[mschuster91]

> People get silenced in the US every day because they have a different opinions on current events, for example the US proxy war with Russia.

Uh, sorry what? It was Russia that decided to invade a sovereign country for annexation. Not the other way around.

And of course everyone is free to disagree with your take. You are not being "silenced" or "canceled", you are being told your opinion is completely contrary to facts.

[paol]

Both things can be true. Yes, Russia is 100% responsible for this war, and yes, the US (and others) are fighting a proxy war through Ukraine in good old cold war style.

[mejutoco]

Another way to say it without the added narrative is to simply say Ukraine has allies, and the USA is one of them.

[paol]

I wouldn't call the term proxy war a narrative. It's a term with a definition, which applies here.

This is also a "both things can be true" case. Obviously the supporters of a proxy war are allies of the party they're supporting.

[mejutoco]

I am not trying to argue with you or change your mind, but I will write a few reasons why I see the term proxy war often used by pro-Putin commenters to push a narrative. Not saying you are. Using the term proxy war:

1. Makes it sound as if the USA is the cause of this war (they are in a proxy war) instead of an attack on Ukraine, and Ukraine seeking help from allies. As if the USA were driving the whole thing.

2. It perpetuates a cold war approach and vocabulary, making Russia look like the superpower it was (and is not anymore).

3. The cold war way of talking about it, additionally, makes it look like there are two sides, two alternatives, which are equally valid and justified.

Because of these reasons, I say there is a narrative, and do not consider the term neutral. I personally avoid the term proxy war because of the connotations above.

[shkkmo]

> It perpetuates a cold war approach and vocabulary, making Russia look like the superpower it was (and is not anymore).

It isn't the "superpower" status of Russia that makes this a cold war, but the "nuclear power" status. It is precisely a proxy war because you have two nuclear powers that are explicitly avoiding direct conflict due to the risk of nuclear war.

However, One might argue that the true cold war is between the USA and China and that both Ukraine and Russia are proxies.

> The cold war way of talking about it, additionally, makes it look like there are two sides, two alternatives, which are equally valid and justified.

In what way? "Cold war" absolutely doesn't have any connotation of moral equivalence between the two sides.

This is the sort of weird absolutism and rejection of nuance that is a hallmark of propaganda. It is absolutely possible to assign culpability to certain actions taken by the US without even remotely asserting that both sides are equally culpable for the war in Ukraine.

It is possible to think that containing an expansionist nuclear power without triggering a nuclear war is hard and requires a walking a fine line while also thinking that there are powerful forces inside the US that stand to gain a lot by encouraging and then prolonging this conflict.

Part of the power of narratives is that they become an easy way to group and dismiss dissent without engaging with any of the specific concerns expressed in that dissent.

[mschuster91]

Are the allies of Ukraine supposed to look away at the first time since the OG 1933-45 Nazis that someone tries to re-draw borders and annex countries using war?!

What Russia did was a complete and utter shart on the international rule of law.

[oefrha]

Propaganda’s working very well if you actually believe this is the first war since WWII to redraw land borders. And I’m not even counting the invade-and-install-a-puppet kind of wars.

[mschuster91]

> Propaganda’s working very well if you actually believe this is the first war since WWII to redraw land borders.

I was talking about annexation wars. Not about countries fighting for independence / collapse aftermaths (like the former Yugoslavian countries or the Vietnam war).

But yes, you're correct, I forgot about the first Iraq war where Iraq tried to annex Kuwait and the US (and others) responded under UNSC authorization. And I completely ignored Africa, because honestly I don't have much knowledge about these and to be frank they aren't really relevant.

[pjc50]

And the (surprisingly similar to the current situation) annexation of Northern Cyprus by Greece in 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

The situation there has basically been .. abandoned. Yet another long term frozen conflict.

[okal]

The annexations, and proxy wars in Africa weren't relevant?

I'm struggling a little to reconcile your two statements, that you simultaneously don't have much knowledge about the situation, but seemingly enough to decide that the deaths of thousands/millions of people in proxy wars is irrelevant to the discussion.

[mschuster91]

Whatever goes on in Africa hasn't concerned Western politicians at all for decades, it was not relevant for policy discussions anywhere - not even the worldwide Kony 2012 campaign had a real measurable effect. That only began to change with the rise of al-Quaeda and Islamic State-linked terrorists, but even that didn't warrant more attention than throwing some bombs.

Nowadays, China and Russia's Wagner group have essentially carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want in Africa. The US didn't care before, they sure won't care in the future, and us Europeans are way too disjoint (and busy with Ukraine) to go and clean up the place, not to mention our very own very shady history with Africa complicating matters even more. All we're realistically gonna do is make even more people attempting to flee from that hellhole drown in the Mediterranean or die in Libyan concentration camps.

Sad to say it, but there's nothing we can do to help the people in Africa, no matter how much they'd deserve having actual, sustainable help instead of their agriculture and textile industries getting destroyed by Western "donations".

[haldujai]

Also forgetting Pakistan-India in the 70s and multiple Israeli conflicts (some justified others not so much).

[zen_1]

Now do Israel (with the US on the colonists/annexers' side this time)

[Synaesthesia]

Turkey annexed Northern Cyprus with the blessing of NATO in the 70's.

[lifewallet_dev]

More propaganda, listen to the other side... oh well it's banned everywhere.

[ptsneves]

I have some sympathy for contrarians, not because of their accuracy but because they are the canary in the mine for freedom of speech. Wrong statements also give the opportunity for argument and thus replacement of dogma with reasoning.

