3 ms·

This stuff's not black-and-white, and a lot of it comes down to how the two sides choose to perceive it. A bunch of stuff done by both the US and Russia has bee

This stuff's not black-and-white, and a lot of it comes down to how the two sides choose to perceive it. A bunch of stuff done by both the US and Russia has been an "act of war" against one another and their respective treaty-bound allies, over the last couple decades—in other circumstances, we've (the US) certainly chosen to regard actions smaller-scale than our support for Ukraine as acts of war against us. But, if neither side wants it to be an act of war, it's de facto not. The notion of an "act of war" is largely a pragmatic political tool. To the extent that they exist legally, they're invoked so haphazardly and selectively by e.g. the UN that it would be difficult to justify regarding the rules about "legal" and "illegal" war justifications as, per se, any kind of definitive guide for declaring what is and is not a "real" act of war. Which means we're left with "both sides say it's not, so... it's not". [EDIT] To be clear, if one or the other had chosen to regard this as an act of war, there may be room to debate the truth and justice of that position, or how we might interpret that stance based on international law and precedent—but neither (apparently) did, so it's rather moot. Yes, it probably could be so-regarded with some justification. Yes, there'd be room to, not without reason or basis, counter that a war asset providing intelligence to an adversary in a war is already engaged in war, regardless of who's operating it, et c., et c. It joins dozens of other actions as kind-of unrealized "acts of war".

benj111 4y ago
Oh absolutely, it's all about realpolitik. We've already seen how far the west will go to avoid a war with Russia, so I wasn't expecting this to bring about a declaration of war. But if this were a manned aircraft, that would be a major thing. The question is, what's the important element here. It isn't necessarily the killing, if a plane were shot down, and the pilot ejected without harm it would still be a major thing, so there must be some element of, attacking a foreign nations military hardware is a no-no. But then the rhetoric doesn't seem to match that.

benj111 4y ago

Oh absolutely, it's all about realpolitik. We've already seen how far the west will go to avoid a war with Russia, so I wasn't expecting this to bring about a declaration of war. But if this were a manned aircraft, that would be a major thing. The question is, what's the important element here. It isn't necessarily the killing, if a plane were shot down, and the pilot ejected without harm it would still be a major thing, so there must be some element of, attacking a foreign nations military hardware is a no-no. But then the rhetoric doesn't seem to match that.