You must log in or register to comment.

Lithuim t1_j60kqr3 wrote

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.


gregory_rorschach t1_j62qpni wrote

in addition, russia did not declare the war on Ukraine. It is still a special military operation from their perspective.


aberroco t1_j63jidv wrote

In addition to addition, Ukraine didn't formally declared war either.


series_hybrid t1_j63yfc1 wrote

It's a joint military exercise...and both sides are learning quite a bit.


Dependent-Law7316 t1_j60mhci wrote

This is essentially the latest in a series of proxy wars we’ve been fighting with Russia since the 40’s. It’s not that we don’t all know what’s really happening, it’s that no one wants to be the one to officially start world war 3–which is what will happen if open war between USA and Russia happens.


steruY t1_j632347 wrote

>no one wants to be the one to officially start world war 3

Let's hope so, after Russia started the invasion there is plenty of reasons to worry.


WasabiSunshine t1_j633j4c wrote

Eh They (decision makers of Russia) aren't going to fight a nuclear war with the west as they know MAD holds true as ever, and they aren't gonna fight a conventional war because why would they ever think that was a good idea


steruY t1_j635p7p wrote

"Зачем нам мир без России?" - "Why do we need the world without Russia?" - a phrase commonly told by putin. A dictator who loses a self created war, loses power, and is desperate, is something to be feared. Russia doesn't want nuclear war, but nobody can say so about its leader.

Maybe I'm just panicking, but there no need to keep the guard down.


Belzeturtle t1_j637cms wrote

You need three people acting unison to fire a strategic nuke, Putin being only one of them. These people have families, properties and lives they don't want to lose.


steruY t1_j639hjz wrote

Thanks, hope in humanity restored


aberroco t1_j63k42n wrote

But those people probably brainwashed to oblivion.


deaconsc t1_j63mmkt wrote

well, the fear is that Russia will use their tactical nuclear weapons, which will resolve in a retaliation of the US (they officially said so) which will be an act of war. (please note,the US said they will use conventional retaliation)

And to be fair, Russian generals probably want to use these weapons, it would make the war much easier and with the latest promised delivery of modern tanks it may cross the line.


Belzeturtle t1_j63n7zn wrote

>it would make the war much easier and with the latest promised delivery of modern tanks it may cross the line.

You mean following NATO's shock-and-awe conventional retaliation? They are not that dumb.

Putin is not going to use a tactical nuke because (a) Modi and Xi told him in private that's their red line and they won't support him if he does, (b) see above -- loss of Black Sea fleet at minimum, (c) a decapitation strike against him is then on the table.


bernarddit t1_j63rdyh wrote

How do you know they told him such in private?


Belzeturtle t1_j646cd9 wrote

"In private" in the sense "outside of their TV and press including it in their message". Those of us who live outside the Chinese and Russian infobubbles know.


jimmymd77 t1_j63h5w8 wrote

This is why the west had not given a blank check for Ukraine to get any weapons the ask for. If ukraine crosses into Russia, there is fear this would escalate further. Airstrikes and drones on military bases are OK, but not occupation.

Note Belorus allowing Putin to use their territory to stage the attack is generally also considered being a belligerent.


williamwchuang t1_j64xlul wrote

"Why should I die for Putin," is a commonly thought idea in the heads of the oligarchs.


provocative_bear t1_j64ryqu wrote

This is a silly bluff, though. The options are not just nuclear war or Russia is destroyed. The third, vastly preferable alternative is that Russia withdraws from a pointless foreign invasion and takes a ding as a nation but doesn’t come close to being destroyed. They’ve done it time and time again, they didn’t glass Afghanistan or the West for losing that conflict, this isn’t much different.


steruY t1_j66v7vi wrote

The options are either war is won or Putin loses power. And he doesn't want to lose power, believe me. That was my concern.


DolphinsBreath t1_j63pk7y wrote

It’s not like anyone wanted WWII either.