I upvoted you above, and I believe your opinion on the proxy war is valid. Victimizing yourself though means that you are unable to stand by your arguments and are just poisoning the well for others who can. Having a different opinion requires effort and often disparagement.

> More propaganda, listen to the other side... oh well it's banned everywhere. This is just low effort.

[eloisius]

Can you please provide some examples of “the other side” that have been banned? I’m not in the US, but a country tightly aligned with the US, and I am able to access rt.com just fine.

[lifewallet_dev]

I also don't live in the west, rather the global south, in a not so allied country.

When in Europe and in the US. You'll get something like this on twitter, and obviously you cannot access the site either:

@ActualidadRT's account has been withheld in Portugal, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Germany, Greece, Romania, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Austria, Luxembourg, Latvia, United Kingdom, Denmark, Lithuania, Croatia, Estonia, Cyprus, France, Spain, Belgium in response to a legal demand. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/tweet-withhel...

[B1FF_PSUVM]

The internet ... huh ... finds a way ... https://swentr.site/

[kbrkbr]

Then this is a court order based on laws and a legal process. In no way is this comparable to how Russia treats different opinions.

[_kbh_]

> More propaganda, listen to the other side... oh well it's banned everywhere.

What are you talking about this, is literally false, I see pro Russian narratives everywhere, including here, you guys don't get banned despite how despicable the views you hold are.

Support Russias genocidal, torturous, raping war in Ukraine all you want, but don't shout about being banned when you get shouted down by facts.

[chaosbolt]

Yes Russia did invade Ukraine, but wouldn't the US invade Canada if Russia had organized a coup there to get rid of Trudeau then put a Russian puppet there? Of course the US would... Or would you argue that the 2014 Ukrainian coup wasn't supported by the US?

The thing we never mention is how agressive Nato (the US since it has military bases in Turkey for example, while Turkey doesn't have military bases in the US) has been at pushing its borders towards Russia.

In the end we can call this whatever we want, the facts are clear, if Zelensky had resigned less Ukrainians would have died, and the only ones profiting from this are the US, you can't fight a country like Russia, they have 7000 nukes, it's like thinking Mike Tyson is losing against you because he's too nice to punch you in the face... eventually he will.

The arguments used today are the same as ever (we're freeing the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, etc.), if you look at it as it really is, less dead people is better than more dead people, eventually Ukraine will be destroyed and the US will not even help to rebuild it, if you think they will then look at Iraq.

[_kbh_]

> you can't fight a country like Russia, they have 7000 nukes, it's like thinking Mike Tyson is losing against you because he's too nice to punch you in the face... eventually he will.

Russia likes to rattle there nuclear sabre about everything regarding Ukraine (and beyond) because that is all Russia is capable of doing with there nuclear weapons without causing the quick, fast and hard collapse of there entire country.

7,000 nukes doesn't make a country win a war instantly, Russia lost in the first Chechen war even with all there nukes, they lost in Afghanistan with all the nukes, the US lost in a whole number of wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc) whilst having shit loads of nukes.

Russia is throwing everything they have at Ukraine including mad max inspired franken vehicles and T-54 tanks, to pretend they are fighting with one hand behind their back is disingenuous.

It may look like Russia is fighting with one hand behind their back, but the reality is, that this is all Russia has.

> The arguments used today are the same as ever (we're freeing the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, etc.), if you look at it as it really is, less dead people is better than more dead people, eventually Ukraine will be destroyed and the US will not even help to rebuild it, if you think they will then look at Iraq.

The only one who has the power to decide the number of dead people is Russia, when Russia leaves the killing stops, until then the Ukrainians have to kill Russians until enough die and they decide to go home.

[mschuster91]

> Or would you argue that the 2014 Ukrainian coup wasn't supported by the US?

Yanukovich fled the country all on his own, after police didn't back his government any more following months of massive protests. These protests in turn came from Yanukovich not signing an agreement with the EU that was already ratified by the parliament.

> the facts are clear, if Zelensky had resigned less Ukrainians would have died

Lol. Just look on Butcha and all the other places where Russian troops massacred the local population, or where they eradicated everything Ukrainian, from street signs to library books. There would have been no freedom under Russian rule.

> you can't fight a country like Russia

Of course one can fight a country like Russia. They lost 100.000 units fighting over Bakhmut in the last months and made absolutely zero progress in their war.

> they have 7000 nukes, it's like thinking Mike Tyson is losing against you because he's too nice to punch you in the face... eventually he will.

That assumes two things: first, that the nuclear weapons and their launch systems actually work - the sorry state of the ordinary Russian troops makes me seriously question just how much of the rest of their military has gone downhill. The second thing is, it assumes Putin is completely lost in madness. China and the US have it made very clear behind the doors that using anything nuclear is something Putin does not want to do, and in exchange the US and Ukraine's other allies have placed the condition on all major arms deliveries that these are not to be used to attack targets in Russia. Seems to have worked out pretty well so far.

[OkayPhysicist]

>> you can't fight a country like Russia, they have 7000 nukes

That's why people join NATO: Access to nuclear firepower. NATO serves as a list of countries that cannot be invaded, because they have bent at the knee to US hegemony, and thus the US is (at least convincingly postured as) willing to use its world-ending nuclear arsenal to defend them.

That's the post-WWII world order: sovereignty belongs to those with the power to wipe out any other country on Earth. You can either be a nuclear power, join in on one's protection scheme, or pray you stay irrelevant enough to not get conquered.

What you're misconstruing as "NATO's aggressive expansion" is countries scrambling to get the US's protection, because the alternative is Russian occupation. NATO was founded specifically to counter Russia's aggressive expansionism.