Table of Contents
- 0.1 Part of the plan is to allow Kiev to strike with long-range Western weapons deep into Russia, the agency noted. Moscow saw this as an escalation until Trump’s team gave a direct assessment of the decision.
- 0.2 The Financial Times previously reported that Biden urged his administration to redouble its efforts on domestic and foreign policy initiatives ahead of Trump’s inauguration.
- 1 **Given the potential risks of escalation, what specific diplomatic efforts or safeguards should the Biden administration prioritize to mitigate the possibility of a wider conflict between the US and Russia as a result of providing Ukraine with long-range weapons?**
The current President of the United States, Joe Biden, has a plan aimed at maximally strengthening Ukraine before the coming to power of the newly elected head of state, Donald Trump. This was reported by the “Bloomberg” agency, citing its source.
According to him, the strategy is intended to help Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and show that Kiev has the capacity to respond to Russia if hostilities continue.
Part of the plan is to allow Kiev to strike with long-range Western weapons deep into Russia, the agency noted. Moscow saw this as an escalation until Trump’s team gave a direct assessment of the decision.
In addition, this week the US administration approved the transfer of anti-personnel mines to Kiev and the write-off of almost 5 billion. dollars from the Ukrainian debt. The US also imposed sanctions on Gazprombank, which plays a key role in the export of Russian natural gas, notes Bloomberg.
At the same time, the agency writes, Biden is limited on the issue of military aid and cannot increase its provision: most of the remaining funds from the amount agreed by Congress (about 6 billion dollars) refer only to weapons that are already are stored in Pentagon warehouses. If the US decides to provide more weapons, it will reduce its own defense capacity.
The current president’s administration also considered supporting a formal invitation to Kiev to join NATO, but decided against it, given that the country’s accession to the alliance seems unlikely in the short term, the agency said.
Instead, according to her, a number of bilateral agreements will be developed to guarantee Ukraine’s security. Russian authorities call Kiev’s NATO membership unacceptable and insist on its neutral, non-aligned and non-nuclear status.
The Financial Times previously reported that Biden urged his administration to redouble its efforts on domestic and foreign policy initiatives ahead of Trump’s inauguration.
“The president has made it clear that we need to do as much as possible and he wants this period to be as productive as the other periods of his presidency,” the Financial Times reported.
news.bg
#Biden #Strike #Arms #Ukraine #Ahead #Trumps #Inauguration
**Given the potential risks of escalation, what specific diplomatic efforts or safeguards should the Biden administration prioritize to mitigate the possibility of a wider conflict between the US and Russia as a result of providing Ukraine with long-range weapons?**
## World Today News Interview: Biden’s Last Push for Ukraine
**Welcome to World Today News. We’re here today to discuss the latest developments concerning US support for Ukraine in the face of the upcoming presidential transition. Joining us are two distinguished guests:**
* **[Guest 1 Name & Credentials]** , an expert on geopolitics and US foreign policy
* **[Guest 2 Name & Credentials]** , specializing in international law and conflict resolution
**Let’s dive into this multifaceted issue.**
**Section 1: Escalation and Deterrence**
* **Host:** The article mentions that President Biden’s plan includes allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory using long-range weapons. How do you assess the strategic implications of such a move? Could this escalate the conflict, and what are the potential risks and benefits?
* **[Guest 1]:**
* **Host**:
Russia has expressed concerns about this escalation. How might this impact future negotiations or potential peace talks?
* **[Guest 2]:**
**Section 2: Financial and Military Support**
* **Host:** We’ve seen a significant increase in US military and financial aid to Ukraine under the Biden administration. This includes the recent approval of anti-personnel mines and debt relief. How sustainable is this level of support, especially given limitations on available resources?
* **[Guest 1]:**
* **Host:** Some argue that while increases in military aid are crucial, ultimately a long-term solution requires Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO. However, the article mentions that this is unlikely in the short term. What alternative security guarantees could be offered to Ukraine, and how effective would they be?
* **[Guest 2]:**
* **Host:**
The article states that most remainingCongressional funds designated for Ukraine are earmarked for weapons already in Pentagon stockpiles. This raises questions about the ability to provide additional support without impacting US defense readiness. How can the US balance its commitment to Ukraine with its own security needs?
* **[Guest 1]:**
**Section 3: The Transition and the Future**
* **Host:** The article highlights President Biden’s drive to maximize support for Ukraine before the next administration takes office. What are the potential implications on US-Ukraine relations under a potential Trump presidency, given his past stances on the conflict?
* **[Guest 2]:**
* **Host:**
Looking ahead, how do you see the evolving dynamics between the US, Russia, and Ukraine playing out in the coming years? What are the key challenges and opportunities that lie ahead?
* **[Guest 1]:**
* **Guest 2]:**
**Final Thoughts:**
* **Host:** Thank you both for sharing your insightful perspectives. This is indeed a critical juncture in the Ukraine conflict, with significant implications for international relations and global security.
**(Conclude interview)**
