WHY ENDING WITH A WHIMPER MAY BE BETTER

By allowing Ukraine to bomb Russia with US-made missiles. Biden may have strengthened Putin's hand. Ifthe war doesn't end with a bang, it wiii open windows for engagement

- M K BHADRAKUMAR

ECADES after US President Joe Biden disappears as a footnote to a turbulent chapter of American political history, his authorisation of the use of USsupplied ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles for strikes inside Russia will remain a mystery.

First, the timing. Biden waited till November 6. He had a Plan A in case Kamala Harris won and a Plan B in the scenario of a Donald Trump presidency. Biden has initiated Plan B, which dares Russian President Vladimir Putin to respond with nuclear retaliation.

Biden sees it as a win-win. If Putin acts as promised, a nuclear confrontation ensues, which would disrupt Trump's hopes to normalise the Russian-American relationship. But if Putin doesn't (re)act, Moscow's nuclear deterrence increasingly looks like a bluff and the Ukraine war gets 6Trump-proofed' till 2028. Indeed, if Trump confronts Biden now, he risks resuscitating the moribund 6Russia collusion' hypothesis that hobbled his first term. So, Trump plans to get away to his new golf course in Scotland.

Biden's villainous plot may look smart. But that's only as smart as his original plan that Western sanctions would ruin the Russian economy. In October, the IMF ranked Russia as the fourth largest economy after the US, China and India based on purchasing power parity, the most accurate measuring scale for GDP, surpassing Japan. The Russian economy's upgrade in recent years, overtaking European competitors one after another-the UK, France, Germany and J apan-was driven by Western sanctions, which compelled Putin to implement aggressive import substitution and establish domestic production.