ThePKNess t1_j64cmn1 wrote

Well that's just nonsense, the Axis intentionally went to war knowing it would draw in the Western powers. Nazi Germany in particular specifically wanted another world war in order to reorder the world in their favour, much as they interpreted the First World War to have reordered the war in the Entente's favour.

If you want to argue that no-one wanted the First World War and it only occurred as a result of brinksmanship gone too far then you can certainly make that case. I wouldn't agree, but you could make that case.


DolphinsBreath t1_j69obua wrote

Missing the point. Some may have prepped for a war they wanted, but no one wanted the war we actually got. The lesson of WWI was forgotten in only 20 years; don’t take anything for granted.


ThunderChaser t1_j64va3m wrote

Germany did intentionally want to start a war.


DolphinsBreath t1_j69oj3e wrote

Just not that war. The one that actually happened in the real world. That’s the moral of the story.


alexmin93 t1_j63jjlm wrote

Are you living in Ukraine? If not, what are you worrying about? Russia has no chance against NATO


CaptainAddi t1_j63ma3p wrote

If a nuke explodes in my backyard I dont really care anymore who wins the war


deaconsc t1_j63n53m wrote

Not the one you replied to, but hey, I can say what I worry about =)

We deliver modern tanks. Russia starts losing and Putin allows the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the Ukraine armed forces.

The US said they will retaliate over such usage. Let's say they will do what they promised and destroy the fleet in the area with conventional means only. This is an act of war of a NATO country (and major NATO player) against Russia.

ANd I fear that the retaliation of Russia will be the usage of strategic nuclear weapons against the European NATO countries as a response to the attack of the US.


alexmin93 t1_j63oa6m wrote

So you believe putin's tales about his nuclear Wunderwaffe? With or without nukes, russia loses VS NATO in any scenaro. US has a better alternative to any conventional AND nuclear weapon russia can field.


steruY t1_j63pts9 wrote

If you're naive enough to believe none of thousands of nukes in Putin's hands work, then you're really leaving in a bubble. "A better alternative" doesn't matter as a single nuke detonating is already millions of deaths.


alexmin93 t1_j63rp6f wrote

Ofc they have working nukes. The thing is - NATO has more and better nukes.


steruY t1_j63t9qa wrote

Well, that's not exactly the means of defense we're talking about. But ok, anyway, I stopped worrying


alexmin93 t1_j63vh0b wrote

NATO has better missile defense as well. It can't intercept all or even majority of russian nukes but it shifts balance in NATO balance even more


steruY t1_j6416b7 wrote

>all or even majority of russian nukes

...which means a wipeout of dozens of millions of people still. No need for nukes to be dropped ether way.


steruY t1_j63q1e7 wrote

Russia harmed most of its allies by withdrawing troops from the areas it used to protect, by sanctions, by its migrant policy, etc.

Even if it loses, plenty of countries are taking a noticeable toll as well.


aberroco t1_j63jsld wrote

Probably, technically that won't be a world war, since Russia won't have any allies, at least not of any significant power. It would be more like The World-Russian war.

I highly doubt that China or Iran would join such endeavor on russian side.


Dependent-Law7316 t1_j63p5o3 wrote

Maybe true, but I feel like, as with the first two world wars, there would he enough countries involved for it to be called a world war, even if it is lopsided in terms of the number kf countries on each side.

Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia bullied some of the former Soviet bloc countries into “siding” with it—like Belarus, for example. As far whether or not China would get involved….I think that they would leverage the potential for allying with Russia to force concessions from the US on things like Taiwan.


aberroco t1_j63yorf wrote

Half of ex-soviet block countries are currently in NATO and most of them, except only Belarus, practically hates Russia. Even countries that was sided with it before, like Kazakhstan or Armenia, currently distance themselves away. Even though in Kazakhstan it's autocracy pretty much like in Belarus. There's no profits in siding with Russia or in her winning the war, and besides, Russia already shown it's strength, or lack of it to be precise, and no one wants to be with loser.

