5 ms·

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 targ

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.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> 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.
- jacknews 2y ago
  none-the-less, it is a clear escalation ON THE INVOLVEMENT OF EUROPE AND THE US in the war. It is not that Ukraine are escalating the war by using long-range missiles. Of course Russia have been using them all along. But it is a clear escalation in western 'participation' in the war.
  - soco 2y ago
    So "finally replying to constant attacks" gets redefined by putin as escalation, no surprise here. Or is there any other argument I'm missing?
    - valval 2y ago
      Well the somewhat obvious thing you’re missing is that Russia is waging a war against Ukraine, not the US or NATO. From that follows the logical conclusion that it’s not the US’ or NATO’s job to “reply to constant attacks”, and instead getting involved in the conflict is just that — waging war against Russia.
      - soco 2y ago
        Let me get this one: so russia and now nk waging war about whoever they please is a fact of life, while answering to that is escalation, right?
        valval 2y ago
        Would depend on the definition of this term "escalation" that you and many other people use. It sounds to me like a silly thing to say. Isn't it natural to try and win a war as quickly as possible? Joining in on a war that you're not part of is a deliberate and calculated choice in the same manner starting a war is. What exactly are we even arguing about? I think it's massively irresponsible of NATO to get involved in the war through military aid. Sanctions and humanitarian aid are one thing, but every single NATO member should have been involved in finding a peaceful way out of this conflict since 2010 or before. If what you're saying is the opposite, that NATO should attack Russia with as much force as possible to "win the war" (that we have no business being part of in the first place), then I'll just call you crazy and move on. Enough brave soldiers have died on both sides, it's time to find a solution that ends the killing, not amplifies it.
        soco 2y ago
        Yes I've heard this magic solution before and it always means the Ukraine giving up and letting the orcs win. Somehow those peacenicks never propose russia going back home, isn't it ironic.
mapt 2y ago
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.
- sabbaticaldev 2y ago
  Right. URSS putting nuclear missiles in Cuba was not an escalation then.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    I only learned about this a few years ago. Before the Cuban Missile Crisis (where Russia installed nuclear missiles in Cuba), the US installed nukes in Italy and Turkey. This made USSR very upset. Plus, the US was heavily meddling in Cuban domestic affairs. The first two paragraphs are very instructive here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis My point: I think USSR (and Cuba) had a good reason to install those missiles. It wasn't an unprovoked action.
    - tmnvix 2y ago
      And as I understand it, part of the solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis involved the US quietly agreeing to abandon the placement of nukes in Turkey. There is some analogy here for the Ukraine NATO situation.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> 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.

jacknews 2y ago
none-the-less, it is a clear escalation ON THE INVOLVEMENT OF EUROPE AND THE US in the war. It is not that Ukraine are escalating the war by using long-range missiles. Of course Russia have been using them all along. But it is a clear escalation in western 'participation' in the war.
- soco 2y ago
  So "finally replying to constant attacks" gets redefined by putin as escalation, no surprise here. Or is there any other argument I'm missing?
  - valval 2y ago
    Well the somewhat obvious thing you’re missing is that Russia is waging a war against Ukraine, not the US or NATO. From that follows the logical conclusion that it’s not the US’ or NATO’s job to “reply to constant attacks”, and instead getting involved in the conflict is just that — waging war against Russia.
    - soco 2y ago
      Let me get this one: so russia and now nk waging war about whoever they please is a fact of life, while answering to that is escalation, right?
      - valval 2y ago
        Would depend on the definition of this term "escalation" that you and many other people use. It sounds to me like a silly thing to say. Isn't it natural to try and win a war as quickly as possible? Joining in on a war that you're not part of is a deliberate and calculated choice in the same manner starting a war is. What exactly are we even arguing about? I think it's massively irresponsible of NATO to get involved in the war through military aid. Sanctions and humanitarian aid are one thing, but every single NATO member should have been involved in finding a peaceful way out of this conflict since 2010 or before. If what you're saying is the opposite, that NATO should attack Russia with as much force as possible to "win the war" (that we have no business being part of in the first place), then I'll just call you crazy and move on. Enough brave soldiers have died on both sides, it's time to find a solution that ends the killing, not amplifies it.
        soco 2y ago
        Yes I've heard this magic solution before and it always means the Ukraine giving up and letting the orcs win. Somehow those peacenicks never propose russia going back home, isn't it ironic.

mapt 2y ago

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.

sabbaticaldev 2y ago
Right. URSS putting nuclear missiles in Cuba was not an escalation then.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  I only learned about this a few years ago. Before the Cuban Missile Crisis (where Russia installed nuclear missiles in Cuba), the US installed nukes in Italy and Turkey. This made USSR very upset. Plus, the US was heavily meddling in Cuban domestic affairs. The first two paragraphs are very instructive here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis My point: I think USSR (and Cuba) had a good reason to install those missiles. It wasn't an unprovoked action.
  - tmnvix 2y ago
    And as I understand it, part of the solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis involved the US quietly agreeing to abandon the placement of nukes in Turkey. There is some analogy here for the Ukraine NATO situation.