Tangle - The new U.S. weapons policy in Ukraine.

Episode Date: June 3, 2024

Biden’s new rules for Ukraine. On Thursday, Politico reported that the Biden administration had permitted Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to carry out strikes inside Russia, though only near the area of Kharkiv. The significant shift in U.S. policy on the Ukraine-Russia war comes after the start of Russia’s surprise offensive in the Kharkiv province in early May. Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, is 19 miles from the Russian border. The decision also marks the first time an American president has allowed U.S. weapons to be used against targets inside the borders of a nuclear-armed adversary, according to The New York Times.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story here, here, and here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.In our latest video — my interview with Haviv Gur — I’ve been humbled to find overwhelmingly positive feedback. If you haven’t gotten the chance to watch, click the link and see what everyone is talking about, and leave some of your thoughts too.In episode 3 of our podcast series, The Undecideds, our focus shifts from Donald Trump toward President Joe Biden. Our undecided voters share their observations on the current commander in chief and how his decisions on the world stage affect their decision in the voting booth. You can listen to Episode 3 ⁠⁠here.⁠⁠Today’s clickables: Friday and Sunday podcast reminder (0:46), Quick hits (1:40), Today’s story (3:33), Left’s take (7:02), Right’s take (11:01), Isaac’s take (15:16), Listener question (19:42), Under the Radar (23:04), Numbers (23:50), Have a nice day (24:58)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of Biden’s policy shift? Let us know!Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Can trees help us grow more resilient to climate change? At the University of British Columbia, we believe that they can. Dr. Suzanne Simard and her team are connecting our future to nature. Their Mother Tree project could transform how we manage forests, capturing more carbon and safeguarding biodiversity for generations to come. At UBC, our researchers are answering today's most pressing questions. To learn how we're moving the world forward, visit ubc.ca forward happens here. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu,

a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.

It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCcellvax.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about an update to the United States policy towards Ukraine. We're going to break

down exactly what's happening there. And as always, I'll share some views from the right and the left and then my take. Just a quick heads up for those of you who missed it. We had a podcast come out on Sunday and another pod on Friday. That was kind of an emergency podcast. We turned around pretty quick on the verdict in the Donald Trump case. Obviously, this is still the biggest story dominating the news. So if you did not expect a Friday podcast and didn't look for it, I encourage you to go back and listen to that podcast from Friday because we did cover it. And I want to make sure everybody knows that we put an issue out on that just because, yeah, pretty historic day. And I want to make sure everybody knows that we put an issue out on that just because,

yeah, pretty historic day. And I think a lot of people were waiting for something from us to drop. And I know Friday's not a typical day for a podcast drop from us, but it's there if you want to listen to it. And without further ado, I'm going to pass it over to John and I'll be back for my take. Thank you, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Hope y'all had a great weekend. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, Mexico's Claudia Sheinbaum won a landslide victory to become Mexico's first female president. Number two, Senator Joe Manchin announced he is leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an independent ahead of his resignation, causing speculation he may be planning a late entry into West Virginia's gubernatorial race. Number three, joint British

U.S. airstrikes targeting Yemen's Houthi rebels killed at least 16 people and wounded 42 others. Number four, jury selection begins today in Hunter Biden's federal gun trial. Biden faces three felony charges for an alleged illegal purchase and possession of a firearm in 2018 while he was a habitual drug user. And number five, Dr. Anthony Fauci will testify before a House committee today on his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. A major policy shift. President Biden is now allowing Ukraine to use American weapons provided by the U.S. on Russian soil for limited strikes.

A major turn on Ukraine, a major reversal from the White House tonight. The Biden administration giving Ukraine permission now to strike inside parts of Russia with American made weapons for the first time. Tonight, with the Russian assault on Ukraine's second largest city, Kharkiv, intensifying, the Biden administration has made a major reversal, allowing U.S. supplied weapons to be fired inside Russia. For years, the administration balked at the idea, fearing

the strike on Russia itself with U.S.-made weapons could draw the U.S. into direct conflict with Russia. On Thursday, Politico reported that the Biden administration had permitted Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to carry out strikes inside Russia, though only near the area of Kharkiv. The significant shift in U.S. policy on the Ukraine-Russia war comes after the start of Russia's surprise offensive in the Kharkiv province in early May. Kharkiv, Ukraine's second-largest city, is 19 miles from the Russian border. The decision also marks the first time an American president has allowed U.S. weapons to be used against targets inside the borders of a nuclear-armed adversary, according to the New York Times. The new guidelines allow Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to shoot at Russian missiles heading toward Kharkiv, bombs launched toward Ukrainian territory,

