(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
KillHour posted:I'm going to be That Guy and quote Wikipedia. Interesting, I've not seen that it being a conflict between a state and a non-state actor as a requisite for the term before.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
lilljonas posted:Interesting, I've not seen that it being a conflict between a state and a non-state actor as a requisite for the term before. It looks like many definitions don't have that prerequisite, but they generally specify that the aggressor is acting on behalf of someone else. I think that's fair, otherwise you end up with any war where other countries provide assistance without sending troops being a "proxy war," which kind of makes the term pointlessly broad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 11:09
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm going to be That Guy and quote Wikipedia. The Korean War was a proxy war with the USSR which involved direct involvement of Western countries
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 11:18
|
|
|
It looks like Ukraine sunk another large landing ship this morning. https://twitter.com/KaptainLOMA/status/1757681963043876872
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 11:18
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:The Korean War was a proxy war with the USSR which involved direct involvement of Western countries I'm not a Korean war expert, but I think a lot of Koreans would probably object to this characterization. North Korea had the support of China and the USSR, but they wanted unification and had plenty of their own reason to invade. And even if I do accept that it was a proxy war, North and South Korea were literally administered by the USSR and the United States military respectively up to 2 years before the war. That's a far different situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 11:30
|
|
|
Atreiden posted:It looks like Ukraine sunk another large landing ship this morning. Multiple Angels? drat, Ukraine got that Declare action going on
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 11:41
|
|
|
I think the underlying issue is that regardless of any specific definition of Proxy War that someone may use, there is no common, universally accepted definition - as it is widely misused in the media and propaganda over the years. This means its a vague and imprecise term, allowing interpretations ranging from "Someone became tangetally involved in the conflict by sending the Invaded Country their thoughts and prayers plus a few dozen smelly old helmets and expired medkits" to "The Entire Government of the Invaded Country is a unpopular illegitimate puppet regime replaced in a CIA coup and its every move is dictated by US financial and security apparatus against its own national interests" Naturally some parties very much like to use the term, as its imprecision and ambiguity allows them to slide their preferred narrative on the conflict (which aligns with Russian propaganda) under the radar, when it might be rejected if it was said outright. Others dislike it for precisely this reason - feeling that even though some loose definitions may fit this war, allowing it to be used unchallenged furthers the Russian propaganda narratives and undermines Ukraine's agency. Others have no agenda, but are just people looking to argue and quibble on the internet over wording and definitions - of which there is always an inexhaustible supply. Tigey fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 11:59
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm not a Korean war expert, but I think a lot of Koreans would probably object to this characterization. North Korea had the support of China and the USSR, but they wanted unification and had plenty of their own reason to invade. Every belligerent has a reason to wage war. No one is an automaton fighting on behalf of a third party for no reasons of their own. KillHour posted:And even if I do accept that it was a proxy war, North and South Korea were literally administered by the USSR and the United States military respectively up to 2 years before the war. That's a far different situation. Every war is a different situation. The defining feature of a proxy war is that one or both sides receives significant aid from third parties. https://www.britannica.com/topic/proxy-war quote:Proxy war, a military conflict in which one or more third parties directly or indirectly support one or more state or nonstate combatants in an effort to influence the conflict’s outcome and thereby to advance their own strategic interests or to undermine those of their opponents. Third parties in a proxy war do not participate in the actual fighting to any significant extent, if at all. Proxy wars enable major powers to avoid direct confrontation with each other as they compete for influence and resources. Direct means of support by third parties consist of military aid and training, economic assistance, and sometimes limited military operations with surrogate forces. Indirect means of support have included blockades, sanctions, trade embargoes, and other strategies designed to thwart a rival’s ambitions. Enjoy fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 12:02
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Every war is a different situation. The defining feature of a proxy war is that one or both sides receives significant aid from third parties. this means that between March and December 1941, WW2 was a proxy war. even earlier if you count cash-and-carry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 12:08
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:this means that between March and December 1941, WW2 was a proxy war. even earlier if you count cash-and-carry. It makes more sense to look at WW2 as a whole
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 12:11
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:this means that between March and December 1941, WW2 was a proxy war. even earlier if you count cash-and-carry. It was a proxy war from July 1937 onwards, really
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 12:46
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:It makes more sense to look at WW2 as a whole Yeah, it was a proxy war between Iceland and Sweden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 13:23
|
|
|
This is a very tiresome semantic discussion please wrap it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 14:08
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:France's proxy, the 13 Colonies. Yeah I was going to use this example too. Was the American revolution a proxy war? I don’t think the Americans thought so even if they did use French and German supplies and “advisors”
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 14:29
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Every belligerent has a reason to wage war. No one is an automaton fighting on behalf of a third party for no reasons of their own. britannica.com posted:Proxy wars enable major powers to avoid direct confrontation with each other as they compete for influence and resources. And this is one of the distinctions here IMO. Helping Ukraine isn't about any "influence" or resources.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 15:12
|
|
|
https://vxtwitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1757763123048509550?t=kUXiNxFkHwtu4Qs2pNIyMg&s=19 China strolled into the UN and demanded that the US "stops pouring oil on the fire" and supplying weapons to the Ukraine. I had to do a double take when I saw that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
"Proxy war" sounds like that sort of something that needs strict definitions or it becomes useless ideological labeling, like how people do with calling everything a "client state" of the US because they really don't like the US and want to figure half the world as a puppeteered extension of their sinister will, so i guess yeah sure the semantics matter Which is why i think it's funny that the major issue arises when there's a declaration that proxy war necessarily means client state situation
