Two significant geopolitical maneuvers — one by the Biden administration and the other by Russia President Vladimir Putin — appear to have aggravated the trajectory of the high-stakes war in Ukraine. These developments, occurring just two months before Donald Trump’s anticipated return to the White House, reveal a situation bracing for what could be a dramatic shift in American foreign policy.
Trump’s bragging about ending the war within 24 hours looms large, adding urgency to the current strategic calculus. President Joe Biden’s green light for Ukraine to deploy long-range ATACMS missiles deep into Russian-held territory marks a striking departure from the U.S.’s earlier restraint. Alongside this, nearly $300 million in new military aid, including anti-personnel landmines, highlights the Biden administration’s desperation to fortify Kyiv against relentless pressure in the eastern front.
For Ukraine, these measures arrive at a critical juncture, as its forces are struggling to preserve territorial integrity amid escalating Russian assaults.
Apparently, Biden’s policy shift is widely seen as a response to an alarming new development: the deployment of thousands of North Korean personnel to bolster Russia’s frontline. The U.S. views this as a “massive escalation,” prompting a recalibration of its red lines. On the other hand, Putin has further amplified tensions by loosening conditions for the use of nuclear weapons — an ominous signal that Moscow will stop at nothing to avoid defeat.
As the conflict’s dynamics grow more perilous, the specter of Trump’s potential reentry only intensifies the uncertainty surrounding Ukraine’s future. As Russia’s slow but steady advance continues in eastern Ukraine, it leaves a trail of devastation and uncertainty in its wake.
The human cost is staggering, and Ukraine now faces a dual challenge: halting Moscow’s momentum and bracing for the political shakeup looming in Washington. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government are left to decipher what Donald Trump’s vague promise to end the war “in 24 hours” might mean in practice.
Trump, famously enigmatic and unpredictable, is no stranger to bold proclamations. His track record, however, paints a complicated picture — admiring Vladimir Putin on the one hand, while positioning himself as a shrewd, albeit transactional, negotiator on the other. Zelensky, despite his skepticism, appear cautiously optimistic, hoping Trump might prioritize a broader, more strategic approach over short-term deal making.
Ukrainian officials suggest that Trump’s overriding goal will be to project strength, an endeavor that may define his foreign policy. This posture, they argue, will require tough choices: pressuring both Ukraine and Russia without undermining U.S. leadership. Walking away, as tempting as isolationism may sound to some in Trump’s base, is unlikely to be an option.
The stakes are high. Any misstep could haunt Trump as Afghanistan did Biden, a foreign policy wound that still festers. If Ukraine becomes Trump’s “Afghanistan,” the consequences — both for Ukraine’s survival and America’s global standing — could be just as severe. It’s a gamble with no guarantees, and one that will test the limits of strength, strategy and statesmanship.
“It is certain that the war will end sooner with the policies of the team that will now lead the White House. This is their approach, their promise to their citizens,” Zelensky said in an interview with the Ukrainian media outlet Suspilne. His remarks carried a mix of candor and calculation. Recently, he expressed a desire to end the war through diplomacy by 2025 but hinted that peace could come sooner with Donald Trump in the White House. It was classic Zelensky — an artful blend of flattery and challenge aimed as much at Trump as at his own weary population.
For those suffering most acutely under Russia’s invasion, peace is a priority, even if it demands further sacrifice. Similarly, in another talk with Fox News, he sounded more pragmatic and flexible to adjust to the new ground realities: “We cannot spend dozens of, thousands of our people so that they perish for the sake of Crimea coming back … we understand that Crimea can be brought back diplomatically.”
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin appears to view this moment as a strategic pause, one that places him in a position of advantage. Russia launched its largest aerial assault on Ukraine in three months, a brutal reminder of the stakes at hand. With fears of further strikes mounting, several Western embassies shuttered their operations temporarily.
Russia’s stockpiling of Iskander and Kinzhal missiles signals more than tactical preparation; it’s a calculated effort to send a message ahead of a potential Trump administration. Putin’s aim is clear: to enter any future negotiations from a position of unyielding strength.
For Moscow, this isn’t about compromise; it’s about dictating terms. The Kremlin’s maneuvers suggest a deliberate attempt to test Ukraine’s resolve and set the stage for discussions with Trump. For Zelensky, the challenge is monumental — maintaining resilience while navigating a future that hinges as much on external politics as on the battlefield itself.
Factually speaking, in Moscow, a quiet confidence pervades — a belief that Ukraine’s resistance is merely a prelude to its eventual collapse. Yet, come January, the calculus shifts. For Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump’s ascension to power complicates the path forward. Putin will have to tackle a new reality: Trump is now at the helm. Escalation, while tempting, risks derailing any chance for a favorable deal. In Washington, the Biden administration’s latest military aid package reflects its commitment to Kyiv’s survival.
Ammunition, drones, missiles and anti-personnel landmines signal a determination to bolster Ukraine’s defenses in the face of unrelenting Russian aggression. The decision to permit Kyiv’s use of ATACMS missiles on Russian soil is a calculated escalation — one aimed at reshaping the battlefield. Yet the timing of this move is unmistakable: it reverberates beyond the immediate conflict, reaching into the corridors of Trump’s transition team.
While Trump has remained uncharacteristically silent on Ukraine so far. As Moscow weighs its next moves, it must contend not only with Ukraine’s resilience but with the potential volatility of an American president eager to assert control. The stakes, as ever, teeter on the edge of clarity, leaving all sides grappling with a future that remains perilously undefined.
Imran Khalid is a physician and has a master’s degree in international relations.