and troops massing near the city. The U.S. already permits Ukraine to use U.S. anti-aircraft weapons to target Russian aircraft flying in Ukrainian and Russian airspace, but not to target civilian infrastructure or military targets deep inside Russia. Biden administration officials also said the new rules do not change the U.S.'s opposition to Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian petroleum facilities. On Friday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed the decision came at Ukraine's request. Over the past few weeks, Ukraine came to us and asked for the authorization to use weapons that were provided to defend against this aggression, including against Russian forces that are massing on the Russian side of the border, Blinken said. The policy change follows similar moves by the United

Kingdom, France, and Germany to allow Ukraine to use their long-range missile systems on targets in Russia. Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO, had privately urged the U.S. to take the same position. In the weeks leading up to Biden's decision, Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff C.Q. Brown also recommended the policy change, noting the prior U.S. restrictions were preventing Ukraine from striking staging areas from which Russia was launching its attacks on Kharkiv. Russia has made advances in recent months as aid to Ukraine from the U.S. and Western European allies has slowed. The offensive in Kharkiv began in May, and within weeks, thousands of Russian soldiers pushed towards the city's border, forcing Ukraine to

move troops from other areas to defend its position. Ukraine's gains underscore the growing problem Ukraine is contending with in its war effort. Depleted manpower, artillery shortages, minimal air defenses, and inadequate defensive fortifications. To counter these changes, NATO allies are considering sending troops to train Ukrainian forces in addition to the relaxed restrictions on how their weaponry can be used. In response to Biden's policy shift, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said NATO members had entered a new round of escalating tension and are in every possible way provoking Ukraine to continue this senseless war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, criticized the delay of the policy shift, saying the U.S. needs to believe in us more and pushing for additional permission to use long-range weapons. We have to respond. Russians don't understand anything but force. We are not the first and not the last target, he said.

Today, we're going to look at reactions to Biden's decision from the left and the right, and then Isaac's take. All right, first up, we'll start with what the left is saying. The left is mixed on the move, with many arguing Biden should ease restrictions even further on how Ukraine can use U.S. weapons. Some criticize Biden for responding to threats in the war too slowly. Others say the U.S. should be prioritizing a peace plan over escalation. The Washington Post editorial board wrote, Ukraine should have permission to use U.S. military assistance to hit military targets inside Russian borders. President Biden has finally agreed to Ukraine's request to use U.S. supplied weaponry to strike selected military targets inside Russia's borders. Good. Ukraine should be able to use the U.S. weapons to suppress devastating standoff attacks on its territory. But Mr. Biden's assent was also limited in both how and when American weapons can be used.

From here, the president must walk a narrow path. He should be willing to expand Ukraine's options if the country asks for more leeway, for example, on where Ukraine can strike. Yet, he should not fully discard his caution, lifting all conditions on U.S. military aid, lest he risk sparking a wider war. Biden's approval applies to military targets inside Russia that are being used to threaten Kharkiv and northeastern Ukraine. It may be that Ukraine will need the same tactic elsewhere, and it should be given the leeway with similar constraints.

Such moves are calculated risks, but they are well worth taking to help Ukraine defeat cross-border aggression, maintain hard-won national sovereignty, and stake out a future as a prosperous democracy. In Bloomberg, Andres Kluth suggested Biden is reacting, not leading on Ukraine. By finally allowing the Ukrainians to use American ordnance to shoot back at nearby enemy targets just inside Russia, the U.S. president has made a sensible foreign policy change, but haltingly and on the down low, after prolonged pleading and urging by American allies, and after dithering and delay that may have cost many lives, Kluth wrote. Framing national security as a simple dichotomy between weak and strong, as Republicans try to do in attacking Biden, is primitive, but Biden does increasingly give the

appearance of being driven by events rather than driving them. The Ukrainians obviously need to return fire and take out the enemy launchers and airplanes, but Biden has so far prohibited them from using American missiles and munitions to shoot into Russia, Kluth wrote. Cynically, but by all appearances effectively, Putin has stoked Biden's anxieties by repeatedly threatening to use nuclear weapons if cornered. That has created a bad pattern again and again. The Ukrainians ask for weapons, missiles, battle tanks, fighter jets, but Biden demurs. Eventually, Biden also yields, but by this time he follows rather than leading.

In Counterpunch, Ron Jacobs said, Ukraine is still not the good war. In what is certainly an escalation of the war, the United States just gave Kiev's military permission to use U.S. weapons to attack inside Russia. This can only mean a rise in civilian deaths, intentionally and otherwise, Jacobs wrote. The U.S. media continues its despicable yet familiar role of promoting the conflict, repeating the same lies it told to provoke it in the first place. The fact that pro-war liberals and allies continue to play the Russian boogeyman card in their attempts to keep the armed conflict going seems to prove they don't want an end to the conflict or resolution to the issues underlying it. Like Israel, the current government in Kiev would probably not exist

without Washington's billions in fanatic support. Although the specifics of each of these client relationships are different, the essential fact of the relationships between Washington and both states is that Israel and Ukraine serve U.S. interests in the regions they exist in, Jacob said. Now that Biden has given permission for the Ukrainian army to use U.S.-provided weapons inside Russia's borders, it's reasonable to assume the bloodshed caused by those weapons will only increase. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right says the move is too little, too late. Some suggest the limits on how Ukraine can use the U.S. weapons will leave it more vulnerable to Russian attacks. Others call Biden's decision an imprudent escalation of the war. The Wall Street Journal editorial board criticized more Biden half measures for Ukraine. The Ukrainians have been on the brink since

Vladimir Putin opened a new front in the country's north this spring, and the Biden administration is now responding late with more half measures. That sums up two years of the Biden doctrine, and it won't produce the Ukrainian success that is in the U.S. interest, the board said. The administration is leaking to the press that Ukraine will now be able to strike targets in Russia. But wait, Ukraine will only be permitted to conduct some strikes with some types of weapons, not allowed deep precision strikes with America's long-range missiles. In other words, memo to Mr. Putin, move your forces a little further back and you're good. This timidity and micromanagement from the Biden administration

is the core reason the fight has devolved into a muddle. Mr. Biden's advisors have run the Ukraine war on academic theories of managing escalation instead of a plan for defeating Russia's invasion, the board wrote. This failing strategy has left many Americans skeptical of supporting America's core interests in a stable and peaceful Europe. In the New York Post, Philip Breedlove and Deborah Kagan argued the move is far from enough. This war is now 10 years old. This move should have been made years ago. We would never have asked a U.S. or NATO combat mission to fight a war so severely limited by U.S. and

Western policy, Breedlove and Kagan said. As Russia continued to bomb the most obvious of civilian targets, the call for preventing Ukraine to use U.S.-provided long-range weapons to hit the Russians in the sanctuary provided by U.S. policy has grown to a crescendo. Perhaps motivated to finally move now, lest this become a focus of the rapidly approaching NATO summit in Washington, President Biden has selected the most limited of options available. Arguably, this one will be potentially the most dangerous for Ukrainian forces. In order to operate under these very restrictive limitations, Ukraine will have to move forward in the battle space, exposing its much-needed multiple-launch rocket systems to Russian counter-battery fire. The administration has also extensively limited

the types of targets it will allow Ukraine to strike, including only massed Russian troops on the border and those weapon systems that are attacking or preparing to attack Ukraine, Breedloving Kagan wrote. The most dangerous part, the combination of restrictions on general deployment location and the limited range, could result in the perfect target set for Russia. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th,

only on Disney+. based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. In the American conservative, Mason Leto Stalling said, Biden's decision offers little strategic benefit to Ukraine and none to America. The Biden administration is constrained to prevent Ukraine from collapsing while not escalating the conflict to the point where Russia might drastically react. The predicament is aggravated by the declaration that peace terms are solely for the Ukrainians to decide, especially now that the stated Ukrainian war aims, such as the expulsion of Russia from Ukraine's pre-2014 borders,

seem more and more far-fetched, Stallings wrote. While the permission given by the Biden administration is, on paper, limited to strikes on military targets in the parts of Russia near Ukraine's Kharkiv Oblast, presumably Russia's Belgorod and Kursk Oblasts, it is unclear how these limits will be enforced. Indeed, the recent Russian operations near Kharkov, which the Biden administration are using as an excuse for allowing strikes, have been explained by the Russians as a response to the Ukrainian strikes on residential neighborhoods in Belgorod, including a recent Ukrainian kamikaze drone attack that killed a mother and infant in a car. Russia's President Vladimir Putin has stated that Russia has no such plans to take Kharkov,

and instead that Russia solely intends to create a buffer zone along the Russo-Ukrainian border. And now let's send it over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So the general contours of the two sides of this debate are actually pretty easy to summarize. One side thinks Ukraine should have a right to respond to Russia's invasion by attacking Russian forces on their own soil. And the other side thinks Ukraine using U.S. supplied weapons inside Russia risks a prolonged and potentially escalated war. Prominent conservatives and liberals are arguing on each side of this debate. If I had to classify myself in one camp or another, I would say I'm much more aligned with

the people arguing that Ukraine should have a right to use U.S. weapons as it sees fit. Remember, Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia started this war. Russia is destroying civilian infrastructure, killing Ukrainian civilians, attempting to topple Kiev, and hoping to forcefully take control of a nation of 40 million citizens. A few years ago, Russia had a tense but stable relationship with Ukraine, and then it launched an all-out, full-scale invasion that has turned into dragged-out French warfare. Russia is not fighting this war because of NATO encroachment or U.S. military expansionism or Ukrainian Nazis. They're fighting it because Putin believes Russia

has a historical claim to Ukraine. I see no reason why Ukraine shouldn't be able to exercise maximum resistance to this existential threat. That being said, just because I'm more in that camp doesn't mean I have no concerns. Like many of the writers above, I fear what crossing this line implies. Right now, the U.S. have given limited permission telling Ukraine it can conduct certain kinds of strikes in certain areas close to the border. But now that this Pandora's box is opened, how long will it be until these weapons are being used deeper inside Russia? And what happens then? These are serious questions, but here's why I don't think those hypotheticals would have

apocalyptic results. At every stage in this war, the U.S. support for Ukraine has been halting and doubtful. We fretted over the madman Vladimir Putin and what he'd do if we sent over this jet or that missile defense system or if we visited this area of Ukraine, and in the end, none of it has really mattered. Putin hasn't tried to bomb a NATO ally because we supplied certain fighter jets or missile systems. He has basically bluffed over and over, then continued a devastating onslaught focused on certain areas of Ukraine. Even now, headlines like, quote, Biden secretly gave Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia with U.S. weapons, end quote, are technically correct but overblown and dramatic. These are the details

from that same article, quote, the president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counterfire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them, one of the U.S. officials said, adding that the policy of not allowing long-range strikes inside Russia has not changed, end quote. I don't think this new policy change is really all that major, and I don't think it is going to meaningfully change the conflict or invite World War III. Putin is pushing farther and farther into Ukraine, squeezing the country, forcing millions to flee, killing thousands, and continuing to destroy neighborhoods.

The idea that Ukraine can't fire across its own borders was always nonsensical and considerably hampered its defenses in this war. So yes, I share the fears about a prolonged or wider conflict, but if anything, over time my position has increasingly become that we should have given fuller, more robust, less fearful support to Ukraine earlier, which would have reduced the odds of a protracted war like the one we are witnessing now. And I sincerely doubt that this policy change is going to meaningfully raise the threat of this war spreading, and if it quote-unquote prolongs it, the implication is that Ukraine can hold off Russia longer, which I support. of this war spreading, and if it quote-unquote prolongs it, the implication is that Ukraine can

hold off Russia longer, which I support. Indeed, I don't think Ukraine should have been so limited in the first place, and even while I hope for an end to the war, I think Ukraine should not be handicapped in how it has to fight the one that's already happening. All right, that is it for my take today, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Brian in Texas. Brian said, I've gotten a few links from relatives to some sketchy articles saying that the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act somehow makes the New Testament illegal. These articles even claim to have heard this from large organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church. I don't believe any of that

for a second, but my question is, how do I respond to such relatives to try and convince them that they're reading conspiratorial trash? Okay, thank you for the question, Brian. When I first started reading it, I did think it was going to go another way, so I appreciate the relief of sanity, and I think this is a really good question. I get a version of this question pretty regularly. How do I talk to someone who disagrees with me? But this is one of the hardest versions of that question. How do I talk to people I know who are getting news from terrible sources? How can I convince them not to trust those outlets? First, as hard as it is, don't start out with the goal to persuade. They'll get defensive

and you'll get frustrated. Just have the goal of wanting to be heard. The next step is to react before you actually respond. I usually will write out my first reaction and of wanting to be heard. The next step is to react before you actually respond. I usually will write out my first reaction and allow myself to be emotional. Then, after I've expressed the things that I wanted to express, I revise what I wrote to be sure to communicate the thoughts I want to communicate. So after being frustrated about hearing people say the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act will make the Bible illegal, it's time to try to communicate. The best way to be heard is to make sure the other person knows they're heard, too. So I'd say start with the questions. Who is saying that and why? What are they basing that claim on? I know that a lot of professional reactors are echoing this claim

based on a line from this law that defines saying that Jews killed Jesus as an example of anti-Semitic speech punishable by legal action. Therefore, according to the outrage machine, an interpretation of the gospel that Jews killed Jesus would therefore make the scriptures illegal. Before starting in on disagreeing, I would open up with some commiseration. Personally, I'd start by saying that I'm also a very strong free speech supporter and that this law worried me a good bit when I first heard about it. Then, I'd share the things that I learned. For example, a few weeks ago, we had civil rights attorney Amanda Berman on the Sunday podcast and she explained how this law just provides a definition of antisemitism

that schools can use to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It does not ban any statements and it does not supersede the First Amendment. If they're open to hearing that, remind them that this law was passed by Congress, and that a similar text had already passed unanimously in the Senate years ago. And then remind them that many members of Congress are deeply religious Christians and Catholics. Of course, you can also remind them that there are people out there who profit on their outrage, people who only care about getting you to share and click on their articles. And then it's time for the hard sell, duh. If they're interested in hearing news that gives them different perspectives about an issue, you can let them know where to find us.

All right, that is it for our reader question today. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the podcast, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Thank you, Isaac. And here is your Under the Radar story for today, folks. A new poll from Morning Consult found that 54% of voters approve of the guilty verdict in Trump's so-called hush money case, and that 49

percent of independents and 15 percent of Republicans think that he should drop his bid for the White House. Similarly, an ABC News Ipsos poll found that 50 percent of Americans agreed with the verdict and 49 percent think he should end his 2024 presidential campaign over the result. Separately, a Reuters Ipsos poll found that 10% of Republicans and 25% of independents say they are now less likely to vote for Trump. You can check out all three polls in links in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The estimated number of active Russian soldiers as of 2024 is 1,320,000, according to Statista. The estimated number of active Ukrainian soldiers as of 2024 is 900,000.

The approximate number of artillery systems delivered to Ukraine from the U.S. since Russia's invasion as of February 2024 is 360. Russia's estimated inventory of nuclear warheads is 5,889. The percentage of U.S. adults who believe the Ukraine-Russia war will last at least the next two years and beyond is 38%. That's according to a February 2024 poll from the Quincy Institute-Harris. The percentage of U.S. adults who believe the war will end in total military victory for

Ukraine is 12%. The percentage of U.S. adults who believe the war will end in total military victory for Russia is 11%. And the percentage of U.S. adults who support the U.S. urging Ukraine to engage in diplomatic negotiations with Russia and the U.S. to end the war as soon as possible is 69%. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. An HIV vaccine candidate developed at Duke University achieved a promising benchmark by triggering low levels of broadly neutralizing HIV antibodies among a small group of people. The finding not only provides proof that a vaccine can elicit these antibodies to fight diverse strains of HIV,

but also shows that it can provoke an essential immune response within weeks. Our next steps are to induce more potent neutralizing antibodies against other sites on HIV to prevent virus escape. We're not there yet, but the way forward is now much clearer, said senior author Barton F. Haynes, MD, director of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute. Science Daily has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that's it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com and sign up for a

membership. And if you didn't get a chance to listen, there are two podcasts that are up, including Friday's special edition podcast, which covered the Trump verdict, and the Sunday podcast with Ari's triumphant return to the mic. It was a really fun one. I think you guys should take a listen to it. It's a pretty good time.

We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the team, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Thank you. We'll be right back. who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th,

only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Thank you.