[65a]

This isn't a proxy war between NATO and Russia, this is Russia invading a neighbor, and the neighbor being supported by many different countries, some of which aren't even in NATO or "the West". Framing it as NATO vs Russia is precisely what the Kremlin talking heads try to do on a daily basis. NATO is a defensive alliance and a set of shared standards. Also, Russia has no proxy in this.

[galangalalgol]

If you squint a bit, Russia is the proxy. China's to be specific. The outcome tested the waters a bit for how the international community might react to the invasion of a somewhat developed nation vs a developing one. It also uses up munitions and war chests of those that might get involved. And in the now seemingly inevitable case that Russia's economy and political power are severely damaged, it has a trading partner that makes plenty of food and fuel that everyone else has promised not to trade with, so the prices are cheap.

[mschuster91]

Agreed on the first part, but I'd say the rest isn't so important: while China does rely on food imports, it's mostly stuff like meat, rice and soybeans - nothing that Russia has in abundance.

[LorenPechtel]

It did not *start* as a proxy war but it *became* one when we started flooding Ukraine with weapons.

So many politicians blathered on about the peace dividend but the bear was hibernating, not dead. I was repeatedly ridiculed for saying so. Fortunately, it turns out the bear rotted from within pretty badly during it's hibernation.

[DennisP]

All this is true but strictly in terms of military equipment needs, it amounts to the same thing. I don't think GP meant any more than that.

[Sniffnoy]

"Proxy war" does not generally imply that both sides have proxies, only that one does.

[bouncycastle]

The best way to describe it is that it's unfinished conflict from WW1, WW2 and the Cold War, and therefore seeing it as Russia vs the west makes sense if you look at the entire history. Quite crazy that this is still happening in 2023.

[lostlogin]

Is it that, or is it Russia acting as the imperial power it once was? Ukraine has been a meaningful part of Russia for a long time, with its achievements (social, arts, science etc) being a big part of Russian history. I’m not sure that Russia is taking the loss very well. I’ve encounter Russians who dispute the existence of Ukraine “it’s all Russia”. The feelings run very deep.

[thriftwy]

A Russian would travel to any interesting part of Ukraine (usually Kiev, Crimea, Odessa, Kharkov) and notice that nobody actually talks in Ukrainian around them.

A week of not hearing anybody actually use the only official language of the country, that Russian would conclude that Ukraine is mostly fake.

Of course that led Russians to underappreciate the willingness of Ukraine citizens to actually fight for it.

[lostlogin]

When an English person goes to USA, Australia or any other former colony, is it reasonable for them to assume those countries are fake?

[thriftwy]

Are they trying to limit the English language usage?

[Scarblac]

Was Ukraine? Hard to believe if Ukraine was heard nowhere (according to you) and their president spoke Russian.

Now, yes, of course.

[lisasays]

That Russian would conclude that Ukraine is mostly fake.

If they have the social and political awareness of a 12 year-old, perhaps.

Nobody actually talks in Ukrainian around them.

Absolutely not true for (and a very weird thing to say about) Kyiv.

In Odesa/Kharkiv Russian is clearly dominant, but it's not like you'll never hear Ukrainian spoken.

[WastingMyTime89]

This is both Russia invading its neighbour and a proxy war between NATO and Russia. It doesn’t have to be one of the other. NATO and its allies are directly propping up Ukraine which would have collapsed without them and they do that mostly to curtail Russia’s ambitions which is fine.

NATO is first and foremost a military alliance setup to contain the western expansion of the USSR. It’s a strategic alliance. It’s defensive in as much as a military alliance can be.

What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.

[CamperBob2]

What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.

They were very valid questions up until the Ukraine invasion revealed Russia to be the mustachioed villain we were always told they were. Now nobody questions the need for NATO. Good job, Mr. Putin, your "Recruiter of the Year" plaque is on the way.

[_kbh_]

> What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.

Countries still need protecting from the remnants of the USSR's aggression, mainly Russian aggression.

If NATO didn't exist you can be sure that Russias ambition would not stop at countries like Ukraine.

[WastingMyTime89]

> Countries still need protecting

Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago.

It’s obvious that the main benefit for the USA is that NATO dissuades the EU to actually be a power. That some countries in the east are happy to play lapdogs is a major issue.

[_kbh_]

> Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago.

It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem.

A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.