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
Atreiden posted:It looks like Ukraine sunk another large landing ship this morning. I have to wonder about the logistical chain on the southern front if Russia feels compelled to continue to use these ships in a transport role where they've proven so vulnerable
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
Atreiden posted:It looks like Ukraine sunk another large landing ship this morning. they need to do this with more billionaire yachts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I have to wonder about the logistical chain on the southern front if Russia feels compelled to continue to use these ships in a transport role where they've proven so vulnerable It's probably still "fine", but every bit helps. Russia can and does and will just use tugs to shuttle things across the Kerch straight, but continuing to degrade Russia's logistics capabilities at every turn is a good thing if it can be done economically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
Did anyone report where exactly the ship was sunk?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
Dog on Fire posted:Helping Ukraine isn't about any "influence" or resources.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:Did anyone report where exactly the ship was sunk? Special Kherson cat did. pretty good follow if you're on twitter. https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1757705844865536020
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Looks like some shots hit the water near at least one of the drones during the vid. Special Kherson cat mentioned in a comment that ships have been sailing un-escorted, but honestly from the targets we've seen hit I'm not sure that would make much a difference. We've seen helicopters and several different types of vessel try to repel these attacks and ultimately fail. It legit seems we need to bounce back to the 1910's where capital ships have substantial secondary armament to repel torpedo boat attacks. Fortunately for Ukraine the Black Sea fleet can't go anywhere to safely refit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Looks like some shots hit the water near at least one of the drones during the vid. Special Kherson cat mentioned in a comment that ships have been sailing un-escorted, but honestly from the targets we've seen hit I'm not sure that would make much a difference. We've seen helicopters and several different types of vessel try to repel these attacks and ultimately fail. Time to refit them with quad 50's in barbettes. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Looks like some shots hit the water near at least one of the drones during the vid. Special Kherson cat mentioned in a comment that ships have been sailing un-escorted, but honestly from the targets we've seen hit I'm not sure that would make much a difference. We've seen helicopters and several different types of vessel try to repel these attacks and ultimately fail. Didn't they basically have rows of small calibur automatic guns along each side manned by crew to try to shoot the boats?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
It's mind boggling as to why they move such a big ship without more escorts or having bolted on a dozen heavy machine guns with night vision or something. Surely that would be a rational alternative to risk losing that kind of hardware.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
They definitely have done the MG approach but it's stupidly hard to hit anything at night from a moving deck let alone a small, black surface skimming drone. To do it you pretty much need some sort of radar guided mount which isn't trivial to set up and install.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
This sounds suspiciously like the trajectory of WWII AA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 23:17
|
|
|
Some new intelligence about Russia? Very vague though... https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/14/politics/house-intel-chairman-serious-national-security-threat/index.html Or not so vague https://twitter.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1757864254235889981
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 23:44
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:It legit seems we need to bounce back to the 1910's where capital ships have substantial secondary armament to repel torpedo boat attacks. Wasn't that need what spurred the creation of destroyers, aka "torpedo boat destroyers"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 23:47
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Wasn't that need what spurred the creation of destroyers, aka "torpedo boat destroyers"? Yes but then Destroyers got power-crept into Cruisers role (modern Destroyers are bigger and heavier than some WW2 light cruisers) so now ships like the Littoral Combat Vessel are coming in to take up that role again. Or they would be if the US version of that class had not face-planted. Small arms might take out the sensors on these drones but as seen on the video, that's a tough shot to make even with automatic fire with the combined factors of size of target, speed, waves and darkness. The 25mm autocannon from the Bradley might do the job well if you had at least 4 of them to cover the entire perimeter of the ship. But Ukraine is already a step ahead of that counter by developing submersible drones, which I guess we could call loitering torpedoes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 00:18
|
|
|
Just Another Lurker posted:Time to refit them with quad 50's in barbettes. Sorry those have all been welded to BMPs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 00:34
|
|
|
Ultimately the only thing that can stop a bad drone is a good drone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 01:49
|
|
|
I need a 25mm autocannon to defend my children from feral drones
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 02:28
|
|
|
Not deployed yet, thankfully https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/14/...007edad90672d1b
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 03:55
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Not deployed yet, thankfully russia as a country can't even tie it's collective shoelaces rn. I have no concern at all that they'll put a nuke into space and that it will matter at all to anyone. counterpoint: let them try and probably nuke themselves in the process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:russia as a country can't even tie it's collective shoelaces rn. I have no concern at all that they'll put a nuke into space and that it will matter at all to anyone. counterpoint: let them try and probably nuke themselves in the process. There are a lot of ways that they can gently caress up that still demolish global communications infrastructure. Much more annoyingly, this literally the plot of Goldeneye.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 05:26
|
|
|
At least Goldeneye is a pretty good movie. I'd much rather be here than in the Die Another Day timeline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
Stoltenberg announced today that the European portion of NATO is on track to meet a collective average of 2% of gdp on defence this year. Last year 18 out of 31 countries met the 2% target laid out in 2014. This is a sixfold increase over the 3 countries at that level in 2014. The future is never written in stone, but between addition of Baltic states, increase in European focus on defense, and loss of nordstream and the general energy trade relations, any wider Russian foreign policy goals in mind at the start of the invasion have to be deemed abject failures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 07:17
|
|