[jacquesm]

Meanwhile Russian official channels say that this was an accident... if that video doesn't shut up the people that believe this wasn't purposeful I don't know what will.

Also, given that this was in international airspace it's technically an act of war, the only reason it probably won't escalate is that it was an unmanned aircraft but if it had been manned then there would be a completely different response.

[icegreentea2]

I actually believe that if the exact same thing (intercept, harassment, and then collision, perhaps even with loss of life) happened to say a F-16 in international airspace, that US would not meaningfully escalate. The west has been quite clear in telegraphing that it does not want to escalate to direct war with Russia. Regardless of "legality", this effectively makes the bar for "act of war" (as in what would induce the US or the West to actually enter a shooting war with Russia) very high.

Russia is purposefully acting in this grey/sub-threshold space to be provocative, and to carve out what agency/space to maneuver it can. It is purposefully being provocative, and it's in the US' interest to not over react (remember, the end game of escalation, however remote is nukes).

In a sense, this is the logical outcome of the position that the west has taken, where it has gone ahead and done a bunch of things that are already very close to declaring war on Russia (exclusively materially aiding Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian troops to train on NATO soil, enforce economic sanctions on Russia), while also saying that we don't want to directly fight Russia -right now-.

Also, while the intercept and harassment is obviously purposeful, I feel the collision is still in question, particularly because of the risk to the Su-27. I wouldn't it put it past Russia to think that the risk was worth it, but I don't think we're in rock solid territory.

[Maursault]

> remember, the end game of escalation, however remote is nukes

This is Russia not the Soviet Union. With Putin and cronies ransacking the Russian treasury for more than 20 years, what are the chances there's enough left to maintain the arsenal? Of the 5K+ nuclear warheads Russia inherited, how many even work? Remember that the Soviet Union was a rusting shell years before it dissolved in 1991. I just have a sinking suspicion the US could win a nuclear war against Russia with a single, low yield strike, with no response. But then again, why would we waste a nuclear warhead when we can use Rods from God to cut the head off the snake? The ethical considerations have a lot of wiggle room here, as Russia is a mafia state with a government that is an assassination society, so an assassination exception for Russian heads of state is then only ethical.[1] But honestly, it would be so much cooler to arrest and extract Putin, and take him alive to face justice at The Hague.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Russian_ass...

[fxtentacle]

"In all likelihood the Reaper was conducting surveillance for Ukraine. Under the laws of armed conflict Russia may disrupt such assistance," O’Connell said.

(who is introduced as "Notre Dame Law School professor")

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/14/russian-figh...

[ethanbond]

Doing a thing that’s only allowed as an act of war is indeed an act of war. The question isn’t really of illegality.

[fwlr]

The laws of armed conflict are in fact actual literal laws (largely set down by the Hague and Geneva Conventions), so legality is absolutely the question.

In addition, there are two meanings to the phrase “act of war”, and you’re equivocating between them here. One meaning is an action to provoke armed conflict, and the other is an action that occurs during an armed conflict. The material point of the scholar’s contribution is that in the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, it is a permissible action for Russia to divert another State’s scout aircraft who is assisting Ukraine - i.e. it is an act of war in the second sense. This does not make it a Russian provocation towards the US - i.e. it is not an act of war in the first sense.

[ethanbond]

I am not equivocating between the two at all. I’m stating it’s very clearly the latter and because it’s clearly the latter, illegality is not a question. It’s obviously legal for Russia to take action against military assets that are participating in military action against it.

The whole legality question is a red herring, as your comment clearly articulates.

[fwlr]

Fair enough. Sorry for accusing you of equivocating.

[yucky]

The US doesn't abide by those laws though so our government would be hard-pressed to use them as justification for anything. See the Hague Invasion Act for instance, we will literally invade the Netherlands if they try to hold any US citizens to account under those "laws".

[runnerup]

Awesome clarification!

In situations like this the laws of war are whatever the belligerents say they are. Obviously these codified rules help for coalition-building but the only thing that matters is how the involved nations react in the moment.

For now, send the USA is keeping a very cool head. No one wants this conflict to expand beyond Ukraine + adjacent Russian land.

USA isn’t looking for additional casus belli, so no matter what the rules are, they won’t find any additional casus belli.

[lawn]

> if that video doesn't shut up the people that believe this wasn't purposeful I don't know what will.

Oh don't worry, the excuses will come quickly:

- This is a fake video.

- This is nothing special, the US has done much worse.

You can even see comments to nature already.