4 ms·
It's also fundamentally irrational to define malicious non-state actions as acts of war. As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow
by RIMR 3y ago
It's also fundamentally irrational to define malicious non-state actions as acts of war.
As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow.
Likewise, Poland has no interest in defining malicious actions by a Russian national or Russian Imperialism supporter as an act of war by Russia without clear evidence that The Russian state was directly involved.
Getting back to the original point though, I see no reason not to define attacks against infrastructure, regardless of who was responsible, foreign or domestic, or their motives, as acts of terrorism.
- rainsford 3y agoThat's true, but in the Canadian example, presumably the government of Canada would extradite such a person to the US, while Russia obviously would not agree to extradite the culprit here to Poland to stand trial. Whether or not the government of Russia was initially involved, there's a pretty convincing argument to be made that a government harboring an individual who attacked another country makes it a government sanctioned action in at least some sense. Attacking infrastructure as a non-government entity can certainly be considered terrorism, but if the government backs you even after the fact, that feels a lot more like an act of war with plausible deniability. And in this case I think there might be a motivation for Poland to view it that way, since allowing Russian action against NATO countries invites more of the same, and Russia absolutely does not want to give NATO an excuse to retaliate in any way.
- brightlancer 3y ago> Whether or not the government of Russia was initially involved, there's a pretty convincing argument to be made that a government harboring an individual who attacked another country makes it a government sanctioned action in at least some sense. Countries refuse extradition for many reasons: they lack a reciprocal agreement with the other country, laws against extraditing citizens, laws against extraditing residents to face potential execution, etc. While Russia is the Nazi Germany of examples, refusing to extradite a person doesn't automatically mean anything. Of course, if someone wanted to go to war with Russia, it makes for a wonderful pretext.
- murderfs 3y ago> As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow. Even if you had evidence that this were the case, you might not do anything, as with Saudi involvement with 9/11.
- krisoft 3y ago> As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow. But that is where you are going wrong. If the US would want to attack Canada they would absolutely use that as a cause for war. If they don't want to go to war then even an straight up Canadian military attack can be brushed aside as "navigational error during a training exercise" or "regrettable rogue elements in the Canadian military". This is not the court of law. The important factor is not if the evidence is strong or weak. The important factor is not if the perpetrator was acting in concert with a government or not. The important factor is if the country wants to go to war or not. Everything else falls in place after that.