|
Nenonen posted:Yeah. Ukraine is Abel to defend itself while Russia Cain't do poo poo right. 
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
MassiveSky posted:Anyone else have a tiny, itsy-bitsy inkling that NATO is perhaps not only transmitting intelligence, but actively coordinating some of the fun stuff happening? We've seen video of AWACS operations tracking what's going on in Ukraine. So that's a given.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:
The “source” of this, per twitter user “Tequila Ua” is russian media “inoSMI” which a) “is an internet media project that monitors and translates articles published in foreign and Western media into Russian” (Wikipedia) and b) features no such story on its homepage It would be cool if twitter user “Tequila Ua” included a link to the story! It seriously takes like 2 minutes to check this kind of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Yeah NATO knows what's up. https://www.flightradar24.com/FORTE10/2b7ce56a https://www.flightradar24.com/NATO01/2b7cdb52 https://www.flightradar24.com/RRR7214/2b7d085c
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:We've seen video of AWACS operations tracking what's going on in Ukraine. So that's a given. Again, it's not. AWACS aren't going to be able to pass along something like targeting information or even necessarily secure communications to non-NATO aircraft/air defenses/etc. There's a reason NATO makes a big deal about equipment compatibility. Hell, I can think of a bunch of reason to have AWACS up at the border during this war even if NATO is giving exactly zero support to the Ukrainians. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Apr 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Again, it's not. AWACS aren't going to be able to pass along something like targeting information or even necessarily secure communications to non-NATO aircraft/air defenses/etc. There's a reason NATO makes a big deal about equipment compatibility. What makes you think Ukraine has no NATO compatible communications gear?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:What makes you think Ukraine has no NATO compatible communications gear? In what form? In aircraft? SAM systems? Sitting in an HQ bunker? Are we talking radios or datalink hardware? Having a radio line to an AWACS across the border to let a regimental HQ know where generally some planes are and where they seem to be headed, for example, isn't quite the same thing as the AWACS calling shots on those planes or using a datalink to provide actual, useable tracking information to a SAM battery. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
It's happening!? https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1514633219806838784
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Given that gas prices where I live are going to increase by double digits I suspect this is going to be real, or at least the oil companies think it will so Europe will be pulling from elsewhere which raises prices for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
I don't know if Moskva's fate would result in any kind of disciplinary actions, but I doubt getting your fleet's flagship bonked on the noggin and taken out of service for who knows how long (presumably a year or two even under normal conditions but probably even longer with sanctions limiting access to all sorts of replacement parts) is not going to look stellar on either the fleet commander's or the ship's captain's CV. Maybe Osipov can pin all blame on the captain, though. In the meantime a Finnish logistics company has formed an alternative route to the Transsiberian railroad to connect Europe with China. Gonna buy that expansion to Ticket to Ride! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:In what form? In aircraft? SAM systems? Sitting in an HQ bunker? Are we talking radios or datalink hardware? Again, why do you think Ukraine would have no NATO communication gear? Ukrainian armed forces have been training with NATO for years, they certainly know how to use it. Whatever they needed but didn't have could have been supplied many times over by now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
It is pretty clear that NATO is passing on real time intelligence to the Ukrainian government and military. I expect that certain items of that intelligence are being highlighted in a "hey we think this is important and if it were us fighting this war we'd probably act on it" way. After all the hardest and most manpower intensive part of intelligence is taking a torrent of raw information and distilling it down into actually useful bits in time for it to acted on. But I think the Ukrainian command structure is ultimately the ones making the call.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I don't know if Moskva's fate would result in any kind of disciplinary actions, but I doubt getting your fleet's flagship bonked on the noggin and taken out of service for who knows how long (presumably a year or two even under normal conditions but probably even longer with sanctions limiting access to all sorts of replacement parts) is not going to look stellar on either the fleet commander's or the ship's captain's CV. Maybe Osipov can pin all blame on the captain, though. Not sure that by water in Black Sea is such a good idea at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Again, why do you think Ukraine would have no NATO communication gear? Ukrainian armed forces have been training with NATO for years, they certainly know how to use it. Whatever they needed but didn't have could have been supplied many times over by now. Nobody claimed they have no NATO compatible communication gear. Answer the question and spell out, at least generally, what degree of support you think this AWACS could be providing and it might be possible to specify why it's not happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
the popes toes posted:I think in this war, the use of the "proxy" term describes the user's political position and perspective rather than the conflict. It's useful only as a political "tell" if you're trying to figure out your rhetorical opponent's outlook on the conflict. As a description of the war, not so much. That's... not great. It's a phenomena attested by the Amarna letters and has been a feature of international relations since at least the 14th century BC. War is the use of coercive force to achieve political aims, proxy war is the supporting or enabling the use of someone else's coercive force to achieve your political aims. Egypt supported Levantine city states facing invasion by Hatti, because weakening Hatti was a foreign policy objective, but due to distance direct confrontation with Hatti was unfeasible. The US is supporting Ukraine because allowing Ukraine to fall strengthens Russia and threatens America's strategic goals in the area. Direct confrontation is unfeasible due to atomic weapons. FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Apr 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Not sure that by water in Black Sea is such a good idea at the time. It's fine as long as they keep to the safe lanes. The Russian Black Sea Fleet isn't going to attack shipping in the middle of the Black Sea (for no gain to themselves) and risk giving various countries an excuse to sink their fleet. Whatever mines have been dropped where they shouldn't have been handled by the Turkish Navy and the other minesweepers in the area.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Black Sea is huge. There's still risks involved with everything, including another uprising in Kazakhstan or Russia loving poo poo in Georgia or whatever, but currently logistics customers find this a lesser risk than going directly through Russia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
PederP posted:It's fine as long as they keep to the safe lanes. The Russian Black Sea Fleet isn't going to attack shipping in the middle of the Black Sea (for no gain to themselves) and risk giving various countries an excuse to sink their fleet. Whatever mines have been dropped where they shouldn't have been handled by the Turkish Navy and the other minesweepers in the area. Hasn't it already fired at multiple cargo ships under various flags though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
lol someone brought a washing machine to tram in Helsinki to take it to the front of Russian embassy https://twitter.com/IlkkaHemmila/status/1513846594348765186  quote:TO PUTIN Youth Decay posted:Hasn't it already fired at multiple cargo ships under various flags though? Those were in Ukrainian waters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:Hasn't it already fired at multiple cargo ships under various flags though? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
russia should consider buying some s-400s from turkey https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1514630805242449923
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:That's... not great. This completely hollows out the notion of proxy war to the point of uselessness, though. By that metric, the Pyrrhic wars were a proxy war between Carthage and Epirus because the Carthaginians offered military aid to the Romans, or the US war of independence war a proxy war between the United Kingdom and Poland because Poland sent generals to aid the Americans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:This completely hollows out the notion of proxy war to the point of uselessness, though. By that metric, the Pyrrhic wars were a proxy war between Carthage and Epirus because the Carthaginians offered military aid to the Romans, or the US war of independence war a proxy war between the United Kingdom and Poland because Poland sent generals to aid the Americans. It was for France though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:This completely hollows out the notion of proxy war to the point of uselessness, though. By that metric, the Pyrrhic wars were a proxy war between Carthage and Epirus because the Carthaginians offered military aid to the Romans, or the US war of independence war a proxy war between the United Kingdom and Poland because Poland sent generals to aid the Americans. The US war for independence was a proxy war for France
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
the term proxy war is most useful for understanding what the officially non-belligerent is doing and its aims, rather than trying to understand what the actual belligerents are doing and the relative capabilities and aims of the belligerents people talking about if this is a proxy war are trying to describe the actions of the US and EU accurately, not to describe Ukrainian motivations
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Nobody claimed they have no NATO compatible communication gear. Answer the question and spell out, at least generally, what degree of support you think this AWACS could be providing and it might be possible to specify why it's not happening. I think this is a matter of semantics. NATO is not sending raw data directly from AWACS to Ukraine. They are sending data NATO gathered by the AWACS to Ukraine to assist them with target location and identification. It's happening as close to real time as they can make it. This has been openly available information for many weeks. i.e. https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-altered-rules-for-sharing-intelligence-with-ukraine-11646744400
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Ok, I can concede that. But virtually every war shakes up the status quo and will have third parties intervening. I don’t think that means we can use the term “proxy war” to accurately describe the war itself just by account of foreign intervention
