Thread by @RALee85

I think Biddle is right that authorizing the use of longer-range strikes into Russia wouldn't be decisive on its own, but I also think this is an unfair burden to apply to the delivery of weapons or restrictions. People often say sanctions are ineffective if they fail to deter or stop a war, but they can still make it more difficult for the target to wage that war.

Most of Russia's Su-34 glide bomb carriers are no longer operated from airbases within ATACMS or Storm Shadow range; however, the S-300/S-400 that struck Kharkiv yesterday would be within range of ATACMS, and air defenses have a priority ATACMS target in occupied areas. One of the main benefits of allowing HIMARS' GMLRS strikes into Russian territory after the Kharkiv offensive began was that Kharkiv gained a reprieve from S-300/S-400 strikes. It seems that is no longer the case.

Of course, allowing these strikes would help Ukraine hold the buffer zone in Kursk, which could become more difficult this winter. It's also worth noting that Ukraine's campaign of targeting Russian infrastructure is being accomplished with Ukrainian-built UAVs and missiles.

There likely isn't a single silver bullet that will prove decisive, but new capabilities can be additive, which, when employed together effectively, can achieve greater effects. It is also critical for Ukraine's supporters to look for options to help Ukraine compensate for Russia's advantages.