The War in Ukraine Is a Proxy War

 

I find it amazing I have even to make this argument, but here we are.

When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the Reagan administration made the call to arm the defenders. The stated goal was to bleed our enemy. It was a way to hurt the USSR by proxy. Indeed, on Wikipedia, it is listed as one of the proxy wars of the Cold War.

In more modern times, our forces in Iraq have faced forces supported by Iran. That was a proxy war by Iran with us.

I am being sold on helping Ukraine, in part, as it is doing damage to our enemy, Russia. We are arming and using Ukraine to hurt the nation that is our enemy. The President of America has publicly called for Putin to be deposed, for crying out loud.

Just what do you people think a Proxy War is, anyway? By what criteria is arming another nation to fight our enemy with the stated intention that a reason to do it is to hurt our enemy, not a Proxy War?

I am sorry y’all don’t like the label, but being for arming someone else to fight on our behalf is the very definition of a Proxy War.

Oh, I know, we are also there to save a great and noble people from the evil that is Putin. However, the moment anyone says, “Wait, I am not sure I want to spend treasure fighting every invasion,” we are told, “But this is hurting Russia!” So, sorry, the idea we are doing this to be the good guys is immediately supported by the benefits of a Proxy War. If you want to claim you don’t support a Proxy War, you then don’t get to list as a good “this hurts our enemy, Russia” as a reason for us to be there.

Well, you can, but it is flat-out dishonest.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 123 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Don’t forget the 2nd proxy war. Xi is letting Russia soften up our military assets and strengthen our isolation urge in preparation for his assault on Taiwan.

    That is big part of the Danger.  Also Iran is using it to drain the west to play for time on both their nuclear and regional ambitions.   

    • #31
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Suggesting that the United States is incapable of caring about the Ukrainian people, suggesting that the American people have no interest in preventing Russia from slaughtering the nuclear-defenseless Ukrainian people, is probably one of the most insulting ideas I’ve ever come across. If that’s what this term “proxy war” is suggesting when people use it in relation to U.S. aid to Ukraine, I want no part of it. It is disgusting.

    The only the thing the Russians proved in invading Ukraine was that we are right to fear them. It was a horrible thing for them to do. We are better than they are. They need to change. They are hurting people. We are trying to help people.

    I love my country because it is a good country. American people are good people. Maybe we’re not doing it right, but we are doing it for the right reasons.

    So it is only a proxy war if people don’t care about the proxy nation? That is garbage.

    So, when do we go free Tibet?

    • #32
  3. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why?  The Ukrainians want to fight.  We are enabling them.  We say it is better to “die on your feet than live on your knees” can we not extend that to other people fighting for their concept of self determination?  I very open to the augments that this particular proxy war is imprudent, but I think proxy wars can be a good thing.  I live in a country that only exists because of a successful proxy war between two superpowers.

    • #33
  4. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Actually, it is quite the reverse. Russia is engaged in a proxy war against NATO in general and America in particular. This is not speculation, he’s said as much…

    From his Feb 2022 pre-invasion speech:

    For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.

     

    It does take two to tango though.

    • #34
  5. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Not every time that you supply weapons to a side in a conflict is it a proxy war.  We supply South Korea with weapons they are still technically at war with North Korea, but I wouldn’t characterize this as a proxy war.  Similarly we supply Israel with weapons.  They are in a war with Hezbollah and Hammas, both of which are Iranian proxies.  I don’t really characterize that as a proxy war with Iran.   I think Iran may see it differently but no matter.  We supply weapons to the Saudis who use them against insurgents in Yemen.  I think that may in fact be a US proxy war against Iran.  This having been said the Ukraine-Russia War is definitely a proxy war.  I see the wisdom in weakening Russia.  They are a revanchist power seeking to reestablish a lost empire.  I don’t think it is in long term US interests for them to accomplish this goal.  I don’t think it is in the long term interest of the Ukrainians for them to achieve this goal so there is an alignment of interest there.  Eventually if they keep this up there will be a fight for a NATO country that will involve the US, so there is good reason to stop them with the least cost in blood and treasure to the US.  All this having been said.  I feel like we are getting into very dangerous territory.  We are forming an Russia-China-Iran axis which is going to be a long term threat for the peace and stability of the world.  The current administration is sloppy with its Rhetoric and feckless in many of its foreign policy initiatives.  It is far too reactionary.  I am disquieted about this particular proxy war, even though I support its objectives and thing it may be necessary in some fashion.