And, btw, I'm from Russia (sadly). And though I've left the country, I know relatively well what's happening and where it's going.


Target880 t1_j60nw9r wrote

>The Taliban did the same to Al Quaeda and the US definitely did consider material support an act of war, and retaliated in kind.

That is not exactly what happened. The US demanded that the Taliban movement would extradite Osama bin Laden and other suspected terrorists. They also demanded that Al Quaeda bases and training camps should be shut down. That did not happen and the result was the invasion.

If they would have done that I doubt there would have been in invasion


AmisThysia t1_j63cnck wrote

That is also not exactly what happened, though, is it? It's not known if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda leaders were even in Afghanistan at the time; many of them very quickly fled to Pakistan, for example. Even if they were in Afghanistan, the tribal areas where they would be hiding are a bit of a political and cultural quagmire in themselves. And Pakistan is, after all, where Bin Laden was eventually found.

While it is extremely likely some members of the Taliban regularly did withhold information, acting as if extradition was this simple little thing that simply "did not happen" is... misleading and jingoistic, at the very least.

The invasion and subsequent lengthy occupation was (and still is, by consequences) an extremely complex geopolitical event with an abundance of nuance, and the vast majority of the pertinent information is likely never going to be publicly known.


[deleted] t1_j62rc4f wrote



ShootingPains t1_j62rs6e wrote

Plus it’s pretty clear that the Afghan Government didn’t have the military capacity to do what the US wanted. After all, it took the combined might of the west ten years to ferret out Osama.


monkChuck105 t1_j632jkp wrote

The Taliban demanded proof that bin Laden did 9/11. The Taliban had no quarrel with the US prior to the invasion, even if they had close ties to Al Qaeda which wanted the US out of the mid east entirely.


monkChuck105 t1_j6325o1 wrote

You're badly misinformed. It was the US that armed the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets, and this became the Taliban. Guess who also helped fight the Soviets? Osama bin Laden. This is how they came into being, American training and military aid. We did the same thing in Syria, and we have done the same in Ukraine. It's the American MO, arm the enemies of our enemies, even if they're Hitler or Stalin or Sadam or bin Laden.


Peter_deT t1_j63gz6f wrote

Again, not quite. The original Mujahiddin were mostly Pashtun tribal groups, armed and trained by the US. The Taliban were religious students from both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border who grew support after the mujahiddin factions proved incapable of providing any kind of order.


jimmymd77 t1_j63ik2v wrote

The Mujahideen weren't a monolithic group. This was why there was civil war after the Soviets pulled out. I am sure the Taliban fighters received arms, training from the CIA, but nothing in Afghanistan is that cut and dry.


mmmmmmBacon12345 t1_j60lmlo wrote

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


1958showtime t1_j636vxl wrote

Yup, WW2 was the perfect example. Hitler didn't need to declare war on the US, the US were only at war with Japan. Hitler did the US a favour by declaring war. Once he did, the US no longer had to jump through hoops to participate or keep sending aid.


bacharelando t1_j63mp6v wrote

I think the US would join the war even if Germany didn't declare on them. But it sure made the US population more keen to fight when war was declared upon them than the contrary.


1958showtime t1_j63pmk8 wrote

Eventually, probably. But that's what I meant and that's the point. Hitler did the US a favour. And until he did, the US was jumping through hoops to justify sending all the aid and kit they were sending to England.

When the US joined the war in Europe, England was the last one standing and super close to defeat. Any later and the war could have turned out VERY differently.

Edit - on top of that, the US were already at war with Japan. If Hitler didn't declare, there was a huge possibility that congress and public opinion would have forced the administration to stop sending aid to England, so all resources could be focused on the actual war with Japan. But as it turned out, Hitler was his own worse enemy and declared war on the US 'cuz reasons', and the US did what it did.


bacharelando t1_j63qmef wrote

When the US joined the Soviet Union was already fighting. Britain wasn't on the verge of defeat at all. They're being bombed, sure, but they were under no risk of a naval invasion. The USSR on the other hand was getting brutally attacked in its own soil.

