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. thelonious Member
    thelonious
    @thelonious

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Normally, I don’t care how people use words. Unless someone is paying me to watch for nonstandard usage, I don’t even notice it. But when the protest on January 6, 2020, got out of hand in Washington, D.C., I saw reporters and others use the term insurr . . . tion (no, I won’t spell it out–I don’t want to feed the Google bots) turn into the eventual arrest of 1,003 people completely unfairly. I knew as soon as I saw it how it would affect interpretations of the event. Wow, was I right. Labels and language matter a lot.

    The use of the word proxy has tremendous potential for harm. It will erode Americans’ self-confidence in their country. It makes us feel disgusting about ourselves, as if we were no better than China or Russia. That is not who we are, but I can see eventually hearing that about ourselves often enough and long enough that we could become it. Part of the power of suggestion and fulfilling the prophecy networks. Our military will see itself as just mercenaries, not idealistic young people trying to protect us.

    We have big problems ahead of us because Putin has upset the nuclear applecart. I have no idea how this is going to end. But it won’t end well for the world if Americans think we are bad people who exploit and harm others for our own profit. If we think that’s who we are, it will affect what we do.

    I’ll say no more. I stated my case. Do what you want. At least I tried. That’s all I can do.

    This is a proxy war, and our leaders agree. You don’t get to make up your own facts.

    Korea was a proxy war. Do you deny that?

    It wasn’t because we had our own troops on the ground. We weren’t fighting thru proxy. We were fighting it for reals.

    • #91
  2. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    However, the list of “proxy wars” at the same Wikipedia site include Korea and Vietnam, in which the US was directly involved.

    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.

    • #92
  3. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    However, the list of “proxy wars” at the same Wikipedia site include Korea and Vietnam, in which the US was directly involved.

    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.

    • #93
  4. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    However, the list of “proxy wars” at the same Wikipedia site include Korea and Vietnam, in which the US was directly involved.

    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.

    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.

    • #94
  5. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    VDH at American Greatness (h/t @blondie)

    One of the strangest things about the American response to Ukraine has been the willingness of the Left and the establishment Right to discount completely that the war is heading toward a rendezvous with ever-deadlier weapons and staggering fatalities—even as we witness increasing nuclear threats from a weakened and adrift Vladimir Putin. They insist that Putin is merely saber-rattling. And he might be. Supposedly, in his diminished and discredited state, Putin would not dare to set off a tactical nuclear weapon (as if diminished and discredited leaders are not more likely to do so).

    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.

    • #95
  6. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    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. 

    • #96
  7. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    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 . . .

    No. 1: What is the meaning of “as long as it takes”? In Kyiv, Biden reiterated that the United States “will remain with Ukraine as long as it takes.” This presumably entails both a moral and, more relevant, fiscal commitment—indeed, Biden promised a new tranche of military aid to Ukraine, on top of the $113 billion in aid U.S. taxpayers dispensed with in 2022, and on top of recently announced top-tier materiel such as Patriot missile defense systems. 

    But items such as Patriot missile defense systems and M142 HIMARS rocket launchers don’t grow on trees; resources are necessarily scarce, and each additional item we ship off into a proxy war against a nuclear-armed hegemon necessarily depletes our own military arsenal. Furthermore, America is massively indebted with soaring annual budget deficits. And Chinese President Xi Jinping surely grins as America strips bare our military and ships off the parts to Europe, not Asia. So how long is “as long as it takes” and, related, do we simply not care at all about the costs?

    But there’s more. All of which need good, solid answers before we blow the world to hell.

    • #97
  8. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    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: 

    The Hague Peace Conference of 1899, convened on the initiative of the Russian Czar Nicholas II, marked the beginning of a third phase in the modern history of international arbitration. The chief object of the Conference, in which — a remarkable innovation for the time — the smaller States of Europe, some Asian States and Mexico also participated, was to discuss peace and disarmament. It culminated in the adoption of a Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which dealt not only with arbitration but also with other methods of pacific settlement, such as good offices and mediation.

    With respect to arbitration, the 1899 Convention provided for the creation of permanent machinery which would enable arbitral tribunals to be set up as desired and would facilitate their work. This institution, known as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, consisted in essence of a panel of jurists designated by each country acceding to the Convention — each country being entitled to designate up to four — from among whom the members of each arbitral tribunal might be chosen. The Convention also created a permanent Bureau, located in The Hague, with functions corresponding to those of a court registry or secretariat, and laid down a set of rules of procedure to govern the conduct of arbitrations. Clearly, the name “Permanent Court of Arbitration” is not a wholly accurate description of the machinery set up by the Convention, which consisted only of a method or device for facilitating the creation of arbitral tribunals as and when necessary. Nevertheless, the system thus established was permanent, and the Convention “institutionalized” the law and practice of arbitration, placing it on a more definite and more generally accepted footing. The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in 1900 and began operating in 1902.

     

     

    • #98
  9. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    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 . . .

