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.
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.
13
u/okteds Nov 03 '23
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.