In 4 years of war (for the USSR) they have lost about 25 million lives. 6,25 million deaths per year.


1958showtime t1_j63wz6t wrote

Even if the UK could continue to hold out, they could barely afford to counterattack, which effectively means they're a non factor and Hitler can focus all of his forces east, and those soviet casualties would be MUCH higher.

Point is, is if Hitler didn't declare war on the US, those few extra weeks/months could have resulted in a significantly different outcome. But as it is, Hitler did, and the rest is history. Literally.


bacharelando t1_j65zis3 wrote

Yeah, there's a lot of factors and variables to calculate. We can never know what could have happened, only speculate on it. Personally I think that Germany could never capitulate the UK nor the US. Maybe they could try something on the UK if they did develop nukes earlier than the yankees and capitulated the USSR...

But even then, knowing very well what nazis do to communists and Slavs, the USSR would fight to the last person to win. I don't think Germany would ever be a par with USSR's manpower, industry and military genius (of course they got beaten hard in the first two years of war, but they managed to comeback). I think even on a 1v1 Germany would eventually lose. Idk.


TheLuteceSibling t1_j60kac4 wrote

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.


jimmymd77 t1_j63lczq wrote

Providing weapons while in an active conflict is generally considered taking a side in the conflict, especially if you give them for free.

This has a big impact because history has shown that basically you cannot defeat a people until they accept defeat. One of the ways to cripple an enemy and hopefully get them to give up the fight is to destroy their military production. When arms are supplied by another country, that puts their arms production out of range unless you add the supplier to the conflict and attack them, too.


LeeKwanSoo t1_j60key5 wrote

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


bacharelando t1_j63mvhk wrote

If NATO sends troops to Ukraine then Russia will really escalate the war and things won't go well to either side.


williamwchuang t1_j64y7w1 wrote

NATO doesn't need to send troops to Ukraine to eliminate all Russia military positions in and around Ukraine. It'll be a fusillade of cruise missiles, drones, and air strikes.


faceintheblue t1_j60nn6u wrote

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.


ghigoli t1_j63bmfx wrote

if NATO attacked Russia. we'll probably be close to Moscow within a week and Putin would be launching ever threat he can think of from his underground bunker while the humming of drones surround the only way in and out.

US would probably be halfway to Siberia invading from Alaska. then China is gonna invade because they can.


bacharelando t1_j63n3x3 wrote

You're just watching too many movies. Every single person that made the same remarks in real live didn't do very well on their plans.


ghigoli t1_j63s0ab wrote

cool its not like i have any plans because i don't need any.

Russian leader will cannibalism themselves like the last idk twenty times.


internetboyfriend666 t1_j62aiow wrote

There's no global definition of what does and does not constitute an act of war and there's no international body that forces other countries to declare war on other countries. Something is considered an act of war if a country claims that it is. That's it. Giving equipment to Ukraine to fight Russia is not an act of war because Russia has (at least not yet) said they consider to be. That's all there is to it. Russia is pefectly free to say "we consider this an act of war, and so therefore we are not at war with all of NATO," but they don't want to be at war with NATO, so they don't.


BackRowRumour t1_j63nu6e wrote

I largely agree with what you have said, but disagree there is no definition of what constitutes a reason to go to war. There are shelves and shelves of books and papers on Just War going back to the first written records. This isn't really the place to summarise them and I haven't the time. But I thought it was worth flagging for any students reading this.


oxfozyne t1_j60k9sx wrote

Did Henry Ford go to war with the USA after supplying the Nazis?


