• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • @norske
      link
      English
      61 year ago

      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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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 :)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          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.

      • LostCause
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.