Plus, what effect did Elon Musk have on the election?
I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”
Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.
Today's read: 15 minutes.
Heads up.
Some of you might not know this, but if you are ever keen on listening to Tangle, we also have a podcast (the premium, ad-free version is here). The podcast comes out a couple hours after the newsletter each day, and a premium podcast membership comes with bonus content like interviews and our Sunday podcast, where Isaac and Ari chop it up about the week’s news.
Right now, our podcast and newsletter memberships are separate subscriptions. We recognize this is inconvenient for folks, and are currently working on bundling our subscriptions so you can manage them all in one place. Hopefully this will be done by the end of the year. If you have a newsletter and podcast subscription already, don’t worry — we’ll handle the bundle for you. For now, we just want to make sure you’re aware of our free and premium podcasts, as we know some people prefer to listen!
Quick hits.
- Approximately 100 trucks carrying food aid for Palestinians in Gaza were looted over the weekend. Two United Nations agencies responsible for transporting the aid said it was one of the worst aid losses since the start of the war. (The raid) Separately, the United States imposed sanctions on the Israeli settler group Amana, accusing it of perpetrating violence in the West Bank. (The sanctions)
- President-elect Donald Trump announced he is nominating former Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) to serve as Secretary of Transportation. Duffy has been a Fox Business anchor since leaving Congress in 2019. (The nomination) Separately, Trump reportedly plans to nominate businessman Howard Lutnick as Secretary of Commerce. (The report)
- The Justice Department will ask a federal judge to force Google to sell its Chrome web browser following the same judge’s August ruling that Google illegally monopolized the search market. (The request)
- Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy. The airline, which will continue to operate during the bankruptcy process, has lost more than $2.5 billion since the start of 2020. (The filing)
- An E. coli outbreak linked to now-recalled organic carrots has killed one person and hospitalized 15 others across 18 U.S. states. (The outbreak)
Today's topic.
Long-range missiles for Ukraine. On Sunday, President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range weaponry — called Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS — to strike within Russian territory. Then on Tuesday morning, Ukraine used the ATACMS for the first time, reportedly striking a Russian arsenal in the Bryansk region 70 miles from the Ukrainian border. Additionally, the Pentagon confirmed that the White House intends to issue $7.1 billion in military aid to Ukraine through Presidential Drawdown Authority before the end of Biden’s term in January. The news comes as the Russia-Ukraine war hit its 1,000th day on Tuesday.
The U.S.-made missiles Biden approved have a range of almost 200 miles. Until now, Ukraine’s attacks beyond Russia’s border have been limited to non-U.S.-made and less lethal weapons like drones; ATACMS have both a longer range and greater destructive capabilities. Ukraine’s military leaders had lobbied the White House for permission to use the missiles for months, but Biden had been hesitant to grant approval until now.
Reports from The New York Times and Wall Street Journal indicate that Biden changed his mind after Russian President Vladimir Putin recruited thousands of North Korean troops to the war. According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, 11,000 North Korean troops have joined Russia to fight in Kursk, which Ukraine has been partially occupying since a surprise offensive in August.
The authorization comes a day after Russia carried out one of the largest missile and drone attacks of the war, targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure with 120 missiles and 90 drones. The Ukrainian military reported that it had intercepted 104 missiles and 42 drones. However, the strikes still inflicted significant damage, with state-run energy operator Ukrenergo saying it would limit electricity supply for businesses to conserve energy. Russian attacks throughout the war have destroyed 65% of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
On Monday, the Kremlin warned that the ATACMS authorization would add “fuel to the fire” of the war, while Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told a U.N. Security Council meeting that European leaders “are dragging not just their countries but the entire Europe into large-scale escalation with drastic consequences.” Shortly before Ukraine’s strikes on Tuesday, Russia updated its nuclear doctrine to state that any conventional attack supported by a nuclear-armed nation will be considered a joint attack.
Since winning the U.S. election, President-elect Trump has expressed a desire to bring the war to a close, taking calls with both Russian President Putin and Ukrainian President Zelensky. In a call with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Sunday, Putin told the NATO leader that his coalition needs to “accept new territorial realities.”
Below, we get into what the left and right think about Biden’s decision and the latest in the war. Then, I’ll give my take.
What the left is saying.
- The left is supportive of Biden’s decision, but many argue it came too late.
- Some worry that the move will heighten tensions between Russia and every NATO country.
- Others say the war has entered a new chapter as Trump prepares to take office.
The Financial Times editorial board wrote about “Biden’s overdue missile consent for Ukraine.”
“From heavy artillery to fighter jets, each shift by the Biden administration to provide Ukraine with more potent weaponry has traced a similar path. Months of soul-searching about possible Russian escalation are followed by a belated go-ahead,” the board said. “So it is with Washington’s consent for Kyiv to launch strikes into Russia using US-made long-range missiles. This is welcome — but would have been better if it had come sooner, and with fewer restrictions; permission reportedly extends, for now, only to the Ukrainian-occupied Kursk region of Russia. It should also be only one element of a broader effort by America and its allies to bolster Ukraine’s position on the battlefield before Donald Trump’s inauguration as president.”
“Moscow has engaged in loud sabre-rattling in the hope of deterring Washington, including revising its nuclear doctrine. Any boost to Ukraine’s capabilities risks a Russian response; Moscow may now, as it has hinted, arm US adversaries such as Houthi rebels, or step up covert sabotage elsewhere. But it is unlikely to jump several rungs up the ladder of escalation at once,” the board wrote. “The task for Ukraine’s allies in coming weeks is to enable Kyiv to withstand new onslaughts from Moscow, put it in the strongest position for talks — and increase the incentive for Russia’s leader to accept a deal that would preserve Ukraine’s viability.”
In The Guardian, Simon Tisdall warned “Putin will retaliate” for Biden’s decision.
“Biden’s last-gasp decision to permit Ukraine to fire western-made, long-range missiles at military targets deep inside Russian territory runs the risk of triggering a sharp increase in retaliatory sabotage, such as cyber and arson attacks on Britain and its European Nato partners,” Tisdall said. “Amid grinding Russian ground advances, EU feuding and Donald Trump’s unpropitious re-election, the war has reached a critical juncture, militarily and diplomatically. The outcome is in the balance as the scales momentarily tip towards more death and destruction, then back towards some form of Trump-imposed land-for-peace sell-out.”
“Direct, overt Russian armed retaliation against European military bases or territory seems unlikely, although tensions with Poland and other ‘frontline’ Nato countries are running high… Russia may step up covert, deniable sabotage: cyber, infowar and arson attacks of the type it has undertaken in recent years,” Tisdall wrote. “However Russia responds – and the initial Kremlin reaction on Monday was wait-and-see – Biden’s decision challenges Ukraine and the European Nato allies, too. Having pressed so hard for so long, Zelenskyy must prove that the missiles make a difference.”
In CNN, Nick Paton Walsh said Biden’s move “just raised the stakes in a war Trump will inherit.”
“Is it too late for the ATACMS to make a difference if it hits targets deep inside Russia? The answer is complex and perhaps explains some of the reluctance of the Biden administration to grant permission,” Walsh wrote. “There is a limited supply of ATACMS that Ukraine can get its hands on. So even Kyiv being able to hit deep inside Russia is not going to yield an overnight change in the battlefield… Ukraine will not get enough ATACMS to alter the course of the war.”
“The Biden administration was correct to weigh the practical utility of longer range strikes, against the potential for civilian collateral damage in NATO member states, if Russia felt obliged to somehow hit back. So it was not as simple or obvious decision as some advocates in Kyiv claimed,” Walsh said. “In Biden’s eyes this is an escalation, in response to an escalation. But the fact he delayed so long because of the extraordinary symbolism of granting this permission just adds to the potency of the decision he just took. President-elect Donald Trump may think he can talk peace, but he will inherit a war where the stakes have just got significantly higher.”
What the right is saying.
- The right is mixed on the move, though many criticize Biden for his slow decision making.
- Some suggest the decision limits Trump’s options for ending the war.
- Others worry that the decision raises the prospects of wider war in Europe.
For the Atlantic Council, John E. Herbst argued “Trump must not be as timid” as Biden on Ukraine.
“At long last, the Biden administration has decided to permit Ukraine to use longer-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) against military targets in Russia, according to reports. This is a plus, but it comes unnecessarily late, undermining its effectiveness. Months ago, Moscow moved many of its logistical centers and much of its strategic airpower out of the range of the ATACMS. Had the White House allowed the use of these weapons against targets in Russia from the moment Ukraine received them, then the damage to Russia’s military would have been much greater.”
“The Trump circle has talked about providing ‘more weapons to Ukraine with fewer restrictions on their use’ if Putin declines to negotiate a reasonable peace. The Trump team has also spoken about arming Ukraine as part of an eventual agreement to prevent future Russian aggression. Biden’s decision means that the incoming administration in either contingency needs to provide Ukraine something more advanced than ATACMS,” Herbst wrote. "The Russian response is unlikely to extend beyond the usual saber rattling. This will be a timely lesson for the nervous Nellies with the ear of the president-elect—and for Trump himself.”
In Responsible Statecraft, Mark Episkopos said if Biden “wanted to handcuff Trump’s plan to end the war, this was the way to do it.”
“The White House decision to reportedly greenlight [Ukraine to use U.S. ATACMS to strike] within Russian territory shows just how far the Biden administration is willing to go to handcuff President-elect Donald Trump to its Ukraine policy,” Episkopos wrote. “The decision was preceded by weeks of public insistence by White House spokesman John Kirby and others that ATACMS strikes inside Russia offer limited operational value and are constrained by insufficient stocks… The military logic by which these bans are imposed and subsequently lifted was always dubious at best, even as the stakes, and escalatory risks, have steadily crept up.”
“Neither this war's core dynamics nor the underlying logic of Russia's red lines has changed from two weeks ago, except to the extent that Ukrainian front lines are collapsing at an accelerated pace. The only appreciable difference, one that is surely not lost on either Moscow or Kyiv, is the looming transition to a Trump administration that is planning to pursue a negotiated settlement in Ukraine as one of its first foreign policy items,” Episkopos said. Biden’s decision is “the tragic last bang of a U.S. Ukraine policy that habitually prioritized ‘doing something’ in the short to medium term over articulating and pursuing a credible endgame.”
In Defense Priorities, Jennifer Kavanagh called the decision “all risk, no reward.”
“The Biden administration’s decision to allow Ukraine to use longer-range ATACMS to launch strikes deep inside of Russia is strategically unwise and operationally unnecessary. The move will not meaningfully improve Ukraine’s military position, but it will intensify U.S. and NATO entanglement in the conflict and worsen the risk of Russian escalation—including possible retaliation on U.S. or European targets,” Kavanagh wrote. “Expanding Ukraine’s ability to launch offensive strikes with Western weapons inside Russia will not alter the trajectory of the war or help Kyiv gain an advantage against a better equipped and more resilient adversary.”
“In a conflict where redlines are unclear and constantly shifting, escalation management must always be a top priority, especially when nuclear weapon use is in play. Putin made clear that he saw the use of Western long-range strike weapons inside Russia to be a material change in the nature of U.S. and European involvement in the war. A choice to disregard this warning could have dire consequences for the United States and Europe,” Kavanagh said. “Any escalation could also reverberate on Ukraine itself. With the Biden administration on its way out and the incoming Trump administration indicating an intention to end the war, Putin has little incentive to act with restraint in his retaliation toward Kyiv.”
My take.
Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.
- I don’t agree with people who say Biden is trying to hamstring Trump, or that these weapons won’t matter.
- Instead, I agree with these stances: It’s a response to North Korea, made too late, and a dangerous escalation.
- More than anything, I think the authorization came too late — like many of Biden’s decisions throughout this war.
Let me start with two theories about Biden’s decision that I don't find compelling at all.
First, I do not think that Biden is trying to handcuff Trump. If he were trying to do that, I don’t think he’d do so by knowingly taking a false step in a war his legacy is strongly tied to — and with the U.S.’s relationship with NATO potentially at stake. Also, this move doesn’t actually handcuff Trump in any meaningful way. After he’s elected, Trump will still be able to reset our foreign policy even with these weapons on the ground. Lastly, Biden is following a pattern he’s demonstrated throughout the war of giving more and more latitude to Ukraine, often slowly and after much deliberation, and always amidst a bunch of handwringing about whether it constituted an "escalation." I’ve been making note of this pattern for well over a year.
Second, I don’t believe that it's too late for these weapons to make any kind of difference. Yes, they aren't going to be the game changer they would have been early on, when Russia had more high-value targets within range of the missiles. And crucially, Biden has required Ukraine to secure pre-approval from the White House before launching any strikes. But Russia's military capabilities have proven much less impressive than many in the global community expected at the start of the war. Putin is following his own pattern, the long-established Russian strategy of winning a war of attrition, but even a limited supply of these weapons could bring the conflict to Russian forces in a way that changes the contours of the war — or at least tips the scale toward Ukraine in potential peace negotiations.
