4 ms·

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 o

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 4y 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_ 4y 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.

JumpCrisscross 4y 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_ 4y 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.