Like if someone gave someone a weapon and they were knowingly going to use it for it’s intended purpose, you would technically be an accomplice? So why is this different.
Edit: Thank you everyone for your responses! I appreciate it!
In: 9
Did Henry Ford go to war with the USA after supplying the Nazis?
It’s different because it is. There’s no simpler way to put it.
Using Ukraine as an example, Russia may claim (that is, official agents of the state speaking in their capacity as an agent of the state) may claim that countries who have donated equipment are active participants in the War in Ukraine.
That’s it. They may claim that. They may claim whatever they wish to. They might attack German, American, Polish, or other militaries directly (as one would expect following such a claim), but they won’t because they don’t want Germany, America, Poland or anyone else to *actually join the fight*.
Also, we (lots of countries) sell weapons internationally. Historically, this is not considered the same as participating in the conflicts of the buying country.
It’s different because Russia doesn’t want to declare war on the US.
That’s the only distinction.
The Taliban did the same to Al Quaeda and the US definitely did consider material support an act of war, and retaliated in kind.
But they did so from a position of vast military strength. Russia will make the same accusations today about material support to their enemies, but they won’t act on it because they can’t afford to fight that fight.
Let’s use the war in Ukraine as an example, Russia knows that the west is supplying massive amounts of weapons to Ukraine but Russia can’t really do anything about it, as it stands they’re already struggling to win a war on there doorstep so in their mind the best they can hope for is weapons and not actual troops. Basically Russia is “fine” with the weapons because alternative is that the west brings in troops on top of it which almost certainly ensures russias defeat
Fighting a war on multiple fronts is bad, like if it happens you’re probably going to lose bad
Its not considered going to war because considering it going to war is worse for the opponent
If you’re Germany (or Russia) and the US is supplying weapons to the UK (or Ukraine) and you decide “that means war!” then congrats, you’ve overcome America’s isolationism and you’re now fighting yet another enemy who will commit *significantly* more weapons and manpower to the fight and speed up your demise. Oh, and its an opponent who had enough economic might they had military equipment *to spare*
Basically, its not considered going to war because that doesn’t help the person who isn’t receiving the weapons
The West isn’t sending its soldiers onto a battlefield. They’re giving equipment —in many cases older equipment— to a country facing invasion and an existential thread to its sovereignty that is asking desperately for aid. The soldiers using those weapons are members of the Ukrainian armed forces.
When the US armed the Mujaheddin in the 1980s to fight the Soviets, that wasn’t Americans shooting at Russians.
When the Soviets and Chinese armed the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in the 1960s and 1970s, that wasn’t Russians and Chinese soldiers shooting at Americans and South Vietnamese.
When the Soviets armed the North Koreas, that wasn’t (officially) Russians shooting at the UN forces, even though it was an open secret some of the MiGs were being flown by Russian pilots.
When the Americans did Lendlease and Destroyers-for-Bases in 1939 and 1940, that wasn’t the United States entering a shooting war with Germany.
Now things may continue to escalate, and maybe the West does end up becoming active participants in the Ukraine War, but if the Russians think that line has been crossed, they haven’t seen anything yet. A NATO attack with modern equipment and modern training used by fresh troops is not what the Russians are dealing with at the moment, and based on the first year of the war, I doubt very much they could deal with it.
Wars often provoke other nations to support one side or the other, suppliers may be regarded as hostile to one nation or friendly to another which can provoke a nation to instigate sanctions on nations, but while in a war the last thing they need is to fight and lose on another front.
Most countries get equipment from other countries. It’s pretty unusual to make all your own equipment.
If Ukraine had invaded Russia and the US was supplying them with arms, I could see that argument. The bottom line is that Ukraine is defending their territorial sovereignty. Russians would not be killed by US or other foreign arms right now if Putin would get the hell out of Ukraine. You can make whatever argument you want about proxy wars or whatever, but at no point was Ukraine or NATO threatening to invade Russia.
I’m sick and tired of this stupid gaslighting. Putin might be able to piss on Russians’ heads and tell them it’s raining, but the rest of the world (largely) sees through this.
It’s called a proxy war and it’s basically what everyone did during the cold war. Typically superpowers don’t fight against each other anymore as we’ve seen in past conflicts such as Vietnam and the Korean War where both sides were backed by larger nations.
Latest Answers