Art_Z_Fartzche t1_j60r59f wrote

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.


monkChuck105 t1_j6364fm wrote

Trouble is that these territories were annexed by Russia, and it is defending them. The fact that Ukraine has called for retaking Crimea and the calls for removing Putin do not help. From the Russian pov this is a defensive war to stop the advance of NATO to it's border, where it could place nuclear missiles within 5 min of Moscow. That's the end of Russian sovereignty. It's just another continuation of the Cold War, where the US fought at or near the borders of the Soviets or China and pretended it was defending against the spread of communism, which was not spread by force but by popular revolt. This is obvious to any who have studied modern history, but inconceivable to those who only know the current thing.


ghigoli t1_j63cim4 wrote

>rouble is that these territories were annexed by Russia,

idk about you but i lived before the the twenty tens... Russia was accepted into the western world with trade deals and everything else in between.

Russia literally drew the map to Ukraine before they started this war. So anything that happens is their fault.

Literally no one is ever thinking of invading Russia other than China and Russia officials because they're too busy looting the country. No one thinks about Russia until they started this Crimea bullshit.

The entire reason Russia is this screwed up is because the people in charge need to drive an idea that the west hates them while Russia continues to cheat, loot, and murder their way to the point that they've become the monster they claimed to be. Russia's biggest threat has always been itself and the corruption that gutted the nation. The country government is incapable of doing anything honest whether its supplying their milltary to teenage figure skating.

Everyone still has nukes the timing of 5 minutes vs 10 minutes is still nothing whether there are nukes in Poland vs Ukraine vs Cuba it doesn't matter. MAD exists for everyone including the US.


Art_Z_Fartzche t1_j63cs95 wrote

Why don't you replace the word "annexed" with "invaded", and consider how ridiculous that euphemism sounds? Russia had no more justification invading Ukraine in 2014 than they did in 2022; the only difference was that they received a relative slap on the wrist from the international community for seizing chunks of another sovereign nation, which Putin and Russia have since interpreted as a fait accompli, and a justification for endless expansion into former Soviet territory. Ukraine today, tomorrow Moldova, Georgia, the Baltics, Finland, etc.

Just because Putin has brainwashed his own populace into buying this bullshit narrative doesn't mean the rest of the world is in any way obligated to respect or go along with their delusions.

As someone citing "modern history" as a pretext, Ukraine gave up former Soviet nukes stationed there 30 years ago in exchange for security guarantees from Russia. Putin is the global equivalent of some douchebag schoolyard bully who repeatedly slaps you with your own hand, while yelling "why you hitting yourself?".

I'm sure that if you lived in Ukraine. saw your own people brutally killed in attacks clearly targeting civilians, and weren't some tankie quisling, you'd want Putin dead and gone yesterday too.


Mammoth-Mud-9609 t1_j60owar wrote

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.


Stonius123 t1_j60pmjs wrote

Most countries get equipment from other countries. It's pretty unusual to make all your own equipment.


monkChuck105 t1_j6352jr wrote

We are giving Ukraine weapons to aid their war against Russia, not just selling them. HIMARS are directed by US intelligence and fire control. We are literally bringing Ukrainians to the US to train on Abrams tanks, teaching Ukrainians to fight as NATO forces.


aminy23 t1_j61gzxk wrote

One thing that is not mentioned here is that often it's not a direct connection.

My family were refugees from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The USSR tried to claim that Afghanistan belonged to them, so the US didn't want to go directly into Afghanistan.

As a result the US went to small rural villages in Pakistan just across the border in Pakistan. They gave these villagers excellent weapons and lots of money and told them "take these to Afghanistan so they can fight the Russians". This was called Operation Cyclone:

These people took some of it, and kept some of it. When the war with Afghanistan finally bankrupted the USSR, these people who kept the money and weapons then supported the Taliban and they used the American weapons to take over the country.

America has generally been reductant to admit that the Taliban has effective weapons so we often have to look at foreign media to get around US propaganda.

For example in British media, they show that the Taliban used American anti-aircraft missile systems to take down American aircraft:

Meanwhile the American government wants to insist that leftover equipment is fully disabled. And that the Taliban are too stupid to use it.

If the Taliban know how to operate American missile systems, they could probably rebuild a few Humvees.