    • #35
  6. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I support Ukraine in its effort to defend itself against Putin’s aggression. Yes. This is a proxy war. Ukraine has my full support.

    The 1980’s called. They want their foreign policy back … Barack Hussein Obama

    • #36
  7. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why? The Ukrainians want to fight. We are enabling them.

    If we weren’t, there would be fewer dead Ukrainians, fewer destroyed cities, undamaged infrastructure, and a peace deal could have been achieved long ago. Or this war could have been avoided altogether. Because we have been trying to get Ukraine into war with Russia for a very long time.

    • #37
  8. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bryan, I’m not sure about this.  As you might recall, I’m opposed to US support of Ukraine in this war, so I don’t think that I have a political or rhetorical reason to avoid the use of the term “proxy war.”

    It does depend on the definition.  Wikipedia defines “proxy war” as “is an armed 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.”  Using this definition, the Russo-Ukrainian War is not a “proxy war,” because Russia is directly involved.

    However, the list of “proxy wars” at the same Wikipedia site include Korea and Vietnam, in which the US was directly involved.

    I tend to agree with you, because the Wikipedia definition of “proxy war” strikes me as overly narrow.  The top definition that pops up in a Google search is: “a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.”  Since Russia is involved, for the Russo-Ukrainian War to qualify as a “proxy war” under this definition, we would have to conclude that the US “instigated” the war.

    I’m not sure that I’d go quite this far.  I do think that we provoked the war.

    Overall, my judgment is that the root cause of the Russo-Ukrainian War is a medium-term US effort to undermine and destabilize Russia.  I think that this began around 2008, with the announcement that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually be admitted to NATO.

    I cannot be certain of our motivation for this action.  If one genuinely believed that Russia was a serious threat to NATO, it would make sense to add Ukraine to the alliance, to create greater strategic depth for the defense of NATO members like Poland or Romania.  On the other hand, the goal may have been the overthrow of the Russian government, and its replacement with a government more like ours — maybe something more like Poland or Romania or Hungary, as so-called “liberal democracy.”

    (As an aside, I don’t much like the term “liberal democracy,” as such countries aren’t necessarily either liberal or democratic, though they have some elements of liberty and representative government.  We don’t seem to have a very good term for such a government.  “Representative republic” might be better.)

    I do think that there was some reason for the Bush 43 administration to be concerned about the Russian recovery.  Russia did retain great power status, which makes it a rival, to some extent.  I think that John Mearsheimer is correct in noting that, at present, there are really 3 “great powers”:

    • Oceania
    • Eastasia
    • Eurasia

    No, wait, I mean the US, China, and Russia.

    We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.  And Eurasia too, now.  :)

    • #38
  9. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    For what it’s worth I believe that Ukraine will probably have to agree to let go of some of the breakaway districts. Crimea may never again be a part of Ukraine.

    If Putin tries to take the entirety of Ukraine that might lead to an IRA type of insurgency. An insurgency that might lead to killings of Russian officials to include oligarchs, across Europe, not just in Ukraine.

    The US government should stop making public threats, as should the Russian government. Private phone calls and meetings rather than media leaks.

    Let’s stop the nonsense that Ukraine is getting what it deserves because it is corrupt. We are at the mercy of our own corrupt elected officials, and non-elected officials.

    We need to stop writing blank checks to Ukraine. We should be spending more time offering tactical intelligence and advice to the Ukrainian military. Advice that shouldn’t be leaked to the media.

    If the decision is made to abandon Ukraine, then we better decide which Polish border we will help to defend. The Polish border with Ukraine, or the Polish border with Germany.

    • #39
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    Let’s stop the nonsense that Ukraine is getting what it deserves because it is corrupt.

    Has anyone here actually said that?

    I don’t think so.

    I think I agree with most of your post, but this is out of the blue.

    • #40
  11. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why? The Ukrainians want to fight. We are enabling them.

    If we weren’t, there would be fewer dead Ukrainians, fewer destroyed cities, undamaged infrastructure, and a peace deal could have been achieved long ago. Or this war could have been avoided altogether. Because we have been trying to get Ukraine into war with Russia for a very long time.