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:This completely hollows out the notion of proxy war to the point of uselessness, though. By that metric, the Pyrrhic wars were a proxy war between Carthage and Epirus because the Carthaginians offered military aid to the Romans, or the US war of independence war a proxy war between the United Kingdom and Poland because Poland sent generals to aid the Americans. Kościuszko acted as a none state actor, as was Lafayette initially.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Conflicts can be between multiple sides and we should never try to reduce them to just one descriptor. One war I'm familiar with is the Finnish civil war fought between Finnish white and red troops. Or maybe a failed class war fought by workers to free themselves from the owning class' yoke. Or was it an independence war between Finnish senate's troops and the Russian garrisons? Or maybe it was a proxy war between German and Russian empires, as Germans trained Finnish activists and sent them to fight and finally landed a division to capture Helsinki? All of these views are correct. Mainly though it's described as a civil war these days because that's the main aspect of it. The Ukraine war can perhaps be described as a proxy war, but to me it looks foremost like a war between Russia and Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I think this is a matter of semantics. NATO is not sending raw data directly from AWACS to Ukraine. They are sending data NATO gathered by the AWACS to Ukraine to assist them with target location and identification. It's happening as close to real time as they can make it. Great, and not something I suggested wasn't happening. So how does that equate to AWACS = NATO actively coordinating events and "not just transmitting intelligence"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Conflicts can be between multiple sides and we should never try to reduce them to just one descriptor. I mean of course. Calling WWII a war is a gross oversimplification too. But it's an accurate label. Rejecting the term proxy war because it implies ... idk that the US and NATO are powers with interests just like everyone else and not unique immortal defenders of Republican Virtue birthed fully formed and wearing Phrygian cap from the head of Colombia and motivated only by morals and unique in history? Or is it that the term proxy conflict is only something that bad guys are supposed to do? Does categorization and cross case comparison imply justification? Should we reject categories and empiricism and say that everything is a unique occurrence without any precedent? Nothing has ever happened before and trying to analyze oversimplifies? FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Apr 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Great, and not something I suggested wasn't happening. So how does that equate to AWACS = NATO actively coordinating events and "not just transmitting intelligence"? It was one off-hand comment. No one has any idea of exactly what their level of involvement is. I don't really understand what you're arguing about here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:It's a phenomena attested by the Amarna letters and has been a feature of international relations since at least the 14th century BC. War is the use of coercive force to achieve political aims, proxy war is the supporting or enabling the use of someone else's coercive force to achieve your political aims. But as you indicate it matters whether aims are yours or those of the recipient (proxy). If the assistance given serves primarily or exclusively to achieve the political aims (in the case of Ukraine the aim is pretty simple: survival) of a party to the war, then it isn't a proxy war. It is certainly interference/intervention or whatever applies (depends on perspective as well). But for it to be a proxy war there has to be some distinct political aim on the part of the donor/supporter. Enabler is not a great choice of words when talking about a defender, as it introduces unnecessary ambiguity as to the natural state of affairs (which is peace). You cannot meaningfully enable a defensive war. Whatever facets of proxy war exist in this case are minute in relation to the major themes - which are those of an unambiguous aggressor (Russia) invading a sovereign country (Ukraine) with the express purpose of being able to dictate the terms of peace unconditionally. Supporting the defender in such a conflict, be that diplomatically, financially or militarily (even directly), is almost always and very few caveats in alignment with both moral imperatives and international law. Hence, it is meaningless to label this a proxy war. It is a war. For obvious reasons (nuclear escalation) intervention is limited to indirect support - and so that is where the line is drawn. But the US and most of Europe are essentially intervening on behalf of the defender in an illegal war of aggression. They are limited co-belligerents more than they are proxy war patrons. I don't think anyone is in doubt that there would be direct intervention if nuclear escalation wasn't a factor. This alone makes it problematic to use proxy war terminology for the involvement of other parties on the side of Ukraine. And this even before taking into account that a party which considers Russia to be carrying out a genocide are obliged to act in opposition to this. This is not, by any reasonable meaning of the word and consideration of relevant factors, a proxy war. It is a weird 'war of privilege' in that Russia has used nuclear threats to deprive other countries of the freedom to intervene directly on behalf of the aggrieved party. Regardless how blame was distributed pre-War, there is only one responsible party for the actual war (Russia, as determined by the Hague), and by extent, there is nothing problematic about supporting Ukraine in defending its sovereignty. Due to the greatly irresponsible nuclear threats of the Russian regime and the lack of confidence in their restraint in using weapons of mass destruction for purposes other than defending against an existential threat, third parties are forced to exercise restraint where they should act. This restraint is not based on any Russian 'right' to pursue this war without interference. On the contrary, the imposition of nuclear deterrence as a factor in this war, is something which should be condemned globally, regardless of other alignments and sympathies, as it has the potential to cause increased nuclear proliferation and/or undermine the agreed-upon international order. Being somewhat coarse - Russia is the villain in this war, Ukraine is the victim. It is that simple. Assisting Ukraine and opposing Russia should be the obvious course of action for any nation on Earth. That some are failing to do so does not bode well for global stability, prosperity and solidarity. The 'bad guys' are Russia and those who do not oppose. This is true legally, morally and pragmatically. It is irrational to not oppose the aggressor of this war to the fullest possible extent. Nations such as China that are failing to do so are being short-sighted and illogical. They will lose from such actions, as will the world. Whatever faults the US and Europe has committed in recent or distant history does not rationalize or excuse such behavior. The entire concept of a proxy war is in many ways a legacy of a past world order, where 'might makes right'. Offensive realists may claim this is still the case, but considering how that school of thought has been wrong about almost everything else, I find it hard to take such nihilistic nonsense seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:I mean of course. Calling WWII a war is a gross oversimplification too. It's not an accurate label. Ukraine isn't a proxy for anyone Assholes are just trying to paint this as an Afghanistan