One of the biggest problems I see with Americans is they like to connect evil with stupidity.

There's no reason you can't have an evil genius. If Hitler was stupid, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened.

In 2015-2016 countless people said Trump was too stupid and it's impossible for him to become president.These people were too naive.

Underestimating evil entities is a very serious issue.

Nonetheless, the US likely gives Ukraine lots of stuff indirectly through neighboring countries.

If the US had a significant presence in Ukraine - that could cause a direct conflict with Russia.

If Russia kills a US soldier in Ukraine, that can now cause a messy situation.


monkChuck105 t1_j636qq7 wrote

There have been American mercs in Ukraine already.


aminy23 t1_j639fji wrote

Private mercenaries are different than official government.


MisinformedGenius t1_j62dehm wrote

You've gotten a lot of good answers in here - I do want to add, though, that on the continuum between friendship and active war, giving weapons to a country's enemy is waaaaaaay over on the war side. This isn't really as binary as "going to war" or "not going to war" - arming Ukraine is very close to war.

Fundamentally, Russia can't really do anything about it and NATO doesn't want to get any more involved than they are. This is what's called a proxy war.


jimmymd77 t1_j64fvk2 wrote

Along those lines, there are some concerns about citizens fighting as volunteers in a war. The line between 'volunteer' and regular troops being sent in under the pretext of volunteer can be blurred. In the Korean War, hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens 'volunteered' to join the North Korean forces. With officers and their equipment, too. McArthur wanted to use nukes to stop them. He got relieved of his command instead.


MisinformedGenius t1_j64ja0m wrote

Heck, Russia was accused of doing that very thing in Ukraine prior to the current war.


dx-azrael-xb t1_j60ucej wrote

It's the international relations version of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". So as long as Americans aren't pulling the trigger the international community let's it slide. Actual declared war between Russia and the USA would trigger treaties that trigger treaties.. etc. similar to what started WWI with the killing of the Arch Duke.


justlookingforajob1 t1_j61fzc3 wrote

Admittedly this stuff is rather complicated and open to tons of interpretation. In the current case in Ukraine, the US and other countries are supplying Ukraine with weapons. So without a doubt they are supporting Ukraine. However, it is not US "minds" deciding exactly on how those weapons are used, although the US is giving some guidelines to limit their offensive employment. That's on President Zelensky and his generals. No Americans are actually killing Russians in this regard. At least in terms of how a nation views its own involvement, its a pretty big difference. But just kind of how the politics play out it is possible to do so and kind of distance yourself from the war execution. WWII is a very good example in that the US supplied lots of weapons to the allies before entering the war "directly" at the end of 1941. Proxy wars are a thing, and this is one of the ways they are carried out.


patman3030 t1_j61l1yo wrote

Russia can't effectively retaliate or prevent the transfer from happening without going to war with NATO as a whole. They're getting their shit kicked in by NATO's summer garage sale right now. If they went up against the real thing Moscow would be NATO property before you could say "nation building".


tminus7700 t1_j61x9o8 wrote

One historical precedent was the Lend-lease act.

>In December 1940, Roosevelt introduced a new policy initiative whereby the United States would lend, rather than sell, military supplies to Great Britain for use in the fight against Germany. Payment for the supplies would be deferred, and could come in any form Roosevelt deemed satisfactory.

Basically we are just a material supplier. As long as we don't actually use our own troops to fight, we are not really "in the war". We are no different that those many other countries that supply medicine, fuel, food and other supplies.


weirdlybeardy t1_j632sjr wrote

You are a bang that wants more territory. You are armed to the teeth with many gang members, lots of weapons.

You attack a neighboring gang that you used to basically control, because they seem to want to align with another gang a bit further away that hasn’t moved in on your territory, but you’re worried that they might, at some point.

The faraway gang doesn’t actually get involved in the fight, but they throw some arms at the gang you’re fighting, so that they can at least defend themselves.

