By Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — President Joe Biden’s authorization of long-range U.S. missiles, specifically ATACMS, for strikes within Russian territory marks a significant policy escalation. While intended to bolster Ukraine’s defense and disrupt Russia’s strategies in Kursk, the decision risks intensifying the conflict, pushing it closer to dangerous global consequences.
Biden’s move reflects a high-stakes geopolitical game of chicken with Vladimir Putin, testing the limits of escalation each leader is willing to pursue. By enabling Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, Biden signals U.S. resolve to support Ukraine while betting that Putin will avoid catastrophic retaliation, such as nuclear action, due to the global fallout it would bring.
Russia, in turn, has increased its brinkmanship by deploying North Korean troops, threatening nuclear responses, and strengthening ties with adversaries like Iran and China. Critics of Biden’s decision, including European nations like Hungary, Sweden, and Switzerland, argue that it exacerbates tensions and risks turning the Ukraine conflict into a broader confrontation. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó condemned the move, framing it as a contradiction to the will of voters who recently elected Donald Trump. Many of Biden’s opponents in the U.S. similarly view his approach as reckless, with Donald Trump Jr. accusing the administration of provoking a World War III scenario.
Trump himself has criticized Biden’s policies as dangerous and pledged to negotiate a swift truce, though he has not detailed how he would achieve it. Some European leaders have expressed tentative support for Trump’s potential role as a mediator, suggesting that a truce could provide a more stable resolution. However, Trump’s track record and unclear strategy leave uncertainty about his ability to deliver meaningful de-escalation.
Supporters of a truce argue that a negotiated peace could destabilize Putin domestically, especially as the toll of war weighs heavily on Russia. The war has cost countless young Russian lives, and public discontent could weaken Putin’s grip on power if the conflict continues.
However, critics caution that any resolution perceived as favorable to Russia, even symbolically, could amount to a Pyrrhic victory. Drawing from the term’s historical origin, such a “victory” for Russia could leave it too weakened economically and politically to truly capitalize on its gains, while Ukraine would endure massive losses in sovereignty and infrastructure. A Pyrrhic victory often highlights the futility of struggles where the sacrifices overshadow the benefits.
Biden’s decision raises questions about whether a more subtle approach could achieve better outcomes. A truce, if strategically calculated, could reduce the human and economic toll of the war while laying the groundwork for de-escalation. It might also weaken Putin’s position domestically, creating pressure from within Russia rather than relying solely on external confrontation. However, achieving this requires a shift away from direct escalation and a move toward long-term planning and subtle maneuvers.
The current conflict demands a shift from playing checkers—reactive and short-term moves—to playing chess, where strategic foresight and patience can achieve more lasting outcomes. As the world watches this volatile conflict unfold, the stakes remain dangerously high, but the opportunity for resolution remains within reach if approached with care and restraint.
*
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista.