Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
It wasn’t because we had our own troops on the ground. We weren’t fighting thru proxy. We were fighting it for reals.
Vietnam was a Soviet proxy war against the US. That is why it is listed as such.
Korea was a proxy war in terms of China vs the UN.
The Chinese had lots of boots on the ground in Korea, resulting in 120K-180K deaths (depending on the source). Hence, I don’t think it qualifies as a proxy war for China.
The Vietnam War is considerably closer to qualifying as a proxy war for the Soviets. They only had about 5,000 boots on the ground at any one time (in “observing” capacity and such), of which they lost 10-20 along the way. And there were a few occasions involving Soviets firing missiles at US fighter planes.
It was the USSR- not China. Kim was a both a Soviet citizen and a Russian military officer. Stalin had to green light the invasion & provided the bulk of the military aid for the invasion force. When the blitz failed, and the West reacted much more decisively than Stalin & Kim anticipated, China had to step in.
VDH at American Greatness (h/t @blondie)
I find it disturbing that so many on the right have lost respect for VDH (because he supported Donald Trump?) when I think he’s among the top 3 or 5 wisest men in America. A classicist knows something about war and history (quite evident in this article) and VDH often points out that Hubris invites Nemesis to the party.
Putin’s aggression is directly tied to “more flexibility” Obama-Biden arrogance, backed up by a weak, woke military leadership. And, yet, even many on the Right are supportive of this party — these men — conducting a proxy war with Russia-China.
Oops, said the quiet part out loud.
I’m impressed (not in a good way) that anyone would take the bet this won’t lead to WWIII. You better hope and pray you’re right.
There are parallels between the Korean War and the Ukraine war- in both Soviet(Russian) backed or actual aggression was partly due to the failure of the West to clearly signal its intention to aide the victim nation before the attack and the failure of the West to adequately arm the victim nation b/c it feared “provoking” the aggressor. In Korean there was the famous Dean Acheson speech that failed to include the ROK in the American security perimeter- in Ukraine there was the Obama administration’s feckless reaction to prior Russian aggression in Ukraine (added to Biden’s handling of the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan & Biden’s history of being wrong on every foreign policy issue in his lifetime- see Robert Gates).
in Korea the US refused to adequately arm the ROK army so it could withstand an armored assault (no tanks, no anti-tank shells for its 57mm guns, no tactical aircraft, little to no heavy artillery). Similarly, in Ukraine the Obama- Biden administration was opposed to lethal aid to the Ukrainian army and most Western nations weren’t providing significant weaponry to Ukraine before late 2022 when the Russian invasion was well into its preparation stage.
The North Korean army had 150 medium tanks, plenty of heavy artillery and many combat veterans (ethnic Korean who had fought for the Soviet army or the Chinese communist forces and were released to serve for the Kim regime).
Both invasions were premeditated assaults on another country with only a thin attempt at justification. Hopefully, this one also ends with a strong and united Ukraine added to the West like the ROK.
Ricochet’s war hawks should consider all the questions posed by Josh Hammer here:
Questions for the Washington Uniparty on Ukraine, One Year Later
Starting with . . .
But there’s more. All of which need good, solid answers before we blow the world to hell.
I think if it were possible to negotiate with Putin, if he had a clear idea of what he wanted, he would have pursued his case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague. For the life of me, I don’t know why he didn’t do that. Russia was not only a founding a member but a driving force behind its establishment as an arbiter:
And, remember, Obama’s “flexibility” entailed getting reelected so that he could renege on missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic, shortly after which Putin took Crimea. Might have come in handy as a deterrent, if these policy geniuses ever thought that far ahead.
I repeat. We’re supposed to trust these people to conduct a proxy war with Russia-China? That’s what’s known as “a wing and prayer” right there. It looks like begging to get somebody nuked to me. “Putin is a bad evil man, but surely he wouldn’t use his nuclear arsenal in desperation or retaliation!”
I’m not even sure that qualifies as Thomas Sowell’s Stage One thinking. . .
Yes
I agree with all of that.
You ever get the sense that this little guy is kind of an ungrateful bastard?
Just heard VDH call it a proxy war. You can close out the comment thread now. Next topic….
Yeah, but he’s just a Trumpist!
Always
What does He know? I mean, the members here at Ricochet certainly can fine the right definition on the internet to prove they are right, and a Professor of History is wrong.
Are you suggesting that the Donbas become a demilitarized zone? I like it.
Get idea-so you like the idea of Russia withdrawing back beyond is old borders? While the DMZ was established near the original border pre-invasion, the ROK actually gained territory. I would support such a plan where Russia cedes land to Ukraine & withdraws on their side of the pre-invasion, ie 2014 borders.
Yes. And who wouldn’t? Besides Russia, that is. And come to think of it, perhaps the residents of the Donbas (but they both have a vested interest contrary to Ukraine’s).
and he was correct on that, too.
Every day when I see the BS the Dems pull, the harm they are doing, I (politely) curse the Dems, NTs, and hissyfit voters.
Fair enough, and thank you for the correction. @arizonapatriot seemed to be implying that Vietnam and Korean wars weren’t proxy wars and I disagreed.
They weren’t US Proxy wars, but proxy wars nonetheless.
Proxy wars ought not be measured by how many of the proxy’s troops are killed but rather how much of the proxy’s war materiel is involved. In Vietnam, the North was equipped by the Soviets, to include the near entirety of their Air Defense system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II
I disagree. Not having any boots on the ground to speak of in Ukraine, whereby our Marines are exchanging fire with Russia’s Wagnerites or our fighter pilots are having dog fights with the Russians’, is what qualifies this war a proxy war for the US. In Korea, the Chinese had a whole bunch of boots on the ground and such, so the Korea War doesn’t qualify as a proxy war either for them or for the US. In Vietnam, the Soviets had a minuscule number of boots on the ground and such, so that’s why I wrote that it was considerably closer to qualifying as a proxy war for them, despite the quantity of materiel they sent in (just like the materiel we are now sending into the Ukraine).
In short, if a country doesn’t have any boots on the ground shooting it out with the other side, it is a proxy participant.
A hell a lot of good that did.
So 1 guy on the ground is enough to remove the proxy definition?
No. The threshold is 27 if they’re all men, 39 if at least half of them are women, and 62 if any of them are transgender (in either direction).
C’mon, man.
Apparently, 5000 is enough to put the proxy definition in doubt – per your statement in comment #93.
Your quoted statement in this comment says “if a country doesn’t have any boots on the ground shooting it out with the other side, it is a proxy participant.”
So I am looking for the limit. Because my belief (as modified by MiMac’s statement in #93 – whom I thanked in #112) is that both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars for the Soviet Union.
You seem to disagree.
Obviously, the limits would have to be proportional the mean of all troops of various flags active in the war.
True. But in my estimation the issue of the proxy-ness of Korea and Vietnam is not in question. Neither is the Soviet and Afghan war. I am looking for the wisdom of @PGentelie, oh that he would enlighten me.