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
PederP posted:But as you indicate it matters whether aims are yours or those of the recipient (proxy). If the assistance given serves primarily or exclusively to achieve the political aims (in the case of Ukraine the aim is pretty simple: survival) of a party to the war, then it isn't a proxy war. What? Survival of Ukraine is US goal too. Survival of Ukraine strengthens US interests. Its pretty rare that a supporter doesn't want the force they support to succeed. PederP posted:Whatever facets of proxy war exist in this case are minute in relation to the major themes - which are those of an unambiguous aggressor (Russia) invading a sovereign country (Ukraine) with the express purpose of being able to dictate the terms of peace unconditionally. Supporting the defender in such a conflict, be that diplomatically, financially or militarily (even directly), is almost always and very few caveats in alignment with both moral imperatives and international law. Hence, it is meaningless to label this a proxy war. It is a war. For obvious reasons (nuclear escalation) intervention is limited to indirect support - and so that is where the line is drawn. But the US and most of Europe are essentially intervening on behalf of the defender in an illegal war of aggression. They are limited co-belligerents more than they are proxy war patrons. They're intervening because of their interests. States are rarely motivated by international law when it does not align with interests. PederP posted:I don't think anyone is in doubt that there would be direct intervention if nuclear escalation wasn't a factor. This alone makes it problematic to use proxy war terminology for the involvement of other parties on the side of Ukraine. And this even before taking into account that a party which considers Russia to be carrying out a genocide are obliged to act in opposition to this. No proxy wars during cold war? Each war had an aggressor. So no proxy conflicts? FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Apr 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Victis posted:It's not an accurate label. Ukraine isn't a proxy for anyone What do you think "proxy" means? There were Afghans resisting the Soviets before Reagan could find the country on a map, western support just helped them fight more capably.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
the US/EU/NATO are trying to fight russia by proxy, because they wish russia to lose this war but do not wish to kill people or destroy things directly (due to fear of WWIII/nuclear exchange). they are conducting war by proxy, by funneling all the weapons they can to ukraine that is not to say ukraine is merely a proxy and a puppet of the US/EU/NATO: it is fighting hard and calling the shots as to what it does, and the war is going as it is largely because of Ukrane's pre-war material, its morale, and its fighting capability. ukraine does not take orders about what to do: it receives material (and information) that it uses as it sees fit. saying the US/EU/NATO are fighting a proxy war is not trying to diminish the Ukranians, it is trying to accurately describe the aims of the US/EU/NATO (russian defeat on the battlefield), as well as the means by which they are seeking to achieve those aims (supplying weapons, but not using them).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the US/EU/NATO are trying to fight russia by proxy, because they wish russia to lose this war but do not wish to kill people or destroy things directly (due to fear of WWIII/nuclear exchange). they are conducting war by proxy, by funneling all the weapons they can to ukraine Exactly. Ukraine OPENLY argues that it is fighting a proxy war. "Support us today so you don't have to fight Russia tomorrow." ---> support us so we can fulfill your policy objectives, which align with ours. If you think something is only "war by proxy" when it involves a puppet state or something, then proxy conflict is extremely rare. And yes by 1941 the US was involved in a proxy conflict with the axis, that does not diminish the fact that Germany and Japan were the aggressors. It has basically nothing to do with actually. FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Apr 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
If anything I think it is important to acknowledge that Ukraine has managed through deft diplomatic maneuvering to extract far more support from the West than it would have gotten if things had just continued under business as usual. It would be much more accurate to say that Western policy has become a proxy of Ukranian objectives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
The issue is not that Proxy War is a forbidden curse never to be spoken but that the arguments about it boil down to the exact same arguments people have made which have nothing to do with the morality or ethics of a proxy war. It is just a new tactic to make the same "Ukraine should have just surrendered and fighting back means they are the ones killing people" argument. It is perfect fine to point out that the US or EU benefit from Ukraine's fighting and support it for that reason. Nobody sensible argues against that. It is the half-spoken undercurrent of "and thus the US is prolonging a bloody battle against the needs of the people of Ukraine" which us more suspect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2022 19:17
|
|
