6 ms·

> The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist. Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make th

by mopsi 4y ago

> The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist. Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon. They can't bring themselves to admit that they are losing to Ukraine and hence emphasise how they are "acktshually fighting against the whole NATO". Allies have given a lot of support, but mainly in the form of obsolete military surplus equipment and equipment alone doesn't fight; see Afghanistan. > No calls for diplomacy. April 1945 was too late for peace offerings.

starkd 4y ago
Many us legislators are openly admitting it is a proxy war. See Rep. Dan Crenshaw-TX comments on Ukrain support. He calls it a good deal that we get to fight a major geo-political adversary without any American deaths by just supplying Ukraine with weapons. He is not the only one. That is by definition a proxy war. Fighting a war on the cheap that isn't designed to ultimately win anything, meanwhile sending 200,000 of those Ukrainians to their deaths is despicable in my opinion. I am not on Putin's side on this, but this is not 1945. Russia does have some vital national interests in the reason, since its right on their border and they have a long historical relationship with Crimea. The prime minister of Israel claims they had a deal worked out, but the Biden administration nixed it. This is a result of strategic planning within the State Dept. to have this fight.
- starkd 4y ago
  I will also note that the cash burn rate for this war in Ukraine is now exceeding that of Afghanistan in the early years. It is more money after nothing, because they won't even define what victory means. Just more war slogans.
  - Zak 4y ago
    I think the Ukrainian government has defined victory as driving the Russian military out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
- mopsi 4y ago
  > The prime minister of Israel claims they had a deal worked out, but the Biden administration nixed it. No he doesn't. https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-claim-west-blocked-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...
  - starkd 4y ago
    Yeah, noticed "walks back". He just said he is now "unsure". Why did he say it in the first place? Sounds like the US put the squeeze on him, so he "walked it back". Nevertheless, there was SOMETHING on the table that could have been the basis for talks. They ruled it out of hand. Business Insider is a rag, not credible.
    - mopsi 4y ago
      His words were initially taken out of context; he meant that allies stopped pressuring Ukraine into a peace deal after mass graves were uncovered in Bucha. That's the only source for this conspiracy theory. It goes against your whole narrative of how the US is forcing Ukraine into a war.
      - starkd 4y ago
        There was still a basis on which talks could have been opened up. The fact they were entirely nixed shows they are not interested. 200,000 Ukrainian deaths when they can't even define what victory looks like beyond slogans. They are trying to fight a war on the cheap so long as no American casualties happen, but they are perfectly fine so long as they are Ukrainian casualties. At least, they could at least define what victory looks like and provide the means to do so.
        mopsi 4y ago
        There's nothing to negotiate at this point. Either Russia moves its guns and tanks and soldiers out of the whole Ukraine like they retreated from around Kharkiv, or Russia gets defeated on the battlefield. Anything else would leave Ukrainians in occupied territories to be wiped out by Russians. Russian hopes of a favorable peace deal is nothing but a coping mechanism, just like top Nazis hoped to reach a peace deal in 1945. Better prepare your cyanide pill.
- cynicalsecurity 4y ago
  Britain has historical roots to the US territory, going back to centuries ago. According to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of US would be justified.
  - starkd 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      > Ukraine is right on the russia's border. Their economies and cultures are intertwined So, according to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of USA would not be justified, but a British invasion and occupation of The Republic of Ireland would be? > 2014 when the US formented a revolution there. Propaganda nonsense. https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-in-2014-and-since-then/ https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...
      - starkd 4y ago
        The Bulwark is a neocon publication by Bill Kristol. He still refuses to apologize for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is part of the war machine that is perfectly happy to see perpetual war. He was a solid republican, but he was all too happy to ditch everything he said he believed in to embrace the cultural issues of the left. The only thing he kept the same was his hawkish views on foreign policy. That shows a lot about him right there. He is an untrustworthy source for anything.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        I already know who Bill Kristol is, and the people (plural) behind The Bulwark are, thanks. It's not hidden, it's here https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/ https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/ I'm not a fan of their political project, my point is that even they don't buy this "coup" nonsense. I do not think either that he "ditched everything he said he believed in" when their political party changed and they did not, that's rather a specific framing from an extremist faction of that party. No doubt you prefer noted thinker, Dan Crenshaw.
- ScoobleDoodle 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - starkd 4y ago
    [flagged]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon. The point of calling it a proxy war by the Kremlin is not to make it seem larger than it, as the largest post-WW2 European war, is. It is to invert the responsibility for aggression. (Secondarily, it’s to deny Ukrainian agency and make its existence and sovereignty an irrelevancy in discussing a war where that is the entire issue.) There is a sense in which calling it now a proxy war between NATO and some other affiliated states on one side and, say, Iran, China, and North Korea on the other, is not entirely inaccurate. (Russia prefers to look to external sponsors of the direct belligerents only on one side though.) But, even to the extent that’s accurate it doesn’t change that the war (which started in 2014) was initiated by Russian aggression, and the 2022 escalation was a major upswing in Russian aggression, and the outside assistance (whether or not it also has ulterior geopolitical motives) for the other side is in line with the right of collective self-defense enshrined in the UN Charter.
- mopsi 4y ago
  > The point of calling it a proxy war by the Kremlin is not to make it seem larger than it, as the largest post-WW2 European war, is. It is to invert the responsibility fot aggression. (Secondarily, it’s to deny Ukrainian agency and make the existence and sovereignty an irrelevancy in discussing a war where that is the entire issue.) Yes, that's what I meant. The purpose of this talking point is to diminish Ukrainian achievements by leaving an impression that Russia is under attack and fighting the whole "collective West" (as they call it) and that the war is much larger in scope than it actually is: Russia vs Ukraine. Foreign military aid to Ukraine has so far barely sustained defense and I wouldn't call aiding countries belligerents in this war.

