Given the sensitivity of making this policy change explicit, the question will resolve YES if it is "de facto" the case that US weapons are being used to target Russian facilities inside of Russia, and US officials aren't particularly upset about it. Resolves NO if this isn't happening by the deadline, or if there is not strong evidence of such a policy change. Resolves YES immediately if the policy change is made explicit (e.g. Biden/Blinken saying something to this effect).
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ347 | |
| 2 | Ṁ238 | |
| 3 | Ṁ203 | |
| 4 | Ṁ154 | |
| 5 | Ṁ151 |
@TheAllMemeingEye put your money where your mouth is https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-a-nuclear-weapon-be-detonated-4e8634844602?r=UmF0VXppQ2F0
@RatUziCat unfortunately market incentives break down for existential risks, but this raised my credence by a few percent
I find this convincing: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-weapons.html
@Balasar And I believe the restriction on military sites only is well within the proscribed resolution criteria.
@mint resolution details are "target Russian facilities inside of Russia,"
Seems like maybe 50/50 still? https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/biden-ukraine-weapons-strike-russia-00160731
It is a policy change that matches the title but I'm not sure (pedantically) about the resolution details (as the policy is very specific at targeting Russian forces, missles, planes but not "facilities" like buildings and such: quoting the article:
In effect, Ukraine can now use American-provided weapons, such as rockets and rocket launchers, to shoot down launched Russian missiles heading toward Kharkiv, at troops massing just over the Russian border near the city, or Russian bombers launching bombs toward Ukrainian territory. But the official said Ukraine cannot use those weapons to hit civilian infrastructure or launch long-range missiles, such as the Army Tactical Missile System, to hit military targets deep inside Russia.
Still secret/anonymous so hard to tell.
@parhizj I think it's pretty understandable that Ukraine can't use US missiles hit civilian infrastructure, and I don't really think that's what this question was about. Hitting military "facilities" in Russia (even if a small part of Russia) is now explicitly allowed, so I think it's a strong case for YES. The question doesn't say it has to be all of Russia or all types of targets.
@mint I am going to keep this open for now since the reporting is based on a supposedly secret decision and could still be false - I'm inclined to resolve YES in the next few days barring some furious denials from the administration. I am also inclined to consider artillery batteries and ammunition depots "facilities" for the purposes of resolution, so I don't consider that an issue.
@Balasar But can they even strike ammunition depots according to what I've read? The wording of politico made it sound like only actual combatants + stuff flying into the war zone (missiles and bombers).
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/world/europe/blinken-ukraine-weapons-russia.html
Won’t count for resolution immediately but if they keep saying things like this it would make it pretty hard to resolve NO.
@RemNi I’ve read that some analysts think Russia has escalated as far as they can in Ukraine. The only other option for Russia I can imagine are deniable attacks (cyber) on their allies, inside NATO countries. I don’t think the fear of escalation in the US administration is lesser than the fear of Russia defeating Ukraine, but I’m not too confident about that simple equation given how much influence warmongers and warprofiteers have in overriding those voices.
@parhizj Russia can still escalate with a larger mobilization. That would probably mean it's game over for the regime though. And then there's chemical and nuclear weapons.
@parhizj there really aren't that many "warmongers" on the US side vs Russia in this political era. One of the reasons why Russia thought this was the optimal time to go for Ukraine. You've got a few hawks here and there, but the rhetoric essentially boils down to seeing Russia as a long term adversary that's on its way out. Spending money to support Ukraine accelerates this process and leads to lower long term defence costs.