It is a very clear escalation in US/European involvement. Ukraine were prohibited from using long-range western weapons to attack targets inside Russia up until now.
I'm not saying if it's right or wrong.
But it's a very clear escalation in western 'participation'. Russia have for a long time been saying that such action would be tantamount to a NATO attack, and so everyone involved surely understands that this is an escalation in the NATO-Russia face-off.
That is a very particular use of the term 'escalation' which is bound to mislead people.
Normally, if we show up at the flagpole at noon to confront each other, and you throw a punch, you have escalated things to a fistfight, and then my return punch is not an escalation. If I pull a knife, I have escalated things to a knife fight. We escalate from fist to knife to gun. Reciprocation - self defense - does not count.
The only way to torture the term into contextual use is to suggest that Russia is not firing rockets at NATO because Ukraine is not NATO, but NATO is firing rockets at Russia because all these missile systems are not Ukrainian, but NATO. This is Putin's framing, and it incorporates the idea that the missile systems are actually being manned but US & EU soldiers.
If you are not adopting that frame, "escalation" only really works if you explicitly define the context as a Great Powers proxy war with a potential nuclear endpoint, where Ukraine is stipulated for the sake of argument to have no agency.
North Korean troops are helping Russia invade Ukraine (by freeing up Russian garrison troops to participate in their offensive).
Ergo, redress is something that helps Ukraine resist the military advantage North Korean involvement gives Russia -- e.g. being able to target Russian military targets supporting the invasion, in Russia.
> In any case, surely the 'punishment' should be directed at North Korea?
The problem is at least as much Russia inviting NK as North Korea positively responding, aiding Ukraine works against all the belligerents aligned against it, NK as well as Russia, and the North Koreans in Russia are not protected by the Armistice the way North Koreans on the Korean peninsula are.
> are escalating the war (they started, with the long-range missiles),
Wrong. Using long range missiles is not an escalation. Russia has been using them against Ukrainian lands for years now. Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to use them against Russian land?
Russia are at war with Ukraine, so they are bombing them. Ukraine have every right to reply with their own long range weapons too, and that would indeed not be an escalation in the fighting itself.
But, the west clearly prohibited the use of their donated long range weapons in direct attacks on Russia, in order to limit their liability, responsibility, 'participation' or whatever, until now.
Russia have been very clear that such permission would constitute an escalation OF WESTERN 'PARTICIPATION' in the war, and even be tantamount to a direct NATO attack, and so it is at least an escalation.
Whether it is right or wrong is not the point, it is a clear change in the depth of western involvement.
This seems like an arbitrary line [0] drawn exactly where it suits your argument. How does having North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia stay on the right side of that line? What about any components that originated outside of Russia but are employed in Russian weaponry or equipment (for example chips)? The information war is a part of "the war", is an "official" non-Russian hacker or troll crossing the line? Or a non-Russian boat or crew employed for acts of sabotage.
[0] It can be fair to draw an arbitrary line, at least you know it's straight and will intersect whatever is unfortunate to be in its way regardless of the side you prefer. But you're trying to draw tiny arbitrary circles around whatever you don't like and that's feeble.
> Russia have been very clear that such permission would constitute an escalation OF WESTERN 'PARTICIPATION' in the war, and even be tantamount to a direct NATO attack, and so it is at least an escalation.
Since the war started, Russia has moved their red lines dozens of times. The “escalation” argument lost it's meaning.
Russia has been striking civilian targets throughout Ukraine with ballistic missiles since the beginning of the war.
How is allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS on military targets in Russia an escalation?
That's beside the point.
It is a very clear escalation in US/European involvement. Ukraine were prohibited from using long-range western weapons to attack targets inside Russia up until now.
I'm not saying if it's right or wrong.
But it's a very clear escalation in western 'participation'. Russia have for a long time been saying that such action would be tantamount to a NATO attack, and so everyone involved surely understands that this is an escalation in the NATO-Russia face-off.
