4 ms·

a proxy war between Russia and NATO That is not how people of Ukraine see this.

by sorokod 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago
With the US alone investing 40 billion dollars in the war, they're simply wrong if they don't see it this way.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  As I have always understood the concept of proxy war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war there should be another party behind Russia prompting it's actions (since it attacked)
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    My understanding is that a proxy war requires at least one of the belligerents to be acting through a proxy, not necessarily both. For example, here is a wiki page [0] about the Iran-Israel proxy conflict/war, which is fought between Israeli and Palestinian combatants. Either way, this is a just a matter of how you choose to define the term. The important point that I'm trying to make is that, while Ukraine is of course fighting for its own sake (not trying to claim here they are only a puppet or something - as is Palestine in the other example), it's also clear that NATO is massively involved in the conflict, with its own aims for the war which may or may not be entirely aligned with Ukraine's (or Ukrainians') best interests. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conflict https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_co...
  - pc86 4y ago
    This seems like pedantry. One side can be a proxy while the other side isn't, right?
    - eru 4y ago
      Yes. And one side can fight a war, while the other side is fighting a special military operation.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
Was the American war of independence in 1776 a proxy war between England and France? Probably. But it doesn't change the fact that the colonies wanted to be free.
- agapon 4y ago
  I'd add that there is continuum of options to provide support to a party of a war: from zero support to joining the war in full force as an ally. At which point the support amounts to a proxy war is up to a debate. Also, I think that it does matter who started the war. Those who are fighting, those who provide support or neither of them (that is, the other party of the war).
- eru 4y ago
  Some people in the colonies wanted to change who's governing them. > Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution. From https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html > Bueno de Mesquita claims, quite plausibly, that a huge part of George Washington’s motive for fighting the Revolutionary War was to protect his substantial, and critically placed, landholdings in the Ohio Valley. > An excerpt about GW’s wealth: >> His last position, just before becoming President, was President of the Patowmack Canal Company–the Potomac Canal, as we know it, from the Potomac River. What that canal did was bring, make it possible to bring produce from the Shenandoah Valley–which George owned–up to the port in Alexandria, which had been built by Lawrence, by the Ohio Valley Company, in which George had a direct interest, and shipped goods out. So it was a very profitable undertaking–or so he thought it would be, in the long run, for him. And that’s what motivated him. Most people think of Washington as–besides a great hero, which he certainly was–as kind of a gentleman farmer. Economists have estimated the worth in real dollars adjusted for inflation, not appreciated, of George Washington’s estate, in contemporary terms; and it’s about $20 billion dollars. He is by far the wealthiest President. He is the 59th wealthiest person in American history. Three of the American founding fathers are in the list of the top 100 wealthiest Americans in all of history: Hancock, who was wealthier than Washington–made his money smuggling; and Ben Franklin, who was not quite as wealthy, who made his money because he had a monopoly on the printing press. These are the folks who led the Revolution. These were not the downtrodden. These were not the oppressed. These were people who stood to lose huge amounts of wealth because of the King’s policies. And so they fought a Revolution. Which was, by the way, not very popular. Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution.

a proxy war between Russia and NATO That is not how people of Ukraine see this.

tsimionescu 4y ago

With the US alone investing 40 billion dollars in the war, they're simply wrong if they don't see it this way.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
As I have always understood the concept of proxy war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war there should be another party behind Russia prompting it's actions (since it attacked)
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  My understanding is that a proxy war requires at least one of the belligerents to be acting through a proxy, not necessarily both. For example, here is a wiki page [0] about the Iran-Israel proxy conflict/war, which is fought between Israeli and Palestinian combatants. Either way, this is a just a matter of how you choose to define the term. The important point that I'm trying to make is that, while Ukraine is of course fighting for its own sake (not trying to claim here they are only a puppet or something - as is Palestine in the other example), it's also clear that NATO is massively involved in the conflict, with its own aims for the war which may or may not be entirely aligned with Ukraine's (or Ukrainians') best interests. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conflict https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_co...
- pc86 4y ago
  This seems like pedantry. One side can be a proxy while the other side isn't, right?
  - eru 4y ago
    Yes. And one side can fight a war, while the other side is fighting a special military operation.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

Was the American war of independence in 1776 a proxy war between England and France? Probably. But it doesn't change the fact that the colonies wanted to be free.

agapon 4y ago
I'd add that there is continuum of options to provide support to a party of a war: from zero support to joining the war in full force as an ally. At which point the support amounts to a proxy war is up to a debate. Also, I think that it does matter who started the war. Those who are fighting, those who provide support or neither of them (that is, the other party of the war).
eru 4y ago
Some people in the colonies wanted to change who's governing them. > Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution. From https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html > Bueno de Mesquita claims, quite plausibly, that a huge part of George Washington’s motive for fighting the Revolutionary War was to protect his substantial, and critically placed, landholdings in the Ohio Valley. > An excerpt about GW’s wealth: >> His last position, just before becoming President, was President of the Patowmack Canal Company–the Potomac Canal, as we know it, from the Potomac River. What that canal did was bring, make it possible to bring produce from the Shenandoah Valley–which George owned–up to the port in Alexandria, which had been built by Lawrence, by the Ohio Valley Company, in which George had a direct interest, and shipped goods out. So it was a very profitable undertaking–or so he thought it would be, in the long run, for him. And that’s what motivated him. Most people think of Washington as–besides a great hero, which he certainly was–as kind of a gentleman farmer. Economists have estimated the worth in real dollars adjusted for inflation, not appreciated, of George Washington’s estate, in contemporary terms; and it’s about $20 billion dollars. He is by far the wealthiest President. He is the 59th wealthiest person in American history. Three of the American founding fathers are in the list of the top 100 wealthiest Americans in all of history: Hancock, who was wealthier than Washington–made his money smuggling; and Ben Franklin, who was not quite as wealthy, who made his money because he had a monopoly on the printing press. These are the folks who led the Revolution. These were not the downtrodden. These were not the oppressed. These were people who stood to lose huge amounts of wealth because of the King’s policies. And so they fought a Revolution. Which was, by the way, not very popular. Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution.