12 ms·

A proxy war between NATO and Russia isn’t that rare of an edge case.

greesil 3y ago
Hindsight, dude
HarryHirsch 3y ago
The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan. Here is what's baffling: no army goes to war except with strategic plans. The geniuses in the Pentagon decided to push for war but omitted to make plans for armament supplies! The same mistake thankfully did Hitler in - the switch to the war economy came only in 1942 when it was clear that Stalingrad was going to fall.
- Scarblac 3y ago
  The Pentagon did not push for war at all, this is a Russian invasion.
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. It probably even did, the task of the High Command is to draw up and revise plans for every contingency. What went on between the Pentagon and the Secretary of State's office? Why was the military establishment with all its experience in logistics overruled? The incompetence and lack of preparedness that are on view here is staggering.
    - martin8412 3y ago
      NATO is a defensive alliance. The defensive alliance is only at odds with Russia due to the imperialist tendencies. Not to mention that Russia has had a land border with NATO since 1948.
      - sudosysgen 3y ago
        NATO is a general purpose alliance with a defensive clause amongst many and a history of involvement in offensive operations.
    - Scarblac 3y ago
      > The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. NATO is absolutely zero threat to Russia, and Russia knows it. Finland joined and Russia shrugged, and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack. What matters is the national security interests of Ukraine. Russia is a massive threat to the national security interests of Ukraine, and Ukraine really wants to join NATO to be safe from Russia. Russia knew that if it wanted to invade and conquer Ukraine, a souvereign country, it would have to do soon because it would not be possible anymore after Ukraine joined NATO. Russian security interests, fuck off. Neither Ukraine nor NATO is a threat to Russia. Ukraine's security interests, those are very obviously threatened.
      - multjoy 3y ago
        > and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack. They've removed them because they need to avoid any possibility of a provocation. The merest hint of a wrongful look at Finland will not go well for them.
        Scarblac 3y ago
        They removed them because they're sending them all to Ukraine.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      "The so-called victim must have realized that going out dressed like that last night would collide with the interests of young, frustrated males in her vicinity. Who, as she must understand, would surely be unable to control their impulses. And so what happened after that was just the inevitable consequence of her recklessness."
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        > victim We’re talking about the US here, not Ukraine. Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe a woman as well as a group of men who you suspect to be absolutely predatory scumbags, you can make predictions about what might happen.
        lisasays 3y ago
        You know who the "victim" of the current invasion is. It's not the US. Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe ... This is just spin and narrative to suggest that the war isn't really Putin's fault.
        avgcorrection 3y ago
        > You know who the "victim" of the current invasion is. It's not the US. Mhm. The whole topic here is about how America could/couldn’t have anticipated the invasion. The very comment that you replied to says “The Pentagon should have”… that’s not Ukraine. Not my problem that you are off-topic.
        lisasays 3y ago
