Biden's awakening and Scholz's concessions: how allies distinguished themselves on the 'anniversary' of the Great War.

The President of the United States, Joe Biden, has allowed Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory using American long-range ATACMS missiles, with just two months left in his term. This was reported by The New York Times, citing informed sources. The publication specifies that, at this stage, the strikes are focused on the Kursk region, but they may later extend to other Russian areas. U.S. authorities have not officially confirmed or denied this information. It is important to note that these ATACMS missiles have a range of approximately 300 km. Joe Biden's decision, as highlighted by NYT, is characterized as a "significant shift in U.S. policy."

According to the publication, this step has caused disagreements among the advisors of the current occupant of the Oval Office. It clarifies that Joe Biden took this action "in response to Russia's unexpected decision to deploy North Korean troops into combat." Specifically, unnamed officials stated that this policy change is meant to "make it clear to the North Koreans that their forces are vulnerable and that they should not increase their numbers."

Reuters, citing its sources, reported that Ukraine could launch its first strike using American long-range missiles on Russian territory "in the coming days." Meanwhile, sources from The New York Times emphasize that Joe Biden may later allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to use ATACMS against targets beyond the Kursk region. The article states: "Some American officials fear that Ukraine's use of ATACMS missiles against Russian territory could provoke Putin to take retaliatory military action against the U.S. and its NATO coalition partners. However, other American officials consider these fears to be exaggerated."

Nevertheless, it was revealed today that, for the first time in history, the Ukrainian Armed Forces struck a military facility on Russian territory with U.S.-made ATACMS ballistic missiles.

The reaction to this situation was immediate: Putin approved a new nuclear doctrine for Russia, stating that "aggression by any state within the military coalition against Russia or its allies is regarded as aggression against the coalition as a whole."

In other words, strikes from Russia are possible. The U.S. officially confirmed the authorization for Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russia. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian Nichols stated at the G20 summit: "The weapons President Biden has allowed Ukraine to use will provide it with greater capabilities to defend itself and, hopefully, will make the Russian Federation understand that the use of force to capture Ukrainian territory will not be successful, and perhaps it will begin to negotiate for peace or, even better, simply withdraw from Ukrainian territory."

Joe Biden himself declined to answer questions from journalists accompanying him at the G20 summit in Brazil regarding the decision to approve strikes with long-range American weapons on Russian territory. In turn, Volodymyr Zelensky did not confirm receiving permission from Washington but noted that "the missiles will speak for themselves."

As Putin previously stated, the Ukrainian military is incapable of striking with modern high-precision long-range Western systems. "They cannot do this. It is only possible using intelligence data from satellites that Ukraine does not possess; this data is available only from NATO satellites. This is the first point," he noted. "The second and very important point, perhaps the key one, is that flight assignments for these missile systems can essentially be made only by military personnel from NATO countries. Ukrainian military personnel cannot do this."

That is why, as the Kremlin dictator further noted, "the issue is not about whether to allow the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with this weapon or not." "The question is whether to decide that NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not," he emphasized. "If this decision is made, it will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries, the United States, and European countries in the war in Ukraine."

According to Putin's assessment, this would mean that "NATO countries, the U.S., and European countries are at war with Russia." "And if this is the case, then, considering the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make decisions based on the threats that will be created for us," warned the Kremlin terrorist. However, he did not specify how the Russian authorities intend to respond to NATO strikes on Russian territory – and judging by Putin's statement, this is how they will be classified.

Meanwhile, other Russian officials immediately began to puff up their chests. In particular, Vladimir Jabbarov, the first deputy chairman of the Federation Council's committee on international affairs, stated: "I think they won't catch us off guard. I believe that. Nevertheless, this is an unprecedented step. This is a very significant step toward the beginning of a third world war, and the Americans will do it through a departing old man who will not be held accountable in two months... The departing Democrats are making such a dirty provocation... essentially reducing Trump's freedom of action. The retaliatory strike will be such that all decision-making centers in Ukraine and all bridges across the Dnieper may be taken down."

Meanwhile, the head of the State Duma's committee on international affairs, LDPR leader Leonid Slutsky, noted: "Strikes by American missiles deep into Russian regions will inevitably lead to serious escalation, which threatens to result in much more serious consequences. And the Biden administration cannot fail to understand that it is leaving the Trump team with the problem of resolving not only the Ukrainian conflict but also an even more acute one – preventing global confrontation."

Directly in the United States, Biden's decision was also not received positively by everyone. For example, Donald Trump Jr., son of the elected U.S. president, accused the country's military-industrial complex of seeking escalation. "The military-industrial complex seems to want to start a third world war before my father can achieve peace and save lives. They need to secure trillion-dollar profits. Lives of people? They don't care! Idiots," he wrote on his social media page X (formerly Twitter). In turn, American entrepreneur Elon Musk, close to Donald Trump, agreed with one user on the same social media X that "liberals love war," which benefits "big government." "That's true," he commented on the relevant post.

At the same time, a representative of Donald Trump's transition administration refused to comment in detail to CNN about Joe Biden's decision on ATACMS. "As President Trump said during the election campaign, he is the only person who can bring both sides of the conflict to the negotiating table to agree on peace," stated Donald Trump's communications director Stephen Chung to the channel. However, he did not answer the question of whether Donald Trump or his advisors received prior warning from Joe Biden's administration about the missile decision. "Elected President Donald Trump may think he knows how to talk about peace, but he will inherit a war whose stakes have just become significantly higher," noted CNN's editorial comment.

"In general, of course, it would be good and logical to provide us with a real opportunity to deliver devastating strikes on enemy military facilities 300 km from our border. After all, UAVs do have weight limitations for payloads. However, the fundamental point is different: most likely, this is practical preparation for peace agreements. Moreover, on both sides (the shelling on November 17 using almost a record number of missiles, including hypersonic ones, and Putin's statement 'Is NATO ready to directly enter into war with Russia?'). In other words, first a hard escalation, and then de-escalation in the shortest possible time. Because after such a statement and in the event of our actual use of long-range missiles, Putin will be left with only two options: either really attack NATO countries or quickly and demonstratively agree to peace. That is, 'I do not want the destruction of the planet; I am wiser than this aggressive West.' If events develop this way, it will be our 'strong position' at the negotiations (about which almost all leaders of allied states have already stated). Even without territorial successes. Therefore, I expect the negotiation topic to be resolved by the end of the year. So that Trump will have to base himself on the existing decisions and reactions from Putin: whether he will refuse to go for peace or initiate de-escalation. And then Trump will have no choice but to support Ukraine in the war or even increase support," notes political scientist Alexey Golobutsky.

Meanwhile, as experts model the situation, some European allies continue to build communication bridges with the Kremlin dictator. In particular, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stated that he will call Putin again. According to Scholz, he discussed this step "with many people." Recall that on November 15, Scholz and Putin spoke for the first time since the start of Putin's "special operation." Their conversation lasted about an hour. The German chancellor described it as detailed and noted that Putin's views on the conflict had not changed, which he described as bad news. Following this step, Scholz faced criticism in Germany from all sides, including even the "Greens," who remain the only allies of the Social Democrats in the ruling coalition. Opposition parties, of course, criticized this call. For example, the foreign policy expert of the Christian Democratic Union faction in the Bundestag, Jurgen Hardt, stated that the hour-long conversation with Scholz is a confirmation of weakness, not strength, for the chancellor. His colleague, the deputy chairman of the CDU parliamentary faction, Johann Wadephul, claimed that the chancellor is trying to play the peacemaker card in the election campaign currently unfolding in Germany.

Scholz's call to Putin was also reacted to in