During the war, a billion euros are spent very quickly. But on April 15, Germany announced that it would allocate just such an amount for military assistance to Ukraine.. And this somewhat softened the criticism that Berlin faced due to its refusal to send tanks to the Ukrainian army..

Two days earlier, the US promised a new $800 million aid package that includes armored infantry vehicles and helicopters.. The UK is sending armored patrol vehicles and anti-ship missiles, while the Czech Republic is sending MANPADS and T-72 tanks. Slovakia, which has already transferred S-300 air defense systems to Ukraine, admitted that it could give the Ukrainian Armed Forces more of its MiG-29 aircraft, because Ukrainian pilots know how to fly them, writes The Economist..

Back in March, the United States rejected a similar proposal for the MiG-29 from Poland, fearing to " French President Emmanuel Macron frankly stated that the transfer of heavy weapons to the Ukrainian army could lead Russia to consider NATO a “belligerent”, that is, a party to the conflict, and therefore a legitimate target, in accordance with the laws of war. Now the United States says it is not against Slovakia's proposal to transfer aircraft to Ukraine.

Since the beginning of the war, Ukraine's friends have handed over to it only small arms, as well as anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.. But as suspicions grow that the war will drag on, they have become more willing to supply complex systems that will require special training.. Russian war crimes also convinced allies that it would be worth handing over heavier equipment to Ukraine to liberate territories occupied by the Russian army.. In addition, there was a conviction that it was time to move from Soviet models to modern NATO weapons, which would be easier to maintain and supply..

[see_also ids\u003d"

However, the shift towards heavier weapons has provoked alarm in some circles, especially in Germany.. Berlin blocked the transfer of Marder armored vehicles after the German Ministry of Defense complained that there were too few such equipment even for the German army. Left MP Sarah Wagenknecht said Marder supplies would make Germany 'participant in war'. Even the hard-line Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said his country " All these comments seem to be directly related to the fear that the supply of heavy weapons will provoke a direct conflict between Russia and NATO..

But from a historical point of view, such worries are unfounded.. For example, consider the issue of MiG-29 aircraft. During the Vietnam War, dozens of American aircraft were shot down by fighters that the forces of the north received from the USSR. In addition, North Vietnam received a large number of tanks, missiles, artillery systems from their patrons in the Kremlin and Beijing.. And all these weapons were used to kill thousands of American soldiers.. Both sides feared that a proxy war could escalate into a direct conflict between nuclear powers.. But it didn't work out.

The war in Ukraine is a similar situation. Is that the roles of the parties are now opposite. This time Russia is waging war against a neighbor whose army has been armed and trained by the US and its allies.. Russia threatened NATO that it could strike at countries that provide or help the army of Ukraine. She even hinted at the use of nuclear weapons.. From the point of view of international law, experts say, Russia's position is unjustified.

“The supply of weapons, including heavy weapons, does not make any third country a party to an armed conflict. This requires more direct participation in military operations,” says Rutger Law School professor Adil Heik.

But it was not always so. International law, which began to develop in Europe from the beginning of the 17th century, required countries to observe strict neutrality if they did not want to enter into other people's wars.. This meant that they must continue to trade with both sides of the conflict.. Therefore, the supply of weapons to only one of the parties meant a violation of neutrality. However, this rule was designed for a world where war was considered an acceptable tool of government.. Everything changed after the adoption of the Briand-Kellogg Pact in 1928, which banned unprovoked attacks by one country against another.. This principle was later included in the UN charter..

The charter recognizes the right of nations to self-defence. In addition, other countries can join collective self-defense. States are allowed to give weapons to the victims of aggression or to impose sanctions against the aggressor. And this will not affect their neutral status in any way.. When the UN Security Council condemns aggression, this resolution is legally binding on all member countries of the organization. In the case of Ukraine, such a resolution has not yet been approved, but only because Russia, as a permanent member, each time vetoed such decisions.. UN General Assembly condemns Russian attack on Ukraine by clear majority.

[see_also ids\u003d"

As for becoming a “belligerent,” the bar is even higher,” says Michael Schmitt of the US Military Academy at West Point.. The supply of German weapons to Ukraine will not make Germany a party to the war with Russia, because " Analysts, however, note that all definitions of neutrality and complicity in the war do not matter at all.. If Vladimir Putin decides not to attack NATO arms convoys for Ukraine, it is not because of the persuasive power of international jurisprudence.. It is also naive to think that the supply of only small arms (which, after all, kill Russian soldiers) will make Putin more restrained..

“If Russia wants to feel “provoked” and attack NATO, it will do it regardless of whether tanks are supplied or not,” said Claudia Mayor, an expert at the German Institute for International Affairs and Security..

At the same time, one should not completely exclude the legal aspects that determine participation and neutrality.. After all, they can help prevent the escalation of the conflict to a nuclear war.. When the US and other NATO countries rejected the idea of \u200b\u200bsending their troops to Ukraine, they stressed that this would make them parties to the conflict.. According to Hake, this is a useful way to draw a "

“The United States is using these rules of international law to let Russia know that they are ready to approach this red line, but not cross it.. I think Moscow understands this. But she is trying to question the American interpretation of these rules and draw her own red line, not based on rules, that would serve Russian goals, ”the expert explained..

Such a game of “red lines” also took place in Vietnam.. The scale of Soviet and Chinese deliveries of heavy weapons to North Vietnam dwarfs anything Ukraine has received. After the split between the USSR and the PRC in 1964, the two communist states competed with each other in the supply of weapons. By the end of the war in 1975, they had sent 500 aircraft (including 180 fighters), 2,500 tanks and tens of thousands of artillery systems to North Vietnam.. Soviet soldiers themselves often controlled air defense systems that shot down American planes over Hanoi.. Russian historical propaganda still brags about it even as Russia irritably complains about Western arms supplies to Ukraine..

[see_also ids\u003d"

At the same time, the United States never accused the USSR or China of being parties to the war.. And the nuclear powers did not come close to the brink of direct conflict. American bombers avoided Soviet fighters. When US Air Force pilots accidentally shot down a Soviet plane in 1967, they were put on trial.

America was then guided not by international law, but by the fact that drawing the USSR or China into the war was not in its interests..

For Russia today, this logic will also become a determining factor in the war against Ukraine..

“If Russia wanted to expand the conflict and involve us, it would have done it successfully. They want to scare us, not directly fight. Russia cannot cope with Ukraine, let alone NATO,” said Kalev Stoitsescu, an expert at the Center for Defense and Security in Tallinn..