in the inevitable negotiations which will end this war. The pessimistic take is that he could be trying to tie the hands of his successor, Donald Trump, who is likely to embrace a very different policy vis-a-vis Ukraine. Either way, the West is playing with fire.

Robert Romanchuk, Ukrainian Studies Fund Research Fellow, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute

Americans may not have noticed—nor, shockingly, have many Europeans—that World War III has already begun. On one side are Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The Russian war in Ukraine is being fought with Chinese support for Russian industry, Iranian drones, and North Korean ammunition and missiles, which kill Ukrainian civilians every night, and now North Korean troops.

On the other are Ukraine, which is currently drip-fed support by the Western democracies—the people of free Syria, who suffer each day and whom I believe the media neglect even more than those of Ukraine—and the Western democracies themselves, the target of Russian “hybrid war,” ranging from destructive hacking to election interference.

And if Russia prevails in Ukraine, there is little doubt that the hot war will move to the Baltic states or Poland, the few states in Europe that understand perfectly well what is happening.

I believe Russia’s list of “red lines” is endless, yet when Western democracies cross them, Russia often retreats from its threats. Every new shipment of weapons to Ukraine has been met with warnings from Moscow, but time and again, those weapons were delivered, and Russia took no significant retaliatory action.

Russia’s neighbors, Finland and Sweden, are now in NATO, and Russia did nothing. Russia’s leaders care too much about their wealth and hope too much to reclaim their villas in Europe to launch nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, the Biden administration’s, Jake Sullivan‘s “escalation management,” has led to Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean escalation, and within this, I believe that states like Ukraine may end up seeking their own nuclear deterrent.

The Ukrainian revolution is an epochal moment in history, and its people’s courage and resilience are one of the few beacons of hope in the world today. We guaranteed to protect Ukraine’s independence when it unilaterally disarmed at Budapest in 1994. Ukraine deserves our support and, moreover, it deserves closer attention from the press than emails asking “but what about World War III?” once or twice a year.

Richard K. Betts, International Relations Scholar, U.S. Foreign Policy. Author of ‘American Force’

At this point, the risk of major Russian escalation in response to ATACMS is low since Putin now has a natural incentive to wait a couple of months until Trump takes office and reverses U.S. policy on Ukraine.

Professor Lubomyr Luciuk, Department of Political Science and Economics, Ukrainian History, Royal Military College of Canada

Providing Ukraine with all the weapons needed to defeat the Russians will de-escalate this conflict and prevent a world war. Not doing so will yield the field to “powers and principalities” seeking to undermine the rules-based international order and exacerbate worldwide geopolitical instability. Ensuring Ukraine’s victory is the antidote to Russia’s predatory and rapacious behavior.

Dani Belo, PhD, Security and International Relations Director, Global Policy Horizons Research Lab

Ukraine’s ability to now strike into Russian territory indeed has the potential to escalate the war with Russia. However, the election of Donald Trump will likely dampen the escalation.

There is currently an anticipation that Donald Trump’s administration may cut military hardware supplies to Ukraine and put political pressure on Kyiv to end the conflict. This means Ukraine does not have a strong incentive to escalate now, only to lose its fighting ability within a few months.

From Russia’s perspective, there is also currently no incentive for escalation. Moscow believes that Trump’s administration will attempt to end the war quickly, so the Kremlin is likely to adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach until the new presidential administration enters the white house without substantial escalation. This means any escalation is likely to be restrained.