3 ms·

The West is effectively at war with Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if the US was actually the one behind the recent explosions and fires inside Russia and not

The West is effectively at war with Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if the US was actually the one behind the recent explosions and fires inside Russia and not Ukranian agents/military. When you're at war, cyber-warfare is to be expected(and hopefully prepared for).

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> West is effectively at war with Russia In a contest. Not at war. Decades of fighting guerrillas has left us loose with words. Tanks rolling past Kyiv should remind us of the bright line between annoying and engaging an enemy.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Indeed - you'd know if we were at war with Russia because things would go incredibly well for America for a few days then incredibly poorly for everyone. America is best described as a belligerent in a proxy war. [1] [A proxy war relationship] usually takes the form of funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance which assist a belligerent party in sustaining its war effort. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
bcrosby95 5y ago
It's called a proxy war.
- boringg 5y ago
  Has been forever in proxy wars with Russia. Proximity to Europe is the large difference in this one. OP is unfamiliar with the different gradients of war which I think is why everyone is jumping on them for since the US isn't "effectively at war" with Russia.
brimble 5y ago
Yeah—when you're shipping weapons for free to one side in a war, plus providing a ton of intel to them from military assets you're operating expressly because of the war, also for free, you're a legitimate target, especially anything related to industrial production (so, including your energy infrastructure). Just because Russia's not decided to shoot at us over it (not because they're nice, but because it would surely make their situation even worse) doesn't mean we're not, effectively, war participants. I'm not complaining about that, mind, but it's not like it's surprising or unfair that they'd try to hit us in limited ways, if they can. Day one of the invasion I double checked our backups (ahead of schedule) and security. And the company I'm with isn't at all involved with anything military, nor do we have any particular interest (business-wise) in Ukraine—some kind of mass automated attack still seemed likely enough to be worth a little of my time. I assume CISOs with infrastructure and military orgs were on a war footing before the shooting started. At least, I hope they were.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > when you're shipping weapons for free to one side in a war, plus providing a ton of intel to them from military assets you're operating expressly because of the war, also for free, you're a legitimate target, especially anything related to industrial production (so, including your energy infrastructure) Proportionality. Weapons are being shipped to Ukraine for use on Ukrainian territory. Not Russia. I don't know if explicit red lines have been drawn. But the Moskva was sunk by Ukranian missiles [1]. And I believe the cross-border raids were done with Mi-8s, not the Mi-17s Kyiv’s been provided by the West [2]. If Russia wants to open its territory to retaliation, that's its choice. But it would be one more blunder in a series of idiot moves. (To be clear, this story looks like Russian criminals being Russian criminals more than anything state directed. If we didn't have the backdrop of the war, the headline would probably mention Bitcoin.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/04/20/us-arms-ukraine-mi-17-helicopters/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/04/20/...
- _djo_ 5y ago
  None of that makes the US (or any other Ukrainian supplier) a legitimate target in terms of international law. Especially as they're nearly all defensive systems being used inside Ukrainian territory. We've established this precedent over decades in earlier proxy wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan where the US and USSR armed each others opponents. It certainly doesn't make the supplier an 'effective war participant' as you stated. This was even true when the US and USSR sent actual personnel in as 'advisors' or combat pilots, even though that is direct involvement. It's not a casus belli.
pkaye 5y ago
Maybe a disgruntled former worker in Russia.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> West is effectively at war with Russia In a contest. Not at war. Decades of fighting guerrillas has left us loose with words. Tanks rolling past Kyiv should remind us of the bright line between annoying and engaging an enemy.

arcticbull 5y ago
Indeed - you'd know if we were at war with Russia because things would go incredibly well for America for a few days then incredibly poorly for everyone. America is best described as a belligerent in a proxy war. [1] [A proxy war relationship] usually takes the form of funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance which assist a belligerent party in sustaining its war effort. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

bcrosby95 5y ago

It's called a proxy war.

boringg 5y ago
Has been forever in proxy wars with Russia. Proximity to Europe is the large difference in this one. OP is unfamiliar with the different gradients of war which I think is why everyone is jumping on them for since the US isn't "effectively at war" with Russia.

brimble 5y ago

Yeah—when you're shipping weapons for free to one side in a war, plus providing a ton of intel to them from military assets you're operating expressly because of the war, also for free, you're a legitimate target, especially anything related to industrial production (so, including your energy infrastructure). Just because Russia's not decided to shoot at us over it (not because they're nice, but because it would surely make their situation even worse) doesn't mean we're not, effectively, war participants. I'm not complaining about that, mind, but it's not like it's surprising or unfair that they'd try to hit us in limited ways, if they can. Day one of the invasion I double checked our backups (ahead of schedule) and security. And the company I'm with isn't at all involved with anything military, nor do we have any particular interest (business-wise) in Ukraine—some kind of mass automated attack still seemed likely enough to be worth a little of my time. I assume CISOs with infrastructure and military orgs were on a war footing before the shooting started. At least, I hope they were.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> when you're shipping weapons for free to one side in a war, plus providing a ton of intel to them from military assets you're operating expressly because of the war, also for free, you're a legitimate target, especially anything related to industrial production (so, including your energy infrastructure) Proportionality. Weapons are being shipped to Ukraine for use on Ukrainian territory. Not Russia. I don't know if explicit red lines have been drawn. But the Moskva was sunk by Ukranian missiles [1]. And I believe the cross-border raids were done with Mi-8s, not the Mi-17s Kyiv’s been provided by the West [2]. If Russia wants to open its territory to retaliation, that's its choice. But it would be one more blunder in a series of idiot moves. (To be clear, this story looks like Russian criminals being Russian criminals more than anything state directed. If we didn't have the backdrop of the war, the headline would probably mention Bitcoin.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/04/20/us-arms-ukraine-mi-17-helicopters/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/04/20/...
_djo_ 5y ago
None of that makes the US (or any other Ukrainian supplier) a legitimate target in terms of international law. Especially as they're nearly all defensive systems being used inside Ukrainian territory. We've established this precedent over decades in earlier proxy wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan where the US and USSR armed each others opponents. It certainly doesn't make the supplier an 'effective war participant' as you stated. This was even true when the US and USSR sent actual personnel in as 'advisors' or combat pilots, even though that is direct involvement. It's not a casus belli.

pkaye 5y ago

Maybe a disgruntled former worker in Russia.