Biden Allows Ukraine to Strike Russia with Long-Range U.S. Missiles

Immediate military impact and short window

• Several comments frame the new ATACMS permission as late and possibly temporary, with some assuming a ~2‑month window before potential reversal.
• Debate over what Ukraine can realistically achieve in that time: some expect only limited territorial gains due to manpower and resource constraints; others see value mainly in degrading Russian logistics and infrastructure.

Territorial control and Kursk operation

• Users note Ukraine’s small incursion into Russia’s Kursk region; estimates in the thread mention ~2% of the region taken and later partly lost.
• Some argue holding Russian territory might be Ukraine’s only leverage to regain its own land, given assumptions that Russia will not voluntarily cede any territory.
• Others highlight Ukrainian daily losses and question whether exhausted, forcibly conscripted soldiers can sustain offensive gains.

Endgame, land-for-peace, and security guarantees

• One recurring idea: Ukraine may ultimately accept leaving some occupied areas under Russian control in exchange for robust security guarantees (NATO membership or NATO‑like defense pacts).
• There is skepticism that Russia would ever “swap” large occupied areas for small Ukrainian gains in Russia.

Nuclear escalation and “red lines”

• Thread is split on nuclear risk: some fear escalation and see long‑range strikes as dangerous; others argue Russia’s many “red line” threats have repeatedly been bluffs.
• Views range from “better to fight Russia now” to warnings that nuclear war should not be lightly risked and that some comments reflect dangerously casual attitudes.
• Some suggest Russia’s leadership and elites are constrained from nuclear use by self‑preservation; others worry “we can only be wrong once.”

Refugees, genocide, and propaganda disputes

• Heated disagreement over whether Russia hosts the largest Ukrainian refugee population; one user cites a statistics site listing Russia first, others contest earlier contrary claims.
• One side invokes Russian‑hosted refugees to question accusations of “genocidal” intent; opponents counter that refugees from an invasion don’t negate atrocities.
• Accusations of propaganda, “bots,” and astroturfing appear, as well as reminders of forum guidelines.

US, NATO, and global order

• Some argue supporting Ukraine is essential to deter further Russian expansion in Eastern Europe and to preserve the post‑1945 international order.
• Critics describe “Pax Americana” as benefiting the West at the cost of hundreds of millions elsewhere, questioning the moral framing.
• Several see the timing of the decision as linked to impending US political change and expectations of a more pro‑Russia administration.

Adequacy and timing of ATACMS decision

• Some users call the move “long overdue,” but others judge it “too little, too late” compared to Russian aid from North Korea (troops and shells).
• There is concern that lifting restrictions only after Russia dispersed its air force and adapted logistics reduces the weapons’ impact.
• Overall, expectations are modest: ATACMS may help in Kursk and disrupt logistics, but is not seen as war‑decisive on its own.