(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Starsfan posted:The scuttlebut that I've heard on political talk shows / commentary is that Mitch McConnell and his faction threw their weight behind supporting the bill after Donald Trump took a position against further aid for Ukraine, apparently the theory is if McConnell can force the package through it will be politically embarrassing for Trump? or at the very least it will be a thumb in his eye.. I don't know if it completely makes sense to me but it is apparent that the Republicans in the Senate reversed course on this matter sometime last week. Yep. alot of it is factionalism in the GOP. I think stuff can get passed but it will requre alot of luck and getting chuds to try to gently caress each other over.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:34 |
|
Starsfan posted:I changed it to less provocative language, was an oversight on my part to let my personal feelings shade the comment. Your personal feelings are factually false.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Trump's comment on not just abandoning NATO but literally encouraging Russia to attack parts of the alliance probably gave the old guard Republicans a lot to think about. Even though Biden's polls are slipping it's still very possible Trump loses again, and if he does he's probably gone forever. There's been a lot of candidates he endorsed that have lost, so it's not like getting his base's approval is a political necessity either. He's destabilizing to both the party and the country, anyone with a sense of political preservation would be wise to plan for him not being a factor in the near future. And of course, arms sales to Ukraine and Israel on top of backfilling US stockpiles will be extremely lucrative for a decade at minimum. That money gravy train has been stalled for months now so they're probably getting a lot of calls from old pals to get it moving again. Any number of those factors probably led to the Senate Republicans endorsing this. It sucks that one of these conflicts is very much not like the other, but they are tied at the hip in US congress because reasons. But Ukraine might not be losing Avdiivka if Ukraine support was passed when it was first tabled months ago, so I'm glad it has a glimmer of hope to move forward again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
Umbreon posted:I'm actually curious as to what caused those Republicans to vote in favor AFTER the border stuff was taken off. So after demanding the whole time that a clean funding bill wouldn’t work, only one with border stuff, they then voted against the deal with border stuff and instead voted for the clean funding bill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 20:30
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Donald Trump demanded that the border stuff not be passed, as he doesn’t want to give Biden a win before the election. The Republicans immediately caved in and started blasting their own demands. That's my understanding of what happened but I'm still confused as hell as to why the voted for it at all. I'm glad they did, just... Why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
Umbreon posted:That's my understanding of what happened but I'm still confused as hell as to why the voted for it at all. I'm glad they did, just... Why? Intra-party squabble. McConnell hates Trump and his loyalists voted for the Ukraine/Israel aid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Your personal feelings are factually false. Opinion | Why Russian Sanctions Won’t Stop Putin www.nytimes.com - Wed, 06 Apr 2022 posted:## A former head of NATO’s armed forces, Gen. Philip Breedlove, makes the case for what will stop the war instead. quote:We are engaged in a conflict here. It’s a proxy war with Russia, whether we say so or not. It seems like there's a fair amount of discussion as to what terms apply, and that the lack of an agreed-on definition may be part of the problem: An intellectual battle rages: Is the U.S. in a proxy war with Russia? quote:“Unfortunately for those who like their strategic concepts to be as precise as the best modern weaponry, ‘proxy wars’ lacks an agreed meaning and is used in different ways,” Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King’s College London, wrote in a January essay published in Britain’s New Statesman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
Umbreon posted:That's my understanding of what happened but I'm still confused as hell as to why the voted for it at all. I'm glad they did, just... Why? Now we will have to see what it looks like in the House. The problem there is that while there is a majority for the bill (it just needs a very small number of Republicans to pass), the newish Speaker is a hard-Trumper. I personally do expect it to pass after some (a lot?) of posturing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:12
|
|
|
"Proxy war" is a fundamentally racist term used primarily by racists that do things like call Russia a "target" in a war of genocide it started.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:The Senate Republicans still have a significant minority of anti-Russia and pro-Israel members. Those members were willing to hold the bill hostage in order to pass border stuff, but unwilling to kill it entirely. I think it honestly passes too as long as the Dems can keep their ducks in a row a get like 4 or 5 republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
buglord posted:I thought bills start in the house and go through the senate? Or can it be any direction? They can start in either the house or Senate
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
I think the "proxy war" argument tends to amount to a conflation of two ideas. It's certainly true that a clash is occurring by proxy between Russia and NATO, and that situation could reasonably be described in English as a "proxy war". But the term is usually used as a way to describe the initial cause of a war - eg country A was funding country B and used its influence to get them to start a war with country C, resulting in a "proxy war" that was entirely masterminded by another country. That certainly isn't the case for the Russia/Ukraine war - deciding to help a country when its invaded does not somehow retroactively make you the cause of a war. Although I think Russia's hybrid campaign against Ukraine using various separatist groups in the years leading up to the full invasion would qualify.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
Things can be described in different terms depending on perspective. The Russian invasion in Ukraine is first and foremost a Ukrainian struggle for survival against an expansionist neighbour. It can also be seen as a proxy conflict because apart from being just Ukraine defending itself, it has from the beginning being a wider matter of the west defending first regional stability and ultimately its own safety by supporting Ukraine against Russian imperialism. Hell, from a narrow point of view (local actors) the war can even be framed as a civil war, although one manufactured from Moscow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:30
|
|
|
Yes, the point of contention is the difference between "Ukraine is a proxy for the US" and "Ukraine is only a proxy for the US." Ukraine doesn't need any external motivation to want to fight an invading army, but doing so also aligns with US interests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
I've never understood the term proxy war to be inherently racist. Imperialist yes, but not necessarily racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
Nervous posted:I've never understood the term proxy war to be inherently racist. Imperialist yes, but not necessarily racist. I view it as such since it basically implies that the "proxy" is acting on behalf of the superpower rather than acting on its own behalf (that's what being a proxy means!) and allying with a superpower to help enact that. I am probably extra-sensitive to this because it closely aligns with Russian racism towards Ukrainians, who are viewed as "dumb peasants being tricked by Austro-Hungary/America and who otherwise would be good compliant little Russians".
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
Calling it a proxy war denies Ukraine's agency, and betrays an imperialist worldview. But doesn't seem inherently racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
the holy poopacy posted:Yes, the point of contention is the difference between "Ukraine is a proxy for the US" and "Ukraine is only a proxy for the US." Ukraine doesn't need any external motivation to want to fight an invading army, but doing so also aligns with US interests. It's not like the US was itching to attack Russia before they decided to invade Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:It's not like the US was itching to attack Russia before they decided to invade Ukraine. No, but there are likely elements of the US government who are more than happy to have a third party conflict to funnel resources into and sap Russian geopolitical energy/capital on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:04
|
|
|
Russian independent journalists found one of the suppliers of Starlinks to Russian army https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1757398277127798927 quote:"We create an account for Europeans, they are not blocked, we pay with our foreign cards. In "DNR", "LNR" and Crimea it will work 100% as long as there are hostilities, because the opposite side is also using them. What will happen when the war is over is unknown". The fact that Starlink only checks the bank card during registration is also confirmed by Jakub Janowski. Website directly advertises both use on "Special Military Operation" and for yachts https://topmachines.ru/starlink1
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Nervous posted:No, but there are likely elements of the US government who are more than happy to have a third party conflict to funnel resources into and sap Russian geopolitical energy/capital on. That does not make it a proxy war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:It's not like the US was itching to attack Russia before they decided to invade Ukraine. Yeah under Obama the US tried multiple times to "reset" relations because obviously a revanchist Russia lashing out at perceived threats is bad for US interests. But the invasion of Georgia and Ukraine in 2012 and 2014 has both discredited such efforts as incredibly naive and ultimately resulted in the situation we have now. America since the 2000s has basically put every effort into improving relations while Russia keeps spamming the "Send Insult" button. mawarannahr posted:What do you mean? It's definitely been referred to as a proxy war, and the Ukrainians have specifically been identified as proxy forces of the U.S. by a few officials who have the weight of experience to speak on the matter. If this is their claim, would you say that being a proxy force implies being a proxy? I'm not sure the relevance here, all this shows is some former US officials or NATO generals also engaging in language that denies Ukrainian agency. This doesn't make its usage in this particular context correct or less degrading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
Again, it depends on context. Treating cold war conflicts as proxy wars is a tool in understanding what happened. The people in Afghanistan had various thoughts about the presence of Soviet troops in their country, for example. But Khyber Pass Stingers are not a thing, the only way for a small, poor nation to fight a superpower occupation is support from the outside. As a Finn I don't see racism in someone looking at Winter War through a proxy lens. France, Britain, Sweden and Italy supported Finland against Soviet Union, and not entirely for unselfish causes. It's natural that when great powers compete for power, smaller nations seek help from one side or the other. That makes them a proxy from the POV of the great power helping them, but they still have their own interest and agency. As seen with Afghanistan some decades later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:18
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:That does not make it a proxy war. Just doing some quick googling, but it seems like it would. It merely requires it to be a third party conflict of some kind that a nation state decides to involve itself in some way besides direct military action. https://www.britannica.com/topic/proxy-war
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
Nervous posted:Just doing some quick googling, but it seems like it would. It merely requires it to be a third party conflict of some kind that a nation state decides to involve itself in some way besides direct military action. Maybe don't move your goal posts before doing some "quick googling", because that's not what you said. Having "elements of the US government happy to have a third party conflict" does not make it a proxy war. I'm sure elements of the US government are happy or sad about all kinds of things all the time. Elements of my lizard brain are happy about all greasy food I just ate but I'm sure elements of my digestive system think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
Iran's proxy, Russia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:48
|
|
|
beer_war posted:Iran's proxy, Russia. France's proxy, the 13 Colonies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:50
|
|
|
Nervous posted:Just doing some quick googling, but it seems like it would. It merely requires it to be a third party conflict of some kind that a nation state decides to involve itself in some way besides direct military action. That's a rather overly broad definition that makes virtually every war ever fought in history a proxy war. There's always 3rd parties supplying arms or money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:54
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:France's proxy, the 13 Colonies. Funny way of thinking of it, but really it was! Another point to make, Russia started off this whole thing with a proxy war in (imo) a straightforward understanding of the term with the war in the Donbas, it just didn't work very well because of the issue with actual proxy wars in that it didn't have much local support and was highly dependent on their superpower benefactors who were the main thing making it happen, so they had to increasingly turn it into a non-proxy war to keep the fire going.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Maybe don't move your goal posts before doing some "quick googling", because that's not what you said. Fair enough on that and my apologies. I've always approached the term proxy war for myself as one in which a state tries to influence a conflict without getting its soldiers killed directly. It has nothing to do with the conflicting nations autonomy. I would agree that it is a broad definition, it's just there to ascribe direct/indirect participant status to a given geopolitical conflict. And yes, I think most wars throughout history would have proxy elements involved, as states typically don't overlook opportunities to gently caress with other states they don't like without having to pay a price in blood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
Misclick
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 23:37
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:France's proxy, the 13 Colonies. This ain't actually wrong, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 23:43
|
|
|
beer_war posted:Iran's proxy, Russia. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is really just a proxy war between South and North Korea, if you think about it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:The Russian invasion of Ukraine is really just a proxy war between South and North Korea, if you think about it. I mean it would be sort of if the South Koreans would get with the program and provide weapons to Ukraine like their neighbor to the north does with Russia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 06:01
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, people, stop calling it a proxy war. The only word that should be appended to this war is "genocide". Admittedly, it has lost some impact due to Israels speedrun of the category in Gaza, but Putins goal still is and always has been the erasure of Ukraine, from land through people to language and culture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 09:53
|
|
|
Stop getting irate over valid terms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 10:03
|
|
|
Kikas posted:Jesus Christ, people, stop calling it a proxy war. The only word that should be appended to this war is "genocide". Admittedly, it has lost some impact due to Israels speedrun of the category in Gaza, but Putins goal still is and always has been the erasure of Ukraine, from land through people to language and culture. we can acknowledge that Putin has genocidal intent and that Ukraine has every reason to fight against him while also acknowledging that the US and Europe have a security interest in seeing him fail, and are providing significant lethal assistance to that end. the US at least is very arguably not interested in the simple prevention of genocide, to wit the other conflict you mentioned if you want to find some other term to describe a situation where a state is not itself engaged in direct military conflict with an adversary state, but is providing military support to a non-ally state that is engaged in military conflict with said adversary, with the express (if not only) purpose of weakening that adversary, go ahead
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 10:24
|
|
|
Kikas posted:Jesus Christ, people, stop calling it a proxy war. The only word that should be appended to this war is "genocide". Admittedly, it has lost some impact due to Israels speedrun of the category in Gaza, but Putins goal still is and always has been the erasure of Ukraine, from land through people to language and culture. Proxy and genocide is not mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 10:36
|
|
|
War in Ukraine is most certainly is a proxy war between the United States and Russia. It's a valid term. Just like war of aggression or imperialism is a valid term to label Russia's actions. For Ukraine itself it is a defensive war. Putin has very openly and unambiguously outlined his objectives to retake and colonize Ukraine again and turn it into a part of Russia forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 10:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
I'm going to be That Guy and quote Wikipedia.quote:A proxy war is defined as an armed conflict between two belligerents in which at least one party is a non-state actor, supported by an external power. Unless we're going to argue that Ukraine is a non-state actor, it's not a proxy war. Edit: Oxford has a broader definition of quote:a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved. This still doesn't apply because the instigator is directly waging the war. I could be persuaded that a proxy war could be fought between two countries, but the word definitely implies to me be that the people actually doing the fighting are doing so at the behest of a more powerful country. Invading your smaller neighbor because your poll numbers are slumping is a regular war of stupidity. KillHour fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 10:50
|
|