> Russia have for a long time been saying that such action would be tantamount to a NATO attack
They say this every time. When Obama sent non-lethal aid, they used the same line.
6 replies →
That is a very particular use of the term 'escalation' which is bound to mislead people.
Normally, if we show up at the flagpole at noon to confront each other, and you throw a punch, you have escalated things to a fistfight, and then my return punch is not an escalation. If I pull a knife, I have escalated things to a knife fight. We escalate from fist to knife to gun. Reciprocation - self defense - does not count.
The only way to torture the term into contextual use is to suggest that Russia is not firing rockets at NATO because Ukraine is not NATO, but NATO is firing rockets at Russia because all these missile systems are not Ukrainian, but NATO. This is Putin's framing, and it incorporates the idea that the missile systems are actually being manned but US & EU soldiers.
If you are not adopting that frame, "escalation" only really works if you explicitly define the context as a Great Powers proxy war with a potential nuclear endpoint, where Ukraine is stipulated for the sake of argument to have no agency.
30 replies →
The USA, UK and France approving the use of the long-range missiles was described as a response to Russia using North Korean soldiers.
A fair point, but described by who?
And was this just a post-hoc justification, or had the western powers declared that they would retaliate if Russia involved other armies?
In any case, surely the 'punishment' should be directed at North Korea?
Why should it be directed at North Korea?
North Korean troops are helping Russia invade Ukraine (by freeing up Russian garrison troops to participate in their offensive).
Ergo, redress is something that helps Ukraine resist the military advantage North Korean involvement gives Russia -- e.g. being able to target Russian military targets supporting the invasion, in Russia.
> In any case, surely the 'punishment' should be directed at North Korea?
The problem is at least as much Russia inviting NK as North Korea positively responding, aiding Ukraine works against all the belligerents aligned against it, NK as well as Russia, and the North Koreans in Russia are not protected by the Armistice the way North Koreans on the Korean peninsula are.
North Korean soldiers that mysteriously have yet to materialize in a fashion that isn't blatant propaganda.
> are escalating the war (they started, with the long-range missiles),
Wrong. Using long range missiles is not an escalation. Russia has been using them against Ukrainian lands for years now. Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to use them against Russian land?
No, you are wrong.
Russia are at war with Ukraine, so they are bombing them. Ukraine have every right to reply with their own long range weapons too, and that would indeed not be an escalation in the fighting itself.
But, the west clearly prohibited the use of their donated long range weapons in direct attacks on Russia, in order to limit their liability, responsibility, 'participation' or whatever, until now.
Russia have been very clear that such permission would constitute an escalation OF WESTERN 'PARTICIPATION' in the war, and even be tantamount to a direct NATO attack, and so it is at least an escalation.
Whether it is right or wrong is not the point, it is a clear change in the depth of western involvement.
> right to reply with their own
This seems like an arbitrary line [0] drawn exactly where it suits your argument. How does having North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia stay on the right side of that line? What about any components that originated outside of Russia but are employed in Russian weaponry or equipment (for example chips)? The information war is a part of "the war", is an "official" non-Russian hacker or troll crossing the line? Or a non-Russian boat or crew employed for acts of sabotage.
[0] It can be fair to draw an arbitrary line, at least you know it's straight and will intersect whatever is unfortunate to be in its way regardless of the side you prefer. But you're trying to draw tiny arbitrary circles around whatever you don't like and that's feeble.
4 replies →
> Russia have been very clear that such permission would constitute an escalation OF WESTERN 'PARTICIPATION' in the war, and even be tantamount to a direct NATO attack, and so it is at least an escalation.
Since the war started, Russia has moved their red lines dozens of times. The “escalation” argument lost it's meaning.
1 reply →
[flagged]
Public opinion is being manipulated hard, the U.S. just closed down its embassy in Kyiv:
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-latest-us-shuts-...
The current U.S. administration wants to make the most out of the remaining 60 days. Perhaps they have a little help:
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-77th-brigade-britains...