Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

21

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.

3