Currently US policies prohibit Ukraine from striking military targets on Russian soil, perhaps out of fear that this would cross a red line and constitute further escalation.
According to the [ISW](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-24-2024) Russia has started to move its airforce assets from ATACAMS range, but there still are 233 "communications stations, logistics centers, repair facilities, fuel depots, ammunition warehouses, and permanent headquarters that would be extremely difficult or impossible to quickly redeploy assets from or rapidly harden."
The Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Oblast however seems to prove those fears invalid.
Will the US shift its position on strikes in Russia until years end?
Epistemic Status:
Serious question.
A few minutes search on Metaculus and Predictit hasn't turned up too much on that.
Market conditions:
I will trade in this market
I am pro ukraine and think US permission on this will help to end the war sooner. Ofc i will try not to be biased, but i still am a fleshy human.
If i ever get enough mana i'll maybe upgrade this to Plus.
Resolution criteria:
It is not necessary to prove that it was exactly the incrusion into Kursk that shifted the US position.
Ukraine beginning to strike targets in Russia with US weapons in a big way, but without US permission will only count as YES if the US doesn't seriously disapprove. I.e. they just let it happen.
Ukraine finding other means to strike these targets without the need for US approval (e.g. germany somehow provides loads of Taurus-Marschflugkörper) will resolve NO.
1,000
3.00@mods can we resolve this please?
AP: Biden authorizes Ukraine to use US-supplied longer range missiles for deeper strikes inside Russia
"President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied missiles to strike deeper inside Russia, easing limitations on the longer range weapons as Russia deploys thousands of North Korean troops to reinforce its war, according to a U.S. official and three other people familiar with the matter."
"The decision allowing Kyiv to use the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMs, for attacks farther inside Russia comes as President Vladimir Putin positions North Korean troops along Ukraine’s northern border to try to reclaim hundreds of miles of territory seized by Ukrainian forces."
@AntoineBonnet again, are there enough restrictions lifted? Is the use allowed only in the Kursk oblast? Will the US condemn the current use outside of the Kursk oblast, as per the conditions of the market? Let's wait just a bit more.
@RatUziCat They struck Bryansk oblast today: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/world/europe/ukraine-russia-atacms-missiles.html
@TimothyJohnson5c16 … and yet the market probability has decreased by one percentage point since yesterday 😑 what is one supposed to do when a market should resolve but doesn’t?
@TimothyJohnson5c16 yes that's what I was referring to when I said
Will the US condemn the current use outside of the Kursk oblast, as per the conditions of the market?
@AntoineBonnet if a major US authority - Biden, Sullivan, ... - issues a condemnation of the strike in the Bryansk oblast, how do you think this should resolve?
@RatUziCat would still resolve yes as they authorized in Kursk… the market is not titled “lift all restrictions”. Arguably there would always be some restrictions in Americans’ mind, e.g. hitting certain civilian infrastructures.
@RatUziCat I'm okay with waiting another day or two in case something changes, but at some point I agree with Zelensky that "the rockets will speak for themselves."
@TimothyJohnson5c16 absolutely. No reaction from the US count as an approval after some time. If another ATACMS attack happens outside of the Kursk oblast that's a YES resolution too.
@AntoineBonnet ok, you're in the "some/any restrictions lifted" side, I'm in the "significant restrictions lifted" side. As I said, if Bryansk attack is approved, even silently, YES makes sense. And market creator can resolve as they please.
@AntoineBonnet if the US had authorized ATACMS strikes on Russian bases of the Kursk oblast on the condition that there is currently no personnel and no vehicles and no ammunition stockpiles, would you have considered restrictions lifted? That's a ridiculous scenario to show you a case where restrictions are lifted but insignificant.
@vitamind we have to wait a little to be sure for the confirmation that restrictions were significantly lifted and for the reaction of the US
Ukraine beginning to strike targets in Russia with US weapons in a big way, but without US permission will only count as YES if the US doesn't seriously disapprove. I.e. they just let it happen.
@RatUziCat Even if that were the case, in my view it’s pretty clear the Kursk Oblast is Russia and therefore the condition is fulfilled.
@AntoineBonnet Your conclusion is valid, technically, when reading the market's description. It's really about semantics and the spirit of the market. Semantically, some restrictions were lifted, and that's what the title and description refer to: "restrictions", not "the restrictions". But so few restrictions were lifted that it is debatable whether this will change anything. Ukraine is allowed to strike pre-2014 Russian territory indeed, but only a very small portion, in the Kursk oblast only.
I'll be fine with whatever the market owner decides.
@RatUziCat can you quote any major news report which reports that Ukraine is only allowed to strike Kursk Oblast? Everything I'm seeing describes the exact opposite: Ukraine is now allowed to strike deep inside Russian territory.
Kursk seems to just be a "side note" in that Ukraine is likely to focus their new ability to Kursk due to the widely reported impending counter attack which is reported to involve a large number of troops - including Russian elite units backed up by DPRK forces. Another factor is the fact that the weapon systems Ukraine have in their possession which are capable of deep strikes are probably limited in supply and that supply may ultimately completely dry up with Trump coming in.
The resolution criteria is a little bizarre for this question in that it's not really resolving criteria, it's more like fine print to deal with edge cases. Deferring to the title as the criterion, every major news outlet suggests this resolves to "Yes".
can you quote any major news report which reports that Ukraine is only allowed to strike Kursk Oblast?
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/17/nx-s1-5194432/biden-long-range-missiles-russia-ukraine-war
The U.S. official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly about the decision, said the U.S. is allowing Ukraine to use the weapons to target in and around Kursk — the same region where some 10,000 North Korean troops were recently deployed, according to the U.S. and its allies.
This seems to imply there still are restrictions on where Ukraine's ATACMS targets can be located
@RatUziCat imo, you're making an error, and there is no implication there at all. AP, Bloomberg, Reuters do not corroborate your claim that the use is limited to Kursk. Recent use by Ukraine also contradicts your claim.
US obviously has not permitted Ukraine to strike the city of Moscow with an ATACMS (if that was possible), nor would the US have permitted Ukraine to strike a nuclear site. What the US has permitted, clearly, is that Ukraine can strike sites deep inside Russian territory which have strategic importance to the Russian war effort (e.g., arsenals, rail and air infrastructure).
@vitamind @RatUziCat the ATACMS are already used in another Oblat: Briansk. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-1000-days-attack-06002c8c50bfb2fc622f446a8580bc0e