Zelensky knows this, which is why he's been begging the U.S. for these weapons and the permission to use them. Ukraine, outmatched and out-supplied, has made the most out of little throughout the war, and I suspect they'll do the same here.
On the other hand, I find these three reactions to be fair and very compelling:
- Biden’s decision is a response to Russia’s escalation of bringing in thousands of North Korean troops.
- Ukraine should have had this green light and capacity from the start of the war.
- The policy change will lead to a more prolonged and dangerous war.
Here’s the reasoning behind the first response: Russia is reportedly recruiting 100,000 North Korean troops to the Kursk region to fight (and at least 10,000 are already there). This, actually, was the escalation — bringing in foreign troops to fight on the front lines. Biden is sending a message to North Korea and China about what happens when they get involved in a foreign war against a U.S. ally, and hoping that if Ukraine can strike the area it will make North Korea regret sending those troops and prevent them from sending more.
Here’s the reasoning behind the second response: Ukraine has been fighting the war with one hand tied behind its back, and if Biden had given them the green light from the beginning the war could be over by now (or, Ukraine would be fighting from a much stronger position). Giving permission and use of these long-range missiles was always the right thing to do, it just came too late.
Here’s the reasoning behind the third response: Biden has repeatedly given Ukraine what it has asked for, but (as discussed above) always after much delay and handwringing. This approach has prolonged the war and also made it incrementally more dangerous. Even if you think Russia’s nuclear talk is all bluster (as I do), Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles is still a broadening of the battlefield — and Russia is now likely to respond by increasing its covert spyware attacks or espionage that threaten NATO allies, which will make Europe and the U.S. less safe.
As reads of the current situation, all three of these ideas can coexist; and frankly — in my mind — they do. But if I'm thinking about what the U.S. should have been doing, my gut response is argument #2: Biden should have acted sooner.
In retrospect, I think Biden has been chasing an unrealistic hope that Ukraine could stave off Russia without risking any kind of expanded conflict or prolonged war. Instead, we have repeatedly crossed Putin's purported red lines without any repercussions, all while demurring over how much freedom we should grant Ukraine to defend itself.
Consider this: Russia threatened "escalation" and promised attacks on NATO allies if we sent M1A1 tanks. We did, and nothing about their approach fundamentally changed. They made the same threats with HIMARs rocket launchers; again, we did, nothing changed. The Patriot Air Defense system, the cluster munitions, the F-16 fighter jets — over and over and over Ukraine has asked for support that the Biden administration has balked on giving immediately, all while Russia said "if you do this, we are really going to make you pay" — then we eventually do it and Russia doesn’t change its strategy.
Is it risky to bet that Russia will continue to bluff? Of course. Do I think Russia has any interest in widening this war — including a nuclear escalation — beyond the territories in Eastern Ukraine it is now struggling to defend or capture? No. NATO involvement would be a death-knell for Putin's war, and he knows that. Instead, after 1,000 days, the U.S. should start acting confidently, with the understanding that Putin is doing more flexing than punching.
Of course, I'm not an intelligence official or military expert, and I can only operate on the intel that leaks to the press or in unclassified documents. It’s possible that threats exist I don’t fully understand. But with 20/20 hindsight, if I could go back to the first week of this war, I think I would have advocated that the U.S. give Ukraine everything it wanted right away and allowed them to better defend themselves — within their borders, in the skies, and on Russian territory. What we've done instead is create exactly the kind of war of attrition Russia is built to win, spent exorbitant amounts of money on weapons, and allowed a million Ukrainians and Russians to die or be wounded.
It is, in many ways, the worst of all worlds: A long, deadly, expensive war where the bad guy is still winning. So I'm fine with Biden allowing Ukraine to more widely use these weapons; I just wish he'd done it two years ago.
Take the survey: What do you think of the ATACMS authorization? Let us know!
Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.
Help share Tangle.
I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!
- Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.
Your questions, answered.
Q: In the Morning Brew, there was a section on Elon Musk that reads the following: “With control of X, Musk was able to flood the social site with disinformation about popular Republican talking points like election fraud and immigration. The America PAC also funded Democrat impersonation campaigns on Facebook and through texts designed to target voters with messages that might persuade them to vote against Harris, according to 404 Media.” I have not seen this covered in Tangle so it was news to me. Are these claims true? I lean right but I'm against any lying or wrongful attempts to sway an election.