    Yes but the Ukrainian’s would have lost their freedom and their culture.   They would be alive but they would no longer be Ukrainians they would have to become Russians.  I am not sure how much responsibility we have for goading Ukraine into war, that could run the spectrum from a little to a lot.  I think Biden essentially green lit the Russian invasion when he said a little incursion would be fine, proving his fecklessness.  Always keep in mind though Putin believes that Ukraine doesn’t really exist it is part of Russia, so war was always coming unless the Ukrainians were willing to surrender to him.  Don’t get me wrong war is hell.  I don’t believe all wars are just and I do believe we may have some culpability in the start of this war, but Russia did invade Ukraine not the other way around so ultimately the responsibility for this war lies with Russia not Ukraine or us.

    • #41
  12. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    Let’s stop the nonsense that Ukraine is getting what it deserves because it is corrupt.

    Has anyone here actually said that?

    I don’t think so.

    I think I agree with most of your post, but this is out of the blue.

    I’m not calling out Ricochet members on this point. Tucker Carlson and some members of the House come to mind.

    • #42
  13. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    An excellent source of weapons for Ukrainian soldiers might be Iran:

    “U.S. officials said they are looking at sending Ukraine more than 5,000 assault rifles, 1.6 million rounds of small arms ammunition, a small number of antitank missiles, and more than 7,000 proximity fuses seized in recent months off the Yemen coast from smugglers suspected of working for Iran,” according to The Journal. “The unusual move would open up a new supply of firepower [that] America and its allies could tap into as they struggle to meet Ukraine’s need for military support as its war with Russia enters its second year.”

    Guns that had been headed to Yemen from Iran that were captured during a counter-smuggling operation in the Gulf of Oman on January 6, 2023, are displayed on the stern flight deck of the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS The Sullivans. CENTCOM

    • #43
  14. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why? The Ukrainians want to fight. We are enabling them.

    If we weren’t, there would be fewer dead Ukrainians, fewer destroyed cities, undamaged infrastructure, and a peace deal could have been achieved long ago. Or this war could have been avoided altogether. Because we have been trying to get Ukraine into war with Russia for a very long time.

    Yes but the Ukrainian’s would have lost their freedom and their culture.

    Would they?

    They would be alive but they would no longer be Ukrainians they would have to become Russians.

    Then the question must be posed: were they in danger of losing their freedom and culture when Yanukovych wanted closer ties to Russia? Because the U.S.-backed coup to oust Yanukovych led directly to this conflict. Which is to say, the U.S. made it more likely for Ukraine to be destroyed by Russia. Not less likely. But I don’t think the West really cares about Ukraine, only what they can pick from the bones of its corpse when this war is over. 

    • #44
  15. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why? The Ukrainians want to fight. We are enabling them.

    If we weren’t, there would be fewer dead Ukrainians, fewer destroyed cities, undamaged infrastructure, and a peace deal could have been achieved long ago. Or this war could have been avoided altogether. Because we have been trying to get Ukraine into war with Russia for a very long time.

    We could have Peace In Our Time!

     

    • #45
  16. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why? The Ukrainians want to fight. We are enabling them.

    If we weren’t, there would be fewer dead Ukrainians, fewer destroyed cities, undamaged infrastructure, and a peace deal could have been achieved long ago. Or this war could have been avoided altogether. Because we have been trying to get Ukraine into war with Russia for a very long time.

    Yes but the Ukrainian’s would have lost their freedom and their culture.

    Would they?

    After this current war start certainly.

    They would be alive but they would no longer be Ukrainians they would have to become Russians.

    Then the question must be posed: were they in danger of losing their freedom and culture when Yanukovych wanted closer ties to Russia? Because the U.S.-backed coup to oust Yanukovych led directly to this conflict. Which is to say, the U.S. made it more likely for Ukraine to be destroyed by Russia. Not less likely. But I don’t think the West really cares about Ukraine, only what they can pick from the bones of its corpse when this war is over.

    You can’t unscramble eggs.  I don’t necessarily think it was wise for the US to get involved in the ouster of Yanukovych, but there was sentiment for that in Ukraine, which was probably justified.  I don’t deny the US has some culpability here.  I just think it is overly simplistic for anyone to say the US completely created this situation.  I don’t think the West has a consistent view on anything but I broadly agree that western elites don’t care about Ukraine except as a way to make money in a corrupt fashion.  I think the people of the west have various feelings about Ukraine some positive some not.

    • #46
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens
    • #47
  18. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why? The Ukrainians want to fight. We are enabling them.