        The whole topic here is about how America could/couldn’t have anticipated the invasion. The topic here, at least where it started to veer way off course from the original thread, is the essentially pro-Kremlin narrative in the GGGP comment and its GP ("The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan"). In this context - US calculations as such are a red herring. What matters here is the clear (and basically rather crass) implication in these comments of core Western responsibility for Russia's military actions. Which implication your words definitely seemed to be (if obliquely) echoing and supporting. Or at least playing footsie with, for some reason known only to you.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    This whole debate is so moralistic. What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine. Event: Euromaidan Likely long-term outcomes: ? There’s not more to it than that. No need to moralize over who did what or who is culpable. This is all about one entity (America) analyzing likely outcomes given a series of events.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine. No, actually. I do not think it should have been taken for granted that Russia would be stupid enough to do this invasion. The fact that they were willing to make such insane strategic bludders is a bit of a surprise.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      > What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. Should have been: given any kind of event.
  - thegaulofthem 3y ago
    Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature. Considering Us behavior when the Soviet Union installed assets on Cuba, there isn’t a whole lot of ethical ground to be found here. Just Great Power politicians playing stupid games with innocent lives.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      The US wasn’t invading Cuba when that happened. If the US had put nukes in Ukraine and pointed them at Russia, and did so before the Crimean invasion, your comparison might be more fair.
    - calgarymicro 3y ago
      Yup, poor innocent Yanukovych was only minding his own business when the cruel protestors set upon him, he definitely wasn't ramming through draconian laws[0] that would have ended free speech and the right to protest, given the secret police expansive powers, and censored the internet. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine
    - lisasays 3y ago
      It was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup ... No one in Ukraine believes this narrative. Why do you?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature. None of this is true, what happened in reality and not in the fever dreams of FSB, GRU and SVR agents is that there where protests when Yanukovych went back on a number of election promises and started aligning himself with Russia instead of joining the EU Like he promised he would. After that happened he was removed from his seat of power by the parliament and he fled back to his handlers in Russia.
65a 3y ago
This isn't a proxy war between NATO and Russia, this is Russia invading a neighbor, and the neighbor being supported by many different countries, some of which aren't even in NATO or "the West". Framing it as NATO vs Russia is precisely what the Kremlin talking heads try to do on a daily basis. NATO is a defensive alliance and a set of shared standards. Also, Russia has no proxy in this.
- DennisP 3y ago
  All this is true but strictly in terms of military equipment needs, it amounts to the same thing. I don't think GP meant any more than that.
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  If you squint a bit, Russia is the proxy. China's to be specific. The outcome tested the waters a bit for how the international community might react to the invasion of a somewhat developed nation vs a developing one. It also uses up munitions and war chests of those that might get involved. And in the now seemingly inevitable case that Russia's economy and political power are severely damaged, it has a trading partner that makes plenty of food and fuel that everyone else has promised not to trade with, so the prices are cheap.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    Agreed on the first part, but I'd say the rest isn't so important: while China does rely on food imports, it's mostly stuff like meat, rice and soybeans - nothing that Russia has in abundance.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  It did not *start* as a proxy war but it *became* one when we started flooding Ukraine with weapons. So many politicians blathered on about the peace dividend but the bear was hibernating, not dead. I was repeatedly ridiculed for saying so. Fortunately, it turns out the bear rotted from within pretty badly during it's hibernation.
- bouncycastle 3y ago

Hindsight, dude

The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan. Here is what's baffling: no army goes to war except with strategic plans. The geniuses in the Pentagon decided to push for war but omitted to make plans for armament supplies! The same mistake thankfully did Hitler in - the switch to the war economy came only in 1942 when it was clear that Stalingrad was going to fall.

Scarblac 3y ago
The Pentagon did not push for war at all, this is a Russian invasion.
- HarryHirsch 3y ago
  The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. It probably even did, the task of the High Command is to draw up and revise plans for every contingency. What went on between the Pentagon and the Secretary of State's office? Why was the military establishment with all its experience in logistics overruled? The incompetence and lack of preparedness that are on view here is staggering.
  - martin8412 3y ago
    NATO is a defensive alliance. The defensive alliance is only at odds with Russia due to the imperialist tendencies. Not to mention that Russia has had a land border with NATO since 1948.
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      NATO is a general purpose alliance with a defensive clause amongst many and a history of involvement in offensive operations.
  - Scarblac 3y ago
    > The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. NATO is absolutely zero threat to Russia, and Russia knows it. Finland joined and Russia shrugged, and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack. What matters is the national security interests of Ukraine. Russia is a massive threat to the national security interests of Ukraine, and Ukraine really wants to join NATO to be safe from Russia. Russia knew that if it wanted to invade and conquer Ukraine, a souvereign country, it would have to do soon because it would not be possible anymore after Ukraine joined NATO. Russian security interests, fuck off. Neither Ukraine nor NATO is a threat to Russia. Ukraine's security interests, those are very obviously threatened.
    - multjoy 3y ago
      > and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack. They've removed them because they need to avoid any possibility of a provocation. The merest hint of a wrongful look at Finland will not go well for them.
      - Scarblac 3y ago
        They removed them because they're sending them all to Ukraine.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    "The so-called victim must have realized that going out dressed like that last night would collide with the interests of young, frustrated males in her vicinity. Who, as she must understand, would surely be unable to control their impulses. And so what happened after that was just the inevitable consequence of her recklessness."
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      > victim We’re talking about the US here, not Ukraine. Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe a woman as well as a group of men who you suspect to be absolutely predatory scumbags, you can make predictions about what might happen.
      - lisasays 3y ago
        You know who the "victim" of the current invasion is. It's not the US. Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe ... This is just spin and narrative to suggest that the war isn't really Putin's fault.
        avgcorrection 3y ago
        > You know who the "victim" of the current invasion is. It's not the US. Mhm. The whole topic here is about how America could/couldn’t have anticipated the invasion. The very comment that you replied to says “The Pentagon should have”… that’s not Ukraine. Not my problem that you are off-topic.
        lisasays 3y ago
        The whole topic here is about how America could/couldn’t have anticipated the invasion. The topic here, at least where it started to veer way off course from the original thread, is the essentially pro-Kremlin narrative in the GGGP comment and its GP ("The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan"). In this context - US calculations as such are a red herring. What matters here is the clear (and basically rather crass) implication in these comments of core Western responsibility for Russia's military actions. Which implication your words definitely seemed to be (if obliquely) echoing and supporting. Or at least playing footsie with, for some reason known only to you.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  This whole debate is so moralistic. What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine. Event: Euromaidan Likely long-term outcomes: ? There’s not more to it than that. No need to moralize over who did what or who is culpable. This is all about one entity (America) analyzing likely outcomes given a series of events.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine. No, actually. I do not think it should have been taken for granted that Russia would be stupid enough to do this invasion. The fact that they were willing to make such insane strategic bludders is a bit of a surprise.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. Should have been: given any kind of event.
- thegaulofthem 3y ago
  Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature. Considering Us behavior when the Soviet Union installed assets on Cuba, there isn’t a whole lot of ethical ground to be found here. Just Great Power politicians playing stupid games with innocent lives.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    The US wasn’t invading Cuba when that happened. If the US had put nukes in Ukraine and pointed them at Russia, and did so before the Crimean invasion, your comparison might be more fair.
  - calgarymicro 3y ago
    Yup, poor innocent Yanukovych was only minding his own business when the cruel protestors set upon him, he definitely wasn't ramming through draconian laws[0] that would have ended free speech and the right to protest, given the secret police expansive powers, and censored the internet. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine
  - lisasays 3y ago
    It was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup ... No one in Ukraine believes this narrative. Why do you?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature. None of this is true, what happened in reality and not in the fever dreams of FSB, GRU and SVR agents is that there where protests when Yanukovych went back on a number of election promises and started aligning himself with Russia instead of joining the EU Like he promised he would. After that happened he was removed from his seat of power by the parliament and he fled back to his handlers in Russia.

65a 3y ago

This isn't a proxy war between NATO and Russia, this is Russia invading a neighbor, and the neighbor being supported by many different countries, some of which aren't even in NATO or "the West". Framing it as NATO vs Russia is precisely what the Kremlin talking heads try to do on a daily basis. NATO is a defensive alliance and a set of shared standards. Also, Russia has no proxy in this.

DennisP 3y ago
All this is true but strictly in terms of military equipment needs, it amounts to the same thing. I don't think GP meant any more than that.
galangalalgol 3y ago
If you squint a bit, Russia is the proxy. China's to be specific. The outcome tested the waters a bit for how the international community might react to the invasion of a somewhat developed nation vs a developing one. It also uses up munitions and war chests of those that might get involved. And in the now seemingly inevitable case that Russia's economy and political power are severely damaged, it has a trading partner that makes plenty of food and fuel that everyone else has promised not to trade with, so the prices are cheap.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Agreed on the first part, but I'd say the rest isn't so important: while China does rely on food imports, it's mostly stuff like meat, rice and soybeans - nothing that Russia has in abundance.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
It did not *start* as a proxy war but it *became* one when we started flooding Ukraine with weapons. So many politicians blathered on about the peace dividend but the bear was hibernating, not dead. I was repeatedly ridiculed for saying so. Fortunately, it turns out the bear rotted from within pretty badly during it's hibernation.
bouncycastle 3y ago