Is the faraway gang in the fight? Yes or no?

No. As stated in the scenario above, the faraway gang hasn’t actually gotten involved in the fight themselves.


nevbirks t1_j6374fi wrote

It is, but Russia declaring war against the world before it had time to fully mobilize its fighting age men would mean they get wiped out quicker.


ghigoli t1_j63b4ah wrote

almost all wars usually have another nation or rich people supplying them that aren't at war with the other nation.

its annoying but its not 'going to war'. there are buyers, donators, and people that generally just support one side over the other.

its just a standard thing tbh. the US did it during WW1 before we entered the war. Germany mercenaries were used in the US revolutionary war. During the civil war they used French and British backers for weapons and stuff for the French side. China + Russia was bankrolling North Korea. Etc,etc,etc. Its just a normal thing for countries to support allies in times of war without being at war themselves.


nim_opet t1_j63jgr1 wrote

The same way Russia is not in a war. They proclaimed it a security action and actually punish people who call it “war”. So you can use whatever terminology you want, it’s not like there’s language police (unless you’re in Russia) to stop you from doing that. Formally, the US has not declared a war since 1942.


Sabinmor t1_j63kgsf wrote

How is giving your kid a hamburger, you not eating?


SDN_stilldoesnothing t1_j63m3il wrote

Proxy wars have been going on since the time of man.

When England and France were going at it they would often hire Spanish, Portuguese and Italian ships to fight. Often changing sides for the higher payer.

when the USSR invaded Afghanistan the US government heavy funded the Taliban.

When the USA went to Vietnam the USSR funded the VC party and troops.


its dirty business.


asprintf t1_j63ssrr wrote

Basically been this way since the Cold War. The major powers fight through proxy wars to contest each other on their imperial interests. Going to war with each other directly means mutually assured destruction with nuclear weapons.


Ippus_21 t1_j644t8j wrote

Because your actual armed forces aren't directly involved. No NATO boots on the ground, no NATO pilots flying sorties, no US cruisers conducting shore bombardments. OUR forces aren't the ones firing the actual shots.

That's it. That's the only difference.

That's why it's called a "proxy war." Instead of sending your own troops, you're sending materiel, money, training, and intelligence to support an allied country against a rival major power. ETA: And yes, we are accomplices. Accomplice is just a pejorative synonym for ally.

Because major powers don't want to fight each other directly due to the risk of escalating to World War and the probable nuclear exchange WW3 entails. And aiming blistering rhetoric (and diplomatic weapons like sanctions) at a rival for providing material support to the opposing belligerent is NOT the same as declaring war on them.

It's how basically all the wars of the last half of the 20th and now the 21st have been/are being fought. Because the alternative is worse.

ETA2: But yes, countries can and have declared war on a 3rd party for providing material support to their original opponent. You just have to be very careful about doing that when both you and that 3rd party in question are nuclear-armed.


Samas34 t1_j64hc8i wrote

Because in the modern world nations trade weapons to each other all the time for profit aswell, would that then mean that the seller of these weapons were at war with any nation that happened to fight the one who bought from them?

But technically it is a form of warfare, but the big players don't want to risk a direct confrontation because of those big, nasty weapons called nukes, which can blow up several cities in one shot and leave a poisonous ruin for a few centuries afterward....its just too costly for the big ones to face off directly...for the moment.

But...if there somehow was a way to not only successfully detect and intercept every missle that your enemy could fire, and somehow synchronize a surprise assault on a global scale to take out every sub and nuke sat an enemy has in one strike...then the bets would be off.

Don't say this could be impossible either, the Ukraine alone has become very good at intercepting most of what Russia fires at them, but some still get through, and in the case of nukes, only one has to successfully reach target to kill millions in one go.


Flair_Helper t1_j653u4q wrote

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Recent/current events are not allowed on ELI5. First, these are usually asking for factual answers or opinions. Additionally, information about these events is usually still developing, making objective and accurate answers difficult.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.