    If we weren’t, there would be fewer dead Ukrainians, fewer destroyed cities, undamaged infrastructure, and a peace deal could have been achieved long ago. Or this war could have been avoided altogether. Because we have been trying to get Ukraine into war with Russia for a very long time.

    We could have Peace In Our Time!

    Chamberlain references are dumb.

    • #48
  19. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Always keep in mind though Putin believes that Ukraine doesn’t really exist it is part of Russia, so war was always coming unless the Ukrainians were willing to surrender to him.

    That is a mischaracterization of the views he has expressed, most recently in his essay on July 12, 2021 (link below). Here’s the relevant portion:

    “The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.

    Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else’s, and is not a tool in someone else’s hands to fight against us.

    We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians’ desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.”

    There’s nothing in there that could reasonably be interpreted as “Ukraine doesn’t really exist it is part of Russia”. It is a statement that recognizes Ukraine’s sovereignty as a nation on its borders the history of which is as intimately intertwined with Russia’s as Germany’s is with Austria’s and Canada’s is with the US’s. That’s it.

    He also, in that very article, states:

    “… we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.”

    Which, I highly suspect, would be the stance our country would quite reasonably adopt in the event that, say, Canada or Mexico were to embark on a plan to join a “defensive”military alliance with China, our greatest geopolitical adversary. Just like with Cuba 60 years ago. Just like with El Salvador and Nicaragua 40 years ago, even though they are about as far from our border as Brussels is from Moscow. Etc.

    Link: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

    • #49
  20. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Always keep in mind though Putin believes that Ukraine doesn’t really exist it is part of Russia, so war was always coming unless the Ukrainians were willing to surrender to him.

    That is a mischaracterization of the views he has expressed, most recently in his essay on July 12, 2021 (link below). Here’s the relevant portion:

    “The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.

    Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else’s, and is not a tool in someone else’s hands to fight against us.

    We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians’ desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.”

    There’s nothing in there that could reasonably be interpreted as “Ukraine doesn’t really exist it is part of Russia”. It is a statement that recognizes Ukraine’s sovereignty as a nation on its borders the history of which is as intimately intertwined with Russia’s as Germany’s is with Austria’s and Canada’s is with the US’s. That’s it.

    He also, in that very article, states:

    “… we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.”

    Which, I highly suspect, would be the stance our country would quite reasonably adopt in the event that, say, Canada or Mexico were to embark on a plan to join a “defensive”military alliance with China, our greatest geopolitical adversary. Just like with Cuba 60 years ago. Just like with El Salvador and Nicaragua 40 years ago, even though they are about as far from our border as Brussels is from Moscow. Etc.

    Link: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

    Yet he doesn’t appear to act as if that is the case.  In the Russian controlled areas of Ukraine he has shipped Ukrainian children into Russia to basically become Russian.  He seems to be engaged in a Russification effort in eastern Ukraine.  You’ll forgive me if his actions don’t appear as if he believes a word of that July 2021 essay.  Plus I seem to remember that in the lead up to the war he question whether or not Ukrainian was even a separate state from Russia. 

    Extending your argument though does Russia deserves an empire and to hold vassal states in Europe?  How many?  They had that post World War II and most nations that were part of that block joined NATO as soon as they could.   It would seem that a large portion of people on Russia’s borders want nothing to do with them.  I am unwilling to grant that Putin has any right to empire.  I don’t think he has the right to gobble up sovereign countries because he is strong and they are weak.  I don’t think he is in the right invading Ukraine.  I don’t think the Ukrainians would be better off surrendering to Russia.  I don’t like war but sometimes it is necessary to defend things that are important to you.  I think Ukraine has that right.  I also refuse to accept the notion that this is 100% the west’s fault. 

    To be clear I am not necessarily supporting this proxy war as a prudential matter.  I think there is a great danger of things spiraling out of control and escalating into a world war.  I do however see the advantages in proxy wars in general and this one in particular.  I am not willing to say we should never engage in them.  I also don’t think it is immoral to supply weapons to people fighting for something they value if their values and objectives align with ours.  Finally the US wouldn’t even exist if the French hadn’t decide to participate in a proxy war with the British, so decrying all proxy wars is a tad overblown from people who benefited from one in the past. 

      

    • #50
  21. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Columbo (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I support Ukraine in its effort to defend itself against Putin’s aggression. Yes. This is a proxy war. Ukraine has my full support.