by mopsi 4y ago

starkd 4y ago

Many us legislators are openly admitting it is a proxy war. See Rep. Dan Crenshaw-TX comments on Ukrain support. He calls it a good deal that we get to fight a major geo-political adversary without any American deaths by just supplying Ukraine with weapons. He is not the only one. That is by definition a proxy war. Fighting a war on the cheap that isn't designed to ultimately win anything, meanwhile sending 200,000 of those Ukrainians to their deaths is despicable in my opinion. I am not on Putin's side on this, but this is not 1945. Russia does have some vital national interests in the reason, since its right on their border and they have a long historical relationship with Crimea. The prime minister of Israel claims they had a deal worked out, but the Biden administration nixed it. This is a result of strategic planning within the State Dept. to have this fight.

starkd 4y ago
I will also note that the cash burn rate for this war in Ukraine is now exceeding that of Afghanistan in the early years. It is more money after nothing, because they won't even define what victory means. Just more war slogans.
- Zak 4y ago
  I think the Ukrainian government has defined victory as driving the Russian military out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
mopsi 4y ago
> The prime minister of Israel claims they had a deal worked out, but the Biden administration nixed it. No he doesn't. https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-claim-west-blocked-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...
- starkd 4y ago
  Yeah, noticed "walks back". He just said he is now "unsure". Why did he say it in the first place? Sounds like the US put the squeeze on him, so he "walked it back". Nevertheless, there was SOMETHING on the table that could have been the basis for talks. They ruled it out of hand. Business Insider is a rag, not credible.
  - mopsi 4y ago
    His words were initially taken out of context; he meant that allies stopped pressuring Ukraine into a peace deal after mass graves were uncovered in Bucha. That's the only source for this conspiracy theory. It goes against your whole narrative of how the US is forcing Ukraine into a war.
    - starkd 4y ago
      There was still a basis on which talks could have been opened up. The fact they were entirely nixed shows they are not interested. 200,000 Ukrainian deaths when they can't even define what victory looks like beyond slogans. They are trying to fight a war on the cheap so long as no American casualties happen, but they are perfectly fine so long as they are Ukrainian casualties. At least, they could at least define what victory looks like and provide the means to do so.
      - mopsi 4y ago
        There's nothing to negotiate at this point. Either Russia moves its guns and tanks and soldiers out of the whole Ukraine like they retreated from around Kharkiv, or Russia gets defeated on the battlefield. Anything else would leave Ukrainians in occupied territories to be wiped out by Russians. Russian hopes of a favorable peace deal is nothing but a coping mechanism, just like top Nazis hoped to reach a peace deal in 1945. Better prepare your cyanide pill.
cynicalsecurity 4y ago
Britain has historical roots to the US territory, going back to centuries ago. According to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of US would be justified.
- starkd 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > Ukraine is right on the russia's border. Their economies and cultures are intertwined So, according to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of USA would not be justified, but a British invasion and occupation of The Republic of Ireland would be? > 2014 when the US formented a revolution there. Propaganda nonsense. https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-in-2014-and-since-then/ https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...
    - starkd 4y ago
      The Bulwark is a neocon publication by Bill Kristol. He still refuses to apologize for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is part of the war machine that is perfectly happy to see perpetual war. He was a solid republican, but he was all too happy to ditch everything he said he believed in to embrace the cultural issues of the left. The only thing he kept the same was his hawkish views on foreign policy. That shows a lot about him right there. He is an untrustworthy source for anything.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        I already know who Bill Kristol is, and the people (plural) behind The Bulwark are, thanks. It's not hidden, it's here https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/ https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/ I'm not a fan of their political project, my point is that even they don't buy this "coup" nonsense. I do not think either that he "ditched everything he said he believed in" when their political party changed and they did not, that's rather a specific framing from an extremist faction of that party. No doubt you prefer noted thinker, Dan Crenshaw.
ScoobleDoodle 4y ago
[flagged]
- starkd 4y ago
  [flagged]

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon. The point of calling it a proxy war by the Kremlin is not to make it seem larger than it, as the largest post-WW2 European war, is. It is to invert the responsibility for aggression. (Secondarily, it’s to deny Ukrainian agency and make its existence and sovereignty an irrelevancy in discussing a war where that is the entire issue.) There is a sense in which calling it now a proxy war between NATO and some other affiliated states on one side and, say, Iran, China, and North Korea on the other, is not entirely inaccurate. (Russia prefers to look to external sponsors of the direct belligerents only on one side though.) But, even to the extent that’s accurate it doesn’t change that the war (which started in 2014) was initiated by Russian aggression, and the 2022 escalation was a major upswing in Russian aggression, and the outside assistance (whether or not it also has ulterior geopolitical motives) for the other side is in line with the right of collective self-defense enshrined in the UN Charter.

mopsi 4y ago
> The point of calling it a proxy war by the Kremlin is not to make it seem larger than it, as the largest post-WW2 European war, is. It is to invert the responsibility fot aggression. (Secondarily, it’s to deny Ukrainian agency and make the existence and sovereignty an irrelevancy in discussing a war where that is the entire issue.) Yes, that's what I meant. The purpose of this talking point is to diminish Ukrainian achievements by leaving an impression that Russia is under attack and fighting the whole "collective West" (as they call it) and that the war is much larger in scope than it actually is: Russia vs Ukraine. Foreign military aid to Ukraine has so far barely sustained defense and I wouldn't call aiding countries belligerents in this war.