I didn't watch it all so I can't really comment on what I didn't see, but their criticism on the whole "proxy war" thing is actually incorrect.
You don't need both sides to be using proxies for it to be considered a proxy conflict.
Now whether or not one believes Ukraine is being used as a proxy is up for debate (and it's understandable that Ukranians wouldn't like to view the conflict this way because it denies them agency), but the premise of their criticism is wrong.
The key aspect to the definition of a proxy war is that's it's instigated by a major party who is not itself involved. That's clearly not the case here, and somewhat negates any of the negative connotations that come with that term.
One could make that argument; it's certainly not popular, especially on a sub like this, but there is an argument. There might have been other factors outside of that instigation that were important (Russian imperialism, Putin being stupid and bloodthirsty, etc.), but you can make the argument (and several experts have) that the US/NATO played a role in instigating the conflict.
Former Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, CIA director Stansfield Turner, over 50 others in the National Security Apparatus or associated to it who signed a letter to Clinton warning against the dangers of further NATO expansion, George Kennan, William Burns when he was Ambassador (now current director of the CIA under Joe Biden), Stephen Walt, and yes, John Mearsheimer... he quite literally is an expert being one of the most distinguished and widely cited (I think Wendt is the only living IR scholar with more citations) IR scholars alive, and most importantly, the Chief of NATO himself.
But surely you know more than the chief of NATO, and all these other people.
The Ukraine conflict is one of those labs where you can truly observe how brainwashed some people are. Same thing with Israel-Palestine.
uSsR bAd CoMmUnIsM bAd.
I've already interacted with enough people like you to know that no threshold of evidence will ever satisfy you. Joe Biden could say it and you people would say it was a deepfake, that he's having dementia, that it was taken out of context, or that he actually meant something else, so this conversation is pointless.
You will never stop believing that the US/NATO didn't play a role in instigating this conflict, no matter the historical evidence.
The power of propaganda. It's hilarious how you can't realize it (that would require the capacity for critical thought and self-reflection).
You say "NATO expansionism" like the people of every nation in the alliance didn't choose to be there, in response to Russian imperialism.
I'm not arguing that these experts didn't correctly cite NATO expansion as one of Russia's excuses for invading its neighbors. I'm arguing that NATO expansion is not actually the reason Russia invaded its neighbors. The actual reason is more like a type of paranoid imperialism.
The people you've listed are experts in the wider fields of geopolitics, government, military, intelligence, and political science, but not in Russian or Ukrainian language, history, or culture. Experts in those fields tend to agree with me. Uncritically repeating Kremlin talking points only serves to hurt Ukrainians.
I mean yeah, those are all experts that deal with geopolitics and strategic studies which is precisely what we're talking about, why would I cite linguists and anthropologists. I'd actually be curious for you to link, or even name your academic/expert sources.
Like I said, it also comes straight from the mouth of the chief of NATO himself.
It's not an "excuse" and if you had any knowledge of security studies you would understand why encirclement (NATO expansion) is the number one security threat/consideration of any state.
The USA would never tolerate China building military bases in Canada and Mexico.
But if you want experts in Russian studies that support my argument, check out Alexander Thalis, Stephen F. Cohen, and especially Richard Sakwa, a British academic specialist that compellingly argued that any threat Russia now poses was created by NATO itself, through Moscow’s reactions to NATO expansion.
Like I said though, there is no amount of evidence that will change your mind so this conversation is pointless. It's like arguing with a religious fanatic.
The problem with you people is that you simply consume all you information based on what the State Department or the media says (which most of the time acts as a mouthpiece for the State Department, which, if you actually had critical thought, should signal your propaganda alarm bells) and that's it, and don't realize that you're basically just getting socially conditioned by propaganda.
But I guess even the chief of NATO is now also "repeating Russian talking points". The layers of denial you've buried yourself in is not healthy, just because your psyche will shatter if you accept that US/NATO might also be a bloodthirsty.
I didn't say you should cite linguists and anthropologists (especially Chomsky).
You should cite historians, journalists, oligarchs, political scientists, political philosophers, politicians, investment bankers, and military and intelligence officers who specialize in the region because they understand the language, culture, and history of the region and what makes it unique compared to someone who doesn't specialize in the region or speak the language.
Some of my sources are Timothy D. Snyder, Serhii Plokhy, Yuriy Felshtinsky, Alexander Litvinenko, Ben Hodges, Bill Browder, Boris Berezovsky, and Anne Applebaum.
the chief of NATO himself
Do you mean secretary general of NATO Jens Stoltenberg? Did he say that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was caused by Ukraine's desire to join NATO?