    The 1980’s called. They want their foreign policy back ,,, Barack Hussein Obama

    Romney was right and Barack Obama was wrong.  

    • #51
  22. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I support Ukraine in its effort to defend itself against Putin’s aggression. Yes. This is a proxy war. Ukraine has my full support.

    The 1980’s called. They want their foreign policy back ,,, Barack Hussein Obama

    Romney was right and Barack Obama was wrong.

    No Romney was maybe 1/2 right and Barack Obama was definitely wrong.  The number one geostrategic threat to the US isn’t Russia and It hasn’t been Russia for a while.  It is China.  That isn’t to say Russia isn’t a threat and one that has to be managed but they aren’t the type of threat China is.  I am not sure Romney took the threat of China seriously enough.

    • #52
  23. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Romney is one of the vultures who wants to pick over the bones of Ukraine.

    • #53
  24. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    You’ll forgive me if his actions don’t appear as if he believes a word of that July 2021 essay. …

    How so? He clearly expressed his recognition of Ukraine as a sovereign country, and raised no objection to the notion that Russia and Ukraine can enjoy a relationship akin to those of Germany with Austria and of the US with Canada. He placed a condition (a reasonable one, in my opinion, as I expressed and elaborated on in the concluding paragraph of my reply to you) on that, however: As long as Ukraine does not adopt, or is pushed into adopting, an increasingly belligerent stance against Russia.

    In the first few weeks of 2022, as reported at the time by various international organizations who monitor such things, Ukraine’s bombardment of Donbas and such intensified substantially. And Putin acted in accordance with the words of admonishment in said essay. Whether one agrees or not with his assessment that a straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back type red line had been crossed, it cannot reasonably be said that he acted as if he didn’t believe a word he wrote in that essay.

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    … Plus I seem to remember that in the lead up to the war he question whether or not Ukrainian was even a separate state from Russia. 

    If you can find a source for that, I’d appreciate your sharing it. I haven’t been able to, and I’ve looked on quite a few occasions. All I’ve been able to find are suppositions/interpretations/between-the-lines-readings of this or that snippet from this or that speech, etc.. A prime example of that is the now famous 2005 snippet whereby he describes the collapse of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical catastrophe, which got immediately blown up (and continues to be, as per former DoD Sec under Trump, Mark Esper, just this morning on FOX) into “Aha! He wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire! Watch out, Riga! Watch out, Vilnius! Watch out, Tallin! You, too, Warsaw! And don’t think he doesn’t have you in his sights as well, Bucharest, Prague, and Sofia!” narrative. Ludicrous.

    • #54
  25. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Romney is one of the vultures who wants to pick over the bones of Ukraine.

    On this point you and I are in 100% agreement.  I trust Romney not one bit.  He has shown his true colors.

    • #55
  26. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why? The Ukrainians want to fight. We are enabling them.

    If we weren’t, there would be fewer dead Ukrainians, fewer destroyed cities, undamaged infrastructure, and a peace deal could have been achieved long ago. Or this war could have been avoided altogether. Because we have been trying to get Ukraine into war with Russia for a very long time.

    We could have Peace In Our Time!

    Chamberlain references are dumb.

    So is appeasement.

     

    • #56
  27. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why? The Ukrainians want to fight. We are enabling them.

    If we weren’t, there would be fewer dead Ukrainians, fewer destroyed cities, undamaged infrastructure, and a peace deal could have been achieved long ago. Or this war could have been avoided altogether. Because we have been trying to get Ukraine into war with Russia for a very long time.

    We could have Peace In Our Time!

    Chamberlain references are dumb.

    So is appeasement.

    So is viewing everything through a WWII lens. This limit on thinking traps the imagination so that potential options and possibilities for solutions are never even considered. Because this is just like Hitler! This is just like Stalin! No, man. It’s a completely new thing and requires new ways of thinking and acting.

    • #57
  28. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    You’ll forgive me if his actions don’t appear as if he believes a word of that July 2021 essay. …

    How so? He clearly expressed his recognition of Ukraine as a sovereign country, and raised no objection to the notion that Russia and Ukraine can enjoy a relationship akin to those of Germany with Austria and of the US with Canada. He placed a condition (a reasonable one, in my opinion, as I expressed and elaborated on in the concluding paragraph of my reply to you) on that, however: As long as Ukraine does not adopt, or is pushed into adopting, an increasingly belligerent stance against Russia.