    No. 1: What is the meaning of “as long as it takes”? In Kyiv, Biden reiterated that the United States “will remain with Ukraine as long as it takes.” This presumably entails both a moral and, more relevant, fiscal commitment—indeed, Biden promised a new tranche of military aid to Ukraine, on top of the $113 billion in aid U.S. taxpayers dispensed with in 2022, and on top of recently announced top-tier materiel such as Patriot missile defense systems.

    But items such as Patriot missile defense systems and M142 HIMARS rocket launchers don’t grow on trees; resources are necessarily scarce, and each additional item we ship off into a proxy war against a nuclear-armed hegemon necessarily depletes our own military arsenal. Furthermore, America is massively indebted with soaring annual budget deficits. And Chinese President Xi Jinping surely grins as America strips bare our military and ships off the parts to Europe, not Asia. So how long is “as long as it takes” and, related, do we simply not care at all about the costs?

    But there’s more. All of which need good, solid answers before we blow the world to hell.

    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. . .

    • #99
  10. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    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.

    Yes

    • #100
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    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 . . .

    No. 1: What is the meaning of “as long as it takes”? In Kyiv, Biden reiterated that the United States “will remain with Ukraine as long as it takes.” This presumably entails both a moral and, more relevant, fiscal commitment—indeed, Biden promised a new tranche of military aid to Ukraine, on top of the $113 billion in aid U.S. taxpayers dispensed with in 2022, and on top of recently announced top-tier materiel such as Patriot missile defense systems.

    But items such as Patriot missile defense systems and M142 HIMARS rocket launchers don’t grow on trees; resources are necessarily scarce, and each additional item we ship off into a proxy war against a nuclear-armed hegemon necessarily depletes our own military arsenal. Furthermore, America is massively indebted with soaring annual budget deficits. And Chinese President Xi Jinping surely grins as America strips bare our military and ships off the parts to Europe, not Asia. So how long is “as long as it takes” and, related, do we simply not care at all about the costs?

    But there’s more. All of which need good, solid answers before we blow the world to hell.

    I agree with all of that. 

    • #101
  12. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    You ever get the sense that this  little guy is kind of an ungrateful bastard?

     

    • #102
  13. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Just heard VDH call it a proxy war. You can close out the comment thread now. Next topic….

    • #103
  14. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    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!

     

    • #104
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    You ever get the sense that this little guy is kind of an ungrateful bastard?

     

    Always

    • #105
  16. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Just heard VDH call it a proxy war. You can close out the comment thread now. Next topic….

    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. 

     

    • #106
  17. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    MiMac (View Comment):

    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.

    Are you suggesting that the Donbas become a demilitarized zone?  I like it.

    • #107
  18. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #108
  19. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Get idea-so you like the idea of Russia withdrawing back beyond is old 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).

    • #109
  20. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    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!

     

    and he was correct on that, too. 

    • #110
  21. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Every day when I see the BS the Dems pull, the harm they are doing, I (politely) curse the Dems, NTs, and hissyfit voters. 

    • #111
  22. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    However, the list of “proxy wars” at the same Wikipedia site include Korea and Vietnam, in which the US was directly involved.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #112
  23. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    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.

    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

    • #113
  24. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Instugator (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #114
  25. thelonious Member
    thelonious
    @thelonious

    MarciN (View Comment):

    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:

    The Hague Peace Conference of 1899, convened on the initiative of the Russian Czar Nicholas II, marked the beginning of a third phase in the modern history of international arbitration. The chief object of the Conference, in which — a remarkable innovation for the time — the smaller States of Europe, some Asian States and Mexico also participated, was to discuss peace and disarmament. It culminated in the adoption of a Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which dealt not only with arbitration but also with other methods of pacific settlement, such as good offices and mediation.

    With respect to arbitration, the 1899 Convention provided for the creation of permanent machinery which would enable arbitral tribunals to be set up as desired and would facilitate their work. This institution, known as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, consisted in essence of a panel of jurists designated by each country acceding to the Convention — each country being entitled to designate up to four — from among whom the members of each arbitral tribunal might be chosen. The Convention also created a permanent Bureau, located in The Hague, with functions corresponding to those of a court registry or secretariat, and laid down a set of rules of procedure to govern the conduct of arbitrations. Clearly, the name “Permanent Court of Arbitration” is not a wholly accurate description of the machinery set up by the Convention, which consisted only of a method or device for facilitating the creation of arbitral tribunals as and when necessary. Nevertheless, the system thus established was permanent, and the Convention “institutionalized” the law and practice of arbitration, placing it on a more definite and more generally accepted footing. The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in 1900 and began operating in 1902.

     

     

    A hell a lot of good that did.

    • #115
  26. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    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.

    So 1 guy on the ground is enough to remove the proxy definition?

    • #116
  27. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Instugator (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    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.

    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. 

    • #117
  28. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

     

    • #118
  29. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Instugator (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #119
  30. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.