> The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist.
Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon. They can't bring themselves to admit that they are losing to Ukraine and hence emphasise how they are "acktshually fighting against the whole NATO". Allies have given a lot of support, but mainly in the form of obsolete military surplus equipment and equipment alone doesn't fight; see Afghanistan.
> Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon.
The point of calling it a proxy war by the Kremlin is not to make it seem larger than it, as the largest post-WW2 European war, is. It is to invert the responsibility for aggression. (Secondarily, it’s to deny Ukrainian agency and make its existence and sovereignty an irrelevancy in discussing a war where that is the entire issue.)
There is a sense in which calling it now a proxy war between NATO and some other affiliated states on one side and, say, Iran, China, and North Korea on the other, is not entirely inaccurate. (Russia prefers to look to external sponsors of the direct belligerents only on one side though.) But, even to the extent that’s accurate it doesn’t change that the war (which started in 2014) was initiated by Russian aggression, and the 2022 escalation was a major upswing in Russian aggression, and the outside assistance (whether or not it also has ulterior geopolitical motives) for the other side is in line with the right of collective self-defense enshrined in the UN Charter.
> The point of calling it a proxy war by the Kremlin is not to make it seem larger than it, as the largest post-WW2 European war, is. It is to invert the responsibility fot aggression. (Secondarily, it’s to deny Ukrainian agency and make the existence and sovereignty an irrelevancy in discussing a war where that is the entire issue.)
Yes, that's what I meant. The purpose of this talking point is to diminish Ukrainian achievements by leaving an impression that Russia is under attack and fighting the whole "collective West" (as they call it) and that the war is much larger in scope than it actually is: Russia vs Ukraine.
Foreign military aid to Ukraine has so far barely sustained defense and I wouldn't call aiding countries belligerents in this war.
Many us legislators are openly admitting it is a proxy war. See Rep. Dan Crenshaw-TX comments on Ukrain support. He calls it a good deal that we get to fight a major geo-political adversary without any American deaths by just supplying Ukraine with weapons. He is not the only one. That is by definition a proxy war. Fighting a war on the cheap that isn't designed to ultimately win anything, meanwhile sending 200,000 of those Ukrainians to their deaths is despicable in my opinion.
I am not on Putin's side on this, but this is not 1945. Russia does have some vital national interests in the reason, since its right on their border and they have a long historical relationship with Crimea. The prime minister of Israel claims they had a deal worked out, but the Biden administration nixed it. This is a result of strategic planning within the State Dept. to have this fight.
Yeah, noticed "walks back". He just said he is now "unsure". Why did he say it in the first place? Sounds like the US put the squeeze on him, so he "walked it back". Nevertheless, there was SOMETHING on the table that could have been the basis for talks. They ruled it out of hand.
His words were initially taken out of context; he meant that allies stopped pressuring Ukraine into a peace deal after mass graves were uncovered in Bucha. That's the only source for this conspiracy theory.
It goes against your whole narrative of how the US is forcing Ukraine into a war.
There was still a basis on which talks could have been opened up. The fact they were entirely nixed shows they are not interested.
200,000 Ukrainian deaths when they can't even define what victory looks like beyond slogans. They are trying to fight a war on the cheap so long as no American casualties happen, but they are perfectly fine so long as they are Ukrainian casualties. At least, they could at least define what victory looks like and provide the means to do so.
> There was still a basis on which talks could have been opened up. The fact they were entirely nixed shows they are not interested.
It is important to note that the party least interested in a workable peace deal at this point is Russia. After all, they annexed last October a large swath of Ukrainian territory in such a rushed manner they couldn't even properly explain what they annexed. Given that Russia seems uninterested in any peace deal which does not include Russian annexation of at least some portions of Ukraine, any argument that what Russia really cared about was NATO enlargement is laughably incorrect.
There's nothing to negotiate at this point. Either Russia moves its guns and tanks and soldiers out of the whole Ukraine like they retreated from around Kharkiv, or Russia gets defeated on the battlefield. Anything else would leave Ukrainians in occupied territories to be wiped out by Russians. Russian hopes of a favorable peace deal is nothing but a coping mechanism, just like top Nazis hoped to reach a peace deal in 1945. Better prepare your cyanide pill.
And that completely ignores how the world really works. You are perfectly content to risk WWIII. It is not 1945 anymore. You are risking a nuclear conflict that would be absolutely horrific.
What difference would a nuclear strike make anymore, several Ukranian cities have already been hit with more TNT equivalent than Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wiped from the earth: https://twitter.com/OstapYarysh/status/1632282407578611712
Britain has historical roots to the US territory, going back to centuries ago. According to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of US would be justified.
> And their have been hostilities between the two since 2014 when the US formented a revolution there.
This is just another conspiracy theory. In 2014, a pro-Russian president of Ukraine backed down from a very favourable trade deal with the EU at the last minute due to Russian pressure, people came to streets to protest, he ordered snipers to shoot unarmed protestors, after which the unrest only grew, he fled the country in panic and Russia used the unrest as a cover to invade Ukraine.