    After invading a sovereign country on pretext in 2014 in 2021 he says he respects their sovereignty but only on the condition they be a good little vassal state and support his foreign policy.  It is a touch rich to say don’t adopt a belligerent stance against Russia when they have been occupying your territory for 7 years.

    In the first few weeks of 2022, as reported at the time by various international organizations who monitor such things, Ukraine’s bombardment of Donbas and such intensified substantially. And Putin acted in accordance with the words of admonishment in said essay. Whether one agrees or not with his assessment that a straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back type red line had been crossed, it cannot reasonably be said that he acted as if he didn’t believe a word he wrote in that essay.

    And why was Ukraine bombarding the Donbas?  Could it be that Russia because of Russian aggression in 2014?

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    … Plus I seem to remember that in the lead up to the war he question whether or not Ukrainian was even a separate state from Russia.

    If you can find a source for that, I’d appreciate your sharing it. I haven’t been able to, and I’ve looked on quite a few occasions. All I’ve been able to find are suppositions/interpretations/between-the-lines-readings of this or that snippet from this or that speech, etc.. A prime example of that is the now famous 2005 snippet whereby he describes the collapse of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical catastrophe, which got immediately blown up (and continues to be, as per former DoD Sec under Trump, Mark Esper, just this morning on FOX) into “Aha! He wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire! Watch out, Riga! Watch out, Vilnius! Watch out, Tallin! You, too, Warsaw! And don’t think he doesn’t have you in his sights as well, Bucharest, Prague, and Sofia!” narrative. Ludicrous.

    I can’t find Putin’s speech prior to the special military operation.  I suspect it has been memory holed, whether by the Russia or the West it is difficult to say.  Russia has worked on destabilizing Georgia, Ukraine, Moldavia, and even the Baltics.   They are quite obviously a revanchist power.   I think at this point to dispute that is a little naïve.   You may believe that it is not prudent to engage them on their revanchism until it directly involves a NATO or US allied power I think that is a worth topic to debate, but I don’t think it is arguable at this point that they seek to reestablish some sort of empire along their borders by force if necessary.  

    Again I am not arguing for US involvement in the Ukrainian-Russian War.  I do see benefits to it.  I also see risks associated with it.  I am arguing that Ukraine feels that if it loses the war it will lose its national identity and cultural and that they are correct in this assessment.  I am also arguing in favor of Proxy wars in general.  I think they can be a valuable tool in foreign policy and that it isn’t necessarily immoral for the US to engage in proxy wars.   I think in general proxy wars are a matter of prudence rather than morality. 

    • #58
  29. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have mostly stayed out of this for a year, but I really would like to know, why you prefer proxy wars. Do you really want to use other people as your cannon fodder?

    Several warhawks in Congress have stated this bluntly, none more disappointing than Eyepatch McCain.

    I think it’s immoral.

    Why? The Ukrainians want to fight. We are enabling them.

    If we weren’t, there would be fewer dead Ukrainians, fewer destroyed cities, undamaged infrastructure, and a peace deal could have been achieved long ago. Or this war could have been avoided altogether. Because we have been trying to get Ukraine into war with Russia for a very long time.

    We could have Peace In Our Time!

    Chamberlain references are dumb.

    So is appeasement.

    So is viewing everything through a WWII lens. This limit on thinking traps the imagination so that potential options and possibilities for solutions are never even considered. Because this is just like Hitler! This is just like Stalin! No, man. It’s a completely new thing and requires new ways of thinking and acting.

    It’s not a new thing.  It’s the same old thing.  One nation invades a neighboring sovereign nation to take control.  First time this has happened in Europe since…WWII.  Kind of hard to ignore that “lens”.

     

     

     

    • #59
  30. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    So is viewing everything through a WWII lens. This limit on thinking traps the imagination so that potential options and possibilities for solutions are never even considered. Because this is just like Hitler! This is just like Stalin! No, man. It’s a completely new thing and requires new ways of thinking and acting.

    It’s not a new thing. It’s the same old thing. One nation invades a neighboring sovereign nation to take control. First time this has happened in Europe since…WWII. Kind of hard to ignore that “lens”.

    Yes, let’s jam the entirety of history into a box labelled “WWII Analogue.”

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.