Yi Peng 3 crossed both cables C-Lion 1 and BSC at times matching when they broke

> are escalating the war (they started, with the long-range missiles),

Wrong. Using long range missiles is not an escalation. Russia has been using them against Ukrainian lands for years now. Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to use them against Russian land?

No, you are wrong.

Russia are at war with Ukraine, so they are bombing them. Ukraine have every right to reply with their own long range weapons too, and that would indeed not be an escalation in the fighting itself.

But, the west clearly prohibited the use of their donated long range weapons in direct attacks on Russia, in order to limit their liability, responsibility, 'participation' or whatever, until now.

Russia have been very clear that such permission would constitute an escalation OF WESTERN 'PARTICIPATION' in the war, and even be tantamount to a direct NATO attack, and so it is at least an escalation.

Whether it is right or wrong is not the point, it is a clear change in the depth of western involvement.

> right to reply with their own

This seems like an arbitrary line [0] drawn exactly where it suits your argument. How does having North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia stay on the right side of that line? What about any components that originated outside of Russia but are employed in Russian weaponry or equipment (for example chips)? The information war is a part of "the war", is an "official" non-Russian hacker or troll crossing the line? Or a non-Russian boat or crew employed for acts of sabotage.

[0] It can be fair to draw an arbitrary line, at least you know it's straight and will intersect whatever is unfortunate to be in its way regardless of the side you prefer. But you're trying to draw tiny arbitrary circles around whatever you don't like and that's feeble.

The line is clear, that western, or US-supplied long-range missiles should not be used to attack targets inside Russia, and it was drawn both by the US (fearing that they'd be 'drawn into the war') and by Russia who clearly stated this as a 'red line'. You can argue about the arbitrariness, but it was clearly understood on both sides.

Ukraine is quite obviously not just a plucky country defending it's sovereignty (though it is that too), but the theater of a great-power proxy war.

The rules of that game are that you keep the conflict within the theater, or risk a world war.

That was already breached by Ukrainian incursions into Russia, armed to some extent with western weapons, but this is much more direct, and a clear escalation of US participation in the conflict.

> The rules of that game are that you keep the conflict within the theater, or risk a world war. That was already breached by Ukrainian incursions into Russia...

In what insane alternate Marvel universe is Russia not part of the Russo-Ukrainian War theater?

The line isn't clear, because there is no line. These lines you keep bringing up are just gamesmanship. Nothing changes because any of them are crossed. The war was fully escalated when they invaded. Ukraine has every right to attack targets in Russia. Russia and everyone else is just posturing to hopefully extract advantages. Everybody is trying to figure out what they can get away with that doesn't negatively impact them. When Trump won the situation changed for the current administration. Do you believe Russia wouldn't use nukes if it would strengthen Russia? Do you believe Europe and the US wouldn't have immediately shut down the invasion if Russia wasn't a nuclear power.

> Russia have been very clear that such permission would constitute an escalation OF WESTERN 'PARTICIPATION' in the war, and even be tantamount to a direct NATO attack, and so it is at least an escalation.

Since the war started, Russia has moved their red lines dozens of times. The “escalation” argument lost it's meaning.