The Association Agreement also included sections on political and security cooperation. More importantly, Ukraine was pretty evenly split on Maidan and the signing of the Association Agreement. [0] This split, also seen in elections was largely geographic. [1] Unsurprisingly, toppling the (democratically elected) president tore the country apart, and independent on which government you personally prefer, I think it is really hard to argue that Ukraine wasn't the victim of Big Power politics in this case.
The manipulations within the state dept. by Victoria Nuland are well known. She was literally caught on the phone planning who was going to be pushed as the next leader. By labelling it a conspiracy, you are simply trying to disparage a very valid possibility. Conspiracies are nothing more than multiple people collaborating to make something happen. It does happen, and they should not be dismissed out of hand.
> Ukraine is right on the russia's border. Their economies and cultures are intertwined
So, according to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of USA would not be justified, but a British invasion and occupation of The Republic of Ireland would be?
The Bulwark is a neocon publication by Bill Kristol. He still refuses to apologize for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is part of the war machine that is perfectly happy to see perpetual war.
He was a solid republican, but he was all too happy to ditch everything he said he believed in to embrace the cultural issues of the left. The only thing he kept the same was his hawkish views on foreign policy. That shows a lot about him right there. He is an untrustworthy source for anything.
I already know who Bill Kristol is, and the people (plural) behind The Bulwark are, thanks. It's not hidden, it's here https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/
I'm not a fan of their political project, my point is that even they don't buy this "coup" nonsense.
I do not think either that he "ditched everything he said he believed in" when their political party changed and they did not, that's rather a specific framing from an extremist faction of that party.
Huh? Dan Crenshaw has been all in on this war in Ukraine. He even openly admitted that it was a golden opportunity because we could fight a major geopolitical adversary on the cheap by just sending weapons with no American casualties - completely minimizing any Ukrainian casualties.
That's the point. The people behind The Bulwark don't believe "this coup nonsense" because they are pushing for war there. All the writers there are always pushing for military solutions to everything.
> The Bulwark don't believe "this coup nonsense" because they are pushing for war there.
It could be that. Or maybe, they don't believe it because the facts don't support it, and they believe in truth as a thing that is worthwhile regardless of if it personally benefits them or not.
You have a very transactional view of truth. And frankly that says more about you than anything else.
As a Ukrainian I find your comments in this thread insulting. You should educate yourself a little about history of Ukraine before you start spewing such nonsense. I would suggest you to start with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8&list=PLh9mgdi4rN...
Now, I will assume you are just a misguided westerner who watches too much Fox news and indulge you:
> Ukraine is right on the russia's border.
So? How about US invading Mexico, occupying and annexing its lands, killing bunch of civilians while simultaneously demanding Mexico to "respect" US "sphere of influence", speak English, stop "threatening" it by committing to neutrality, etc.
> Their economies and cultures are intertwined.
Let them rape and indiscriminately kill bunch of civilians in some Bucha or other towns because of similar languages and economical ties? How does that make any sense to you? Also, claiming that Ukraine doesn't have its own historical roots and cultural identity is one of the Russian propaganda talking points.
> And their have been hostilities between the two
"Hostilities"? Excuse me? Russia occupied and annexed parts of Ukraine repeatedly but you dubbing it "hostilities" make it sound like some kind of a border skirmish where both parties are culpable which couldn't be further from the truth.
> since 2014 when the US formented a revolution there
Another Russian propaganda talking point. People were fed up with Yanukovich and decided to remove him from power. Support from US was inconsequential.
> I am not shilling for Russia
Yes you are! Openly and brazenly.
> peace agreement requires all parties to put everything on the table and deal openly
Well, yes, Russia would love Ukraine to put its lands "on the table", commit to neutrality, make Russian language the second national language and a lot more. And what exactly are the offering in return? To maybe stop attacking Ukraine for some time? Am I missing something?
> This could have happened.
It still can. Ukraine has been offering to solve the conflict through diplomacy as soon as Russia withdraw its forces. It is not like Ukraine is going to push into Russian territory to occupy Moscow and kill Putin. You understand that, do you?
Look, if you just prefer US to stop spending money on Ukraine you could just say so. Yes, this will lead to bunch of Ukrainians killed, raped or tortured in concentration (excuse me, "filtration"!) camps and you will feel somewhat bad for saying that, but at least it would be truthful. No need to play Tucker Carlson here with "border skirmishes" and "hostilities".
Thank you so much for this comment. Until I read it, I was regretting having submitted this story, after seeing it marred by starkd's sickening 27-comment barrage of Russian propaganda and insults.
> How about US invading Mexico, occupying and annexing its lands
I know. It seems US and Mexico have been having hostilities and border disputes for some time now, so annexing some more of Mexico's lands would seem like reasonable and expected course of action.
I will also note that the cash burn rate for this war in Ukraine is now exceeding that of Afghanistan in the early years. It is more money after nothing, because they won't even define what victory means. Just more war slogans.
.png){kind=link}
Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon. They can't bring themselves to admit that they are losing to Ukraine and hence emphasise how they are "acktshually fighting against the whole NATO". Allies have given a lot of support, but mainly in the form of obsolete military surplus equipment and equipment alone doesn't fight; see Afghanistan.
> No calls for diplomacy.
April 1945 was too late for peace offerings.