It’s easy to say that you have to be grateful when it’s not your country that is being destroyed and its population being killed. The call for more guns is not from a spoiled person but one who is seeing death and destruction every day.
I feel like people are starting to lose track of the big picture as the war becomes more and more normalized. I imagine the same goes for Ukraine seemingly taking the allies’ support more “for granted” than in the beginning of the war. Obviously, Ukrainians are fighting this war in the interest of the entire western community, so to ask them to be more grateful for western support just seems petty imo.
This is literally a NATO proxy-war with Russia. If we don’t want to send actual troops, we better be giving them all the equipment they ask for. Blank check.
Is it really a proxy war if NATO is reacting to Russian agression, though? Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the term, but I don’t see much evidence that NATO was rooting for this conflict to escalate the way it did.
Probably the main goal is defense of Ukraine and not hurting Russia like in cold war proxy wars. So it feels a bit inappropriate to use that term as if they were just a puppet being used to fight Russia for some vague NATO aims beyond their own survival and maybe future trade, when they are mainly fighting as to not get genocided.
In my understanding, calling the Ukraine war a NATO proxy war suggests that NATO is seen as an agressor/enabler in this conflict, effectively exploiting Ukraine to further NATO’s agenda. I’m not sure if that’s what the other commenter was implying (cause if so I would disagree with them), but that’s why I’m asking :)
I just looked up the definition and you’re absolutely right. I’m not the OP but I would have used it the same way. I always thought a proxy war was any war between two great powers where at least one didn’t get involved, I never realized it required an absent power to be the aggressor.
It’s easy to say that you have to be grateful when it’s not your country that is being destroyed and its population being killed. The call for more guns is not from a spoiled person but one who is seeing death and destruction every day.
I feel like people are starting to lose track of the big picture as the war becomes more and more normalized. I imagine the same goes for Ukraine seemingly taking the allies’ support more “for granted” than in the beginning of the war. Obviously, Ukrainians are fighting this war in the interest of the entire western community, so to ask them to be more grateful for western support just seems petty imo.
This is literally a NATO proxy-war with Russia. If we don’t want to send actual troops, we better be giving them all the equipment they ask for. Blank check.
Is it really a proxy war if NATO is reacting to Russian agression, though? Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the term, but I don’t see much evidence that NATO was rooting for this conflict to escalate the way it did.
Trying to make sure I understood the root of your question here.
Is it that the war in Ukraine can’t be a proxy war because NATO isn’t rooting for it?
Probably the main goal is defense of Ukraine and not hurting Russia like in cold war proxy wars. So it feels a bit inappropriate to use that term as if they were just a puppet being used to fight Russia for some vague NATO aims beyond their own survival and maybe future trade, when they are mainly fighting as to not get genocided.
In my understanding, calling the Ukraine war a NATO proxy war suggests that NATO is seen as an agressor/enabler in this conflict, effectively exploiting Ukraine to further NATO’s agenda. I’m not sure if that’s what the other commenter was implying (cause if so I would disagree with them), but that’s why I’m asking :)
I just looked up the definition and you’re absolutely right. I’m not the OP but I would have used it the same way. I always thought a proxy war was any war between two great powers where at least one didn’t get involved, I never realized it required an absent power to be the aggressor.