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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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".