3 ms·
It’s not a proxy war, because US and EU aren’t fighting at all - they are merely providing support. Compare with eg Syria, where US was actually taking part.
by trasz 4y ago
It’s not a proxy war, because US and EU aren’t fighting at all - they are merely providing support. Compare with eg Syria, where US was actually taking part.
- pessimizer 4y agoIt's not a proxy war because the US and EU are using a proxy?
- trasz 4y agoIt's not a proxy war because Ukraine is not a proxy - they aren't defending because US or EU told them to, they are defending to survive.
- rcarr 4y agoI feel like your definition of proxy war must be stricter than mine. The west is supplying weapons, training, intelligence etc. There’s no American boots on the ground officially but I would be surprised if elite western units weren’t involved in covert operations disrupting Russian assets around the world in some capacity. My definition of a proxy war is that of a war fought between two sides in a third country that is not part of either’s territory. If Ukraine had not been supplied with western weapons, training and intelligence on an ongoing basis then this war would probably be looking very different right now so it meets my definition at least. I’d say this also aligns with the description on wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
- trasz 4y agoWikipedia definition differs in one crucial detail: it's a "conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities." In this case there was no "instigation" - Ukraine is defending, it hasn't been forced into conflict by the West.
- rcarr 4y agoI do see your point. The definition implies a lack of free agency in Ukraine's involvement. There must be some kind of word for it, but I have no idea where to find it. If not, one should be coined. "Symbiotic war" is about the best I can come up with.