31 ms·

Ukraine, Georgia, Afghanistan, Chechnya. These are clear-cut with Russia as the driving aggressor. All the other 20 or so in eg. Mali and Dagestan might be less

by Y-bar 27d ago

Ukraine, Georgia, Afghanistan, Chechnya. These are clear-cut with Russia as the driving aggressor. All the other 20 or so in eg. Mali and Dagestan might be less so, but should probably also be counted.

mnkyokyfrnd 27d ago
Operation Cyclone is largely understood as one of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia. So US again is to blame as much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
- AnimalMuppet 27d ago
  To blame as much as Russia, who actually invaded? No.
  - mnkyokyfrnd 27d ago
    US invaded by proxy through arming and supporting Islamists to destabilise a fairly legitimate government because it was aligned with Russia. Think if Russia today arms an anti-democracy militia in Canada in order to destabilise USA. Any subsequent invasion of Canada by US would be a natural order of power play. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
    - AnimalMuppet 27d ago
      "Invaded by proxy" is not actually a thing. You're trying to make arming an insurgency sound equivalent to a full-on invasion, and they are not equivalent. The US did not arm the Islamists in order to destabilize Russia, just a Russian client. In response, Russia invaded and removed the client government - the very government that the Islamists were trying to remove. If Russia today armed an anti-democracy militia in Canada, would the US invade Canada? No (at least, any previous administration would not). We would share intel, help cut off the flow of arms, maybe even do a joint operation against the militia. But conquer Canada? Why would we do that? So your analogy is as flawed as your moral equivalence.
      - mnkyokyfrnd 26d ago
        "Invasion by proxy" is very much a thing. And I am not trying to make it sound like equivalent to a full-on invasion, like the one the US did later on, but it is a thing the same way "being in a proxy war" is a thing, and of course, that is not the same as being "full-on at war". Insisting on dichotomy between attempting to destabilise a union or one of it's bordering states, a client/satellite state is clutching at the straws. You overlook categorical differences where it matters and then makeup binary lines for nuanced and things that happen on a spectrum like destabilisation where it is convenient for you. That is lazy at best, or dishonest at worst. > But conquer Canada? Why would we do that? You seem to have no idea about US is conduct with it's allies throughout history where it comes to her interests priority. Henry Kissinger didn't say "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." because he felt like it. It is a reflection of US's modus operandi. Liberia, Panama, Argentine Junta, Iraq, Iran, Iraqi Kurds of 70s, Peshmarga of 2020s, Nicaragua in 80s, endless examples. The problem is not with the analogy, it is your lack of understanding of US's modus operandi and her historical conduct.
Markoff 26d ago
I would take the Chechnya away from that list, you can't be in war with yourself, Chechnya is part of Russia.
- dietr1ch 26d ago
  Apparently the US can. They have ICE ready to fight inland terrorists like people with signs or nearby a poorly maintained pool.
- Y-bar 25d ago
  By that logic the US independence war (1775-1783) was not a ”war” either because the colonies were part of England. Neither were the war of 1861-1865 between the northern and southern states. Can’t be at war with yourself?
  - Markoff 25d ago
    Not really (unless it was at least recently a different country), I wouldn't call what ETA or IRA were doing a war, Google calls it (separatist) campaign and I tend to agree, though first words which came to my mind were separatist movements and terrorism (though I can see their reasoning). With Palestine vs Israel I would tend to call it a war since Palestine's own country was taken and it is occupied by different artifically created country, so I would say it is two countries at war.
    - Y-bar 25d ago
      I have met a lot of revisionist historians over the years, but this you are the strangest one yet.

by Y-bar 27d ago

mnkyokyfrnd 27d ago

Operation Cyclone is largely understood as one of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia. So US again is to blame as much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

AnimalMuppet 27d ago
To blame as much as Russia, who actually invaded? No.
- mnkyokyfrnd 27d ago
  US invaded by proxy through arming and supporting Islamists to destabilise a fairly legitimate government because it was aligned with Russia. Think if Russia today arms an anti-democracy militia in Canada in order to destabilise USA. Any subsequent invasion of Canada by US would be a natural order of power play. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
  - AnimalMuppet 27d ago
    "Invaded by proxy" is not actually a thing. You're trying to make arming an insurgency sound equivalent to a full-on invasion, and they are not equivalent. The US did not arm the Islamists in order to destabilize Russia, just a Russian client. In response, Russia invaded and removed the client government - the very government that the Islamists were trying to remove. If Russia today armed an anti-democracy militia in Canada, would the US invade Canada? No (at least, any previous administration would not). We would share intel, help cut off the flow of arms, maybe even do a joint operation against the militia. But conquer Canada? Why would we do that? So your analogy is as flawed as your moral equivalence.
    - mnkyokyfrnd 26d ago
      "Invasion by proxy" is very much a thing. And I am not trying to make it sound like equivalent to a full-on invasion, like the one the US did later on, but it is a thing the same way "being in a proxy war" is a thing, and of course, that is not the same as being "full-on at war". Insisting on dichotomy between attempting to destabilise a union or one of it's bordering states, a client/satellite state is clutching at the straws. You overlook categorical differences where it matters and then makeup binary lines for nuanced and things that happen on a spectrum like destabilisation where it is convenient for you. That is lazy at best, or dishonest at worst. > But conquer Canada? Why would we do that? You seem to have no idea about US is conduct with it's allies throughout history where it comes to her interests priority. Henry Kissinger didn't say "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." because he felt like it. It is a reflection of US's modus operandi. Liberia, Panama, Argentine Junta, Iraq, Iran, Iraqi Kurds of 70s, Peshmarga of 2020s, Nicaragua in 80s, endless examples. The problem is not with the analogy, it is your lack of understanding of US's modus operandi and her historical conduct.

Markoff 26d ago

I would take the Chechnya away from that list, you can't be in war with yourself, Chechnya is part of Russia.

dietr1ch 26d ago
Apparently the US can. They have ICE ready to fight inland terrorists like people with signs or nearby a poorly maintained pool.
Y-bar 25d ago
By that logic the US independence war (1775-1783) was not a ”war” either because the colonies were part of England. Neither were the war of 1861-1865 between the northern and southern states. Can’t be at war with yourself?
- Markoff 25d ago
  Not really (unless it was at least recently a different country), I wouldn't call what ETA or IRA were doing a war, Google calls it (separatist) campaign and I tend to agree, though first words which came to my mind were separatist movements and terrorism (though I can see their reasoning). With Palestine vs Israel I would tend to call it a war since Palestine's own country was taken and it is occupied by different artifically created country, so I would say it is two countries at war.
  - Y-bar 25d ago
    I have met a lot of revisionist historians over the years, but this you are the strangest one yet.