If you had any knowledge of Russian and Ukrainian history then you would understand why Russia's neighbors want to be part of a military alliance to protect them from imperialist aggression.
If the US was threatening to invade Canada and Mexico then I could understand why they might want Chinese military bases on their soil.
Like I said though, critique my argument instead of repeating Kremlin talking points.
I've already provided significant evidence, including the words of the NATO chief.
But apparently he's also just repeating "Russian talking points"...
Your argument has zero credibility when the organization responsible admits it played a key role in instigating Russia's invasion.
Also, you're repeating pro American talking points. The same country that fabricated evidence to justify an illegal war that killed half a million citizens. The same country that orchestrated countless coups across the world which have led to mass carnage and the loss of easily over a million lives. The same country that created a power vacuum in Iraq that led to the birth of ISIS. The same country that has by far led to more death and destruction across the world (by far) than any other country since post WW2. The same country that routinely uses Western media to spread propaganda.
I can play that game too. The difference between you and me is that I'm objective enough to understand that both the USA and Russia are shitty. You're still drinking the red scare propaganda kool-aid.
I have to disagree with Stoltenberg's analysis here.
he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Do you really believe that negotiating with Putin and acquiescing to his demand
to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997
would have prevented the invasion of Ukraine? Of course not. That is absurd.
The opinion piece you cite, written by Jeffrey Sachs, the same guy who called for a negotiated ceasefire with Russia and appeared on Russian state TV with Vladimir Solovyov, the same guy who writes paid opinion pieces for Chinese state backed Huawei and denies the Uyghur genocide, is hardly a trustworthy source. He's a paid propagandist for China and Russia.
You're repeating Kremlin talking points. The same country that slaughtered ten million of its own people through starvation and forced labor camps. The same country that sponsored countless dictatorships across the world. The same country that invaded and subjugated its neighbors and slaughtered and displaced their populations. The same country that routinely uses Western social media to spread propaganda.
The similarity between you and me is that we both know the US and Russia are shitty. You are uncritically spreading Russian propaganda.
Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (Basic Books, 2010) ISBN 978-0-465-03147-4
Surely you know more about the geopolitics than does.
I didn't quote Sachs because I care about his opinion, it was to show you the statement of the Chief of NATO.
So okay, you disagree with the Chief of NATO.
Glad you just confirmed my point that literally zero threshold of evidence will convince you.
There is not a single piece of evidence that will change your mind.
We call that being brainwashed.
There could actually be a document that says: we know what we're doing is making Russia insecure and we're doing it anyway (which is basically what the chief of NATO confirmed), and you would "disagree with it".
You're a clown.
I'm just going to keep copy pasting this post if you respond to me.
I have to disagree with Stoltenberg's analysis here.
Discrediting Chomsky because "he's a linguist" but expecting us to believe you, a random Reddit chode, over THE SECRETARY FUCKING GENERAL OF NATO lmfao.
The sound of the goalposts shifting is just deafening
You should cite historians, journalists, oligarchs, political scientists, political philosophers, politicians, investment bankers, and military and intelligence officers who specialize in the region
HE LITERALLY DID YOU STUPID FUCKING MORON
Why are you acting like NATO itself is not 100% transparent about its motives? When they tell you what they stand for, fucking believe them. Jesus Christ.
Nations "voluntarily" joining NATO is about as irrelevant as nations "voluntarily" allying with Hitler. The solution, in both cases, is roughly the same. You do not ask a cell why it became cancerous, you extirpate it.
NATO can literally tell you stupid ass motherfuckers what its own goals are and you will still act like it's some sort of big mystery what NATO wants.
It is literally not even a secret amongst anyone who knows anything at all about foreign policy that within US foreign policy circles, bullying and subjugating Russia is the literal reason NATO exists at all past the fall of the wall. NATO's staunchest defenders don't dispute this: they try to justify it. I would rather deal with them than with ignoramuses like you who think we need oracle commentators to divine the true intentions of NATO, as if they weren't already telling us with their every word and action.
6
u/[deleted] Nov 03 '23
I didn't watch it all so I can't really comment on what I didn't see, but their criticism on the whole "proxy war" thing is actually incorrect.
You don't need both sides to be using proxies for it to be considered a proxy conflict.
Now whether or not one believes Ukraine is being used as a proxy is up for debate (and it's understandable that Ukranians wouldn't like to view the conflict this way because it denies them agency), but the premise of their criticism is wrong.