[EGreg]

Proxy war is not a hollow Russian talking point, it is a literal description of what happens. This article on Proxy War fits what is going on and it happened all throughout the cold war the same way, leaving many countries ravaged: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

People who don’t want Ukraine to be the next Afghanistan are not “Russian agents”. They likely care about the Ukrainian people more than you do.

What you call “the USSR crumbling” is in fact what I described — a federation whose constitution allowed for its members to get together (originally in a secret meeting in Beloverzhakaya Puscha, much like the creation of the Fed on Jekyll island) and sign an agreement to secede.

Brexit was also possible because the EU allows secession. The US does NOT.

How do you always manage to ignore everything about genociding the native population, ethnic cleansing, conquest of huge swaths of territory from a neighboring country — when your own country does it — but even the very fact of regular folks peacefully moving to a region of the federation which later seceded and proclaimed independence, is described as “Russian colonists”. Are you not a US colonist then? Where are the native nations that used to be on that land? Why is your city part of the US and not Mexico? This EXTREME double standard is defended by a brilliant invention — the word “whataboutism”. It can excuse the biggest double standards but simply saying they are “off-topic”, even while employing them! I wrote a post called “whataboutism considered harmful” years ago.

We may not ever get the absolute truth, but eliminating double standards is how people strive towards getting closer through intellectuall honest discussion. The first thing you have to think when you make a claim X is bad, so we must do Y is consider whether you are advocating an extreme double standard.

As far as the rest — once again, everything you say is doubly true about your own country but you’ve never cared. Will you support at LEAST the same level of sanctions and isolation for the US? Of course, that’s a sheer fantasy but if you feel so strongly about these principles, is your silence just based on the unenforceability or because you believe the US is a shining city on a hill, a democracy that shows the world the best ways to live and that’s why it’s entitled to take over a continent, carve off parts of countries, be the world’s policeman, invade, occupy, regime change regularly around the world in dozens of countries etc.?

Everything you described btw is true of many federations - Tibet complains about China, Catalonia complains about Spain, various US states complain about the US, etc. To say nothing of native american reservations. It is hardly a cause for nuclear war.

[_kbh_]

> Proxy war is not a hollow Russian talking point, it is a literal description of what happens. This article on Proxy War fits what is going on and it happened all throughout the cold war the same way, leaving many countries ravaged: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

Who is Ukraine a proxy for?. Who is Russia a proxy for?.

Russia has repeatedly said they started this war for imperialistic reasons, I find hard to connect imperialistic war with proxy war.

> We may not ever get the absolute truth, but eliminating double standards is how people strive towards getting closer through intellectuall honest discussion.

Spewing the same 4 paragraphs about America bad

Whatabout Afghanistan

Whatabout Cuba

Whatabout event from 200 years ago

Does not really pass muster for "intellectuall honest discussion".

[EGreg]

Again, all false I'm afraid.

> Who is Ukraine a proxy for?. Who is Russia a proxy for?.

That's not what Proxy War works. You probably know that, and are just arguing a straw man. But here we go:

During classical antiquity and the Middle Ages, many non-state proxies were external parties that were introduced to an internal conflict and aligned themselves with a belligerent to gain influence and to further their own interests in the region.[3][4] Proxies could be introduced by an external or local power and most commonly took the form of irregular armies which were used to achieve their sponsor's goals in a contested region.[4] Some medieval states like the Byzantine Empire used proxy warfare as a foreign policy tool by deliberately cultivating intrigue among hostile rivals and then backing them when they went to war with each other.

If you want the names of these belligerents, we have on the one side the rebels of the Donbas region, and on the other side we have groups like Right Sector, Azov Battallion and Dnipro. Anyway, the proxy war has now ballooned into more of a world war, and all sides contributing to escalating it, instead of speaking with each other to work together to resolve it.

For another example of similar dynamics that don't involve Russia at all (but of course involve USA because USA inserts itself into every conflict): Houthi Rebels are party of a proxy war where Iran has given them far less weapons and training and support, than USA and its allies have done with Ukraine. And China is in the process of finally getting Iran and Saudis to settle it, showing leadership where USA has abdicated it (thanks to Trump scuttling the Iran deal).

It used to be OK as late as 2018 to point this out... until the battallions on "our" side became whitewashed, just like the "moderate rebels" in Syria (but of course not the Houthi rebels in Yemen): https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-07-09/ty-article/ri...

But now, Human Rights Watch, White Helmets, Amnesty International and others were attacked by both sides, including the Ukrainian side, for reporting impartially, or working with "the other side" to render humanitarian aid. For example:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai...

2014: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-c...

Three days ago: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/06/ukraine-civilian-deaths-...

And of course the USA supports this directly, here is a title of an article from a few hours ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66144153

Title: "Cluster bombs: Unease grows over US sending cluster bombs to Ukraine"

"Oh but whatabout USA. America bad. That's off topic. USA is not involved in this war. We're just helping Ukrainians!"

I'm sure this will help the Ukrainian civilian population massively.

Even in Bucha, the Guardian's investigation showed that the majority of people died from shrapnel such as "flechettes", after autopsies were conducted. The real tragedy is how many civilians die in the crossfire, especially from cluster munitions which are banned by tons of countries, but notably NOT by USA, Ukraine and Russia: https://infobrics.org/post/35646/

[_kbh_]

I see no care from you for the Russian cluster weapons they are being pointed at populated civilian areas intentionally.

> instead of speaking with each other to work together to resolve it.

This is Russias doing more than anything, but can you blame the Ukrainians, would you want to "speak" with the person who raped your child, killed your wife and executed your bother before they annex some of your house?.

> But now, Human Rights Watch, White Helmets, Amnesty International and others were attacked by both sides, including the Ukrainian side, for reporting impartially, or working with "the other side" to render humanitarian aid. For example:

These articles get attacked because they are ridiculous and come from a very privileged position.

> I'm sure this will help the Ukrainian civilian population massively.

If it helps push back Russia it will undoubtedly help them, what Russia does to a civilian population after it captures some citizens is beyond horrific.

> Even in Bucha, the Guardian's investigation showed that the majority of people died from shrapnel such as "flechettes", after autopsies were conducted. The real tragedy is how many civilians die in the crossfire, especially from cluster munitions which are banned by tons of countries, but notably NOT by USA, Ukraine and Russia:

Yep and this crossfire will go to 0 when Russia leaves Ukraine, so until then we need to arm them with all the weapons they need to make Russia leave.

You do want Russia out of Ukraine right?.

> https://infobrics.org/post/35646/

Your source is literally an alliance Russia is a founding member of LOL.

[EGreg]

> I see no care from you for the Russian cluster weapons they are being pointed at populated civilian areas intentionally.

I thought Whataboutism was bad? Anyway, I point out that USA RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT sends cluster munitions to Ukraine, responsible for killing so many civilians as Human Rights Watch has documented since 2014, and banned throughout much of the world -- and your argument is "what about Russia?"

Here is what you should conclude:

* USA doesn't care about Ukrainian lives as much as making sure Russia loses (same in other proxy wars, e.g. Yemen with Iran, Afghanistan with USSR, Kurds with Iraq etc