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@capybara I came to double check this myself as I could’ve sworn that I had read that as part of the original title of this market (that this was until the end of the year), but apparently it was just in the initial post/description above.
Awaiting official clarity from @Schwabilismus but likewise I do believe that it is until 1 Jan 2025
@capybara I think clarity is needed on whether there is a distinction between US manufactured weapons provided by US vs US manufactured weapons provided by UK/France/Germany. Does “US weapon” mean either of these, or just the former?
@capybara I am not sure about this question, tbh. The US can't really prohibit their allies from lifting their restrictions. I think the Netherlands have allowed their F16 to be used I russia already?
This question is about US provided weaponry.
They didn't give permission.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy arrived in Kyiv on September 11 and [...] did not clarify current Western policy on Ukraine’s ability to strike military objects in Russia with Western-provided weapons.
"US President Joe Biden stated on September 10 that the presidential administration is working on lifting restrictions on Ukraine's ability to use US-provided weapons to strike military objects within Russia.[18] Biden stated that his administration is "working that out now," in response to a question about whether the United States would lift restrictions prohibiting Ukraine from using US-provided long-range weapons to strike within Russia. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated earlier on September 10 during a press conference with UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy that Biden and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer will likely discuss lifting these restrictions during a meeting on September 13.[19] House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul stated on September 10 that he believes that Blinken will use the visit to Kyiv to inform Ukrainian officials that the United States will allow Ukrainian forces to use US-provided ATACMS missiles to strike within Russia.[20]"
Source:
The Defense Department said lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to carry out strikes deep inside Russia would have “very little strategic value” because the country’s military has already moved almost all of its armaments out of range.
...a number of factors are leading the US not to loosen all restrictions...
The ISW has published a map on the military targets in ATACAMS-range:
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/interactive-map-hundreds-known-russian-military-objects-are-range-atacms
Deleted that link to "Ukrainska Pravda" from the description. Belongs in the commebt section.
Concerning Criterion 3:
"Other means" can also be self-developed systems:
https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukraine_has_new_long_range_weapon_palianytsia_missile_and_drone_hybrid_already_used-11627.html
Harris stance is pro NATO and pro Ukraine, but will they consider lifting the restrictions?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/kamala-harris-says-she-will-stand-with-ukraine-nato-allies-2024-08-23/
För condition 2, does "just let it happen" include something like "the US calls a press conference denouncing it but nothing changes regarding weapons and ammo supplies"?