Last Thursday, President Joe Biden secretly gave Ukraine permission to use American-provided weapons to strike limited targets within Russia. What Biden did not explain, however, was an answer to the most vital question: how does this escalation serve America’s interests?

It is stunning – and alarming – that such a question even has to be asked. Yet there is no evidence that anyone in the White House, State Department, or Defense Department charted a well-reasoned strategy ahead of the decision to allow American-enabled lethal actions on Russian soil.

On Friday, Blinken explained the move was merely to “adapt and adjust” to changing battlefield conditions, yet even in this statement, offered no comment on how the policy shift would change the course of the war, lead to an improved condition for Ukraine, or produce a positive outcome for America. It doesn’t take much analysis to understand this action will do none of those things. What they may do, however, is worsen the situation for both Ukraine and the United States.

We have the better part of a century’s worth of experience between the United States (and the West in general) opposite the Russians (and Soviets before) in the conduct of proxy wars. The Democracies on one side and the Communists or Autocrats on the other, have long fueled wars on the others’ periphery, with the intent to weigh down their opponent, drain them of resources, or blunt their expansionist desires. What all sides have studiously avoided has been supplying lethal aid to proxy forces to attack directly on the territory of their nuclear-armed adversaries.

Until now.

When war first broke out in early 2022, there was much worrying in the Western world about expanding the war, about potentially drawing Russia into an attack of the West, and much hand-wringing over crossing presumed ‘red lines.’ At first it was mere “offensive weapons”, then specific systems, such as anti-tank missiles, anti-air missiles, U.S. howitzers, then modern Western tanks, top line armored personnel carriers, air defense systems, long range missile systems, and lastly F-16 fighter jets.  All of those were feared to be ‘red lines’ that could expand the war, and yet none have.

The presumption among many in the West, then, is that because none of these actions spawned a Russian attack against the West, none ever would.  That is a foolish logic upon which to base policy, as the mentality fails to understand what drives the Russians, fails to consider the cumulative effect, and doesn’t consider how even we would respond to similar policies from Putin’s side.

Can you imagine how American leaders would have reacted during our 20-year debacle of war in Afghanistan if the Russians or Chinese had not merely provided emotional support to the Taliban but had physically given them arms, ammunition, training, and intelligence support? And then further, if they started providing weapons and ammunition that didn’t merely help our enemy kill American service members but then advanced to kill U.S. troops on American soil? One may have to wonder what we would have said, but we don’t have to wonder what Russian leaders are saying.

On Monday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Putin had delivered "a very significant warning and it must be taken with the utmost seriousness,” adding that he warned American leaders “against miscalculations that could have fatal consequences.

The belief in the West that allowing the use of long-range weapons and F-16s to attack targets on the Russian mainland would change the course of the war is embarrassing in its naiveté. Any elemental analysis of the balance of power between the Ukraine side (along with the support from the West) and the Russian side shows that Putin’s forces have decisive advantages in air power, air defense, armor, missiles, drones, industrial capacity, and manpower.

Launching a handful of long-range shots into Russia will hurt them, but it will do nothing to change the course of the war, much less its outcome. Consider that even the Russian campaign of consistent and devastating long-range missile strikes into critical Ukrainian military infrastructure has never brought Kyiv’s forces to heel. A sustained and large-scale campaign from the West against Russia would have similarly minimal results – but it might push Russia to retaliate.

There is nothing for the United States to gain and a great deal to lose by expanding the allowed target list of our weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. Risking nuclear escalation is foolish to the highest degree. Biden's permission last week should be rescinded immediately before any damage is done.

The most prudent course of action at this point is to seek a negotiated settlement on the best terms available, end this current war, and do all in our diplomatic power to prevent the outbreak of a future one. Risking an existential war with Russia when American national security is not at risk is the height of foolishness.

About the Author: Daniel L. Davis 

Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow & Military Expert for Defense Priorities, a retired Army Lt.Col with four combat deployments, and host of Daniel Davis Deep Dive on YouTube.