— Stephen from Gallatin, Tennessee
Tangle: It gives me no joy to say this as a person who was optimistic about Musk’s takeover of X, but yes, it is true. Simply put, Musk has been personally responsible for a deluge of false or misleading information on the platform about the election. Let’s run through some examples:
- Musk frequently claimed that the Democratic Party was “importing” illegal immigrants and committing election fraud by allowing them to vote. These posts often amassed tens or hundreds of millions of views on X (and community notes correcting them).
- Musk posted AI clips of Kamala Harris saying, “I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire […] So if you criticize anything I say, you’re both sexist and racist.” The post was viewed 133 million times and did not include a warning label or community note about the video being AI.
- Musk accused the Federal Emergency Management Agency of blocking donations to victims of Hurricane Helene and seizing goods intended for victims.
- He amplified debunked claims about mass voter fraud in Michigan.
- Broadly, he frequently made misleading claims about election fraud during the final months of the presidential race.
- As noted in the Morning Brew article, he funded a super PAC that targeted registered Republicans with false claims about Kamala Harris’s agenda.
Personally, I have corrected false information shared by Musk on X in recent months, and have also answered dozens of questions a day about claims he’s boosted to viral status. For instance, in the run up to the election we released a YouTube video of my interview with the chair of the Bucks County Republican Committee, in which she corrected numerous false claims made by Musk about election interference and voter suppression in the county.
I don’t think this swayed the outcome of the election, nor is Musk the only person to engage in this behavior. However, he does have a larger influence than almost anyone else online — and I think it’s fair to call out how he leveraged his position to help his favored candidate.
Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.
Under the radar.
On Monday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that some county election officials broke the law in the Senate election between Sen. Bob Casey (D) and Dave McCormick (R). All major news outlets have declared McCormick the winner, but Casey has yet to concede while his campaign challenges the validity of some remaining ballots. Last week, election officials in several Pennsylvania counties — including Bucks, Philadelphia and Montgomery — decided to count ballots lacking proper signatures or dates despite the state Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that such ballots were invalid. Now, the court has reaffirmed its decision and reprimanded those officials for attempting to circumvent the law. The race between Casey and McCormick has gone to an automatic recount — triggered when a candidate’s margin of victory is 0.5% or less of total votes cast under Pennsylvania law — but McCormick’s victory is expected to stand. National Review has the story.
Numbers.
- 1,000. The number of days since Russia invaded Ukraine.
- 1 million. The number of Ukrainians and Russians killed or wounded in the Ukraine War as of September 2024, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.
- 80,000. The estimated number of Ukrainian troop deaths as of September.
- 200,000. The estimated number of Russian troop deaths as of September.
- 190. The range, in miles, of the U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS).
- 50. The range, in miles, of the U.S.-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), which the U.S. sent to Ukraine in May 2022.
- 245. The estimated number of Russian military and paramilitary objects within range of Ukrainian ATACMS missiles as of August 2024, according to an analysis from the Institute for the Study of War.
- 16. Of those military and paramilitary objects in range of Ukrainian ATACMS missiles, the number that are thought to be Russian air bases.
The extras.
- One year ago today we had just interviewed a financial executive who said inflation was over and a recession was coming.
- The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the ad in the free version for The Disaster Playbook.
- Nothing to do with politics: Tennis legend Rafael Nadal is playing his final tournament, and today’s quarterfinal match in the Davis Cup could be his last ever.
- Yesterday’s survey: 4,476 readers responded to our survey asking about Trump proposing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to run the Department of Health and Human Services with 77% strongly disapproving. “I am an RN who is retiring soon. I cannot believe that someone with such a profound lack of respect for evidence-based care would head DHHS. Before vaccines were developed every family either had a child die before age 5, or knew one who did. It's rare now, and we've forgotten,” one respondent said.
Have a nice day.
The United States Postal Service (USPS) recently shared the forever stamps that will be released in 2025, including a stamp honoring the late comedian and actress Betty White. Known for her roles on game shows and in the syndicated sitcom The Golden Girls, White passed away in 2021 at the age of 99. In a statement, the USPS described White as sharing “her wit and warmth with viewers for seven decades,” and also noted her compassionate advocacy for animals. People has the story.
Don't forget...
📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.
🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.
🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here
💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.
🎉 Want to reach 270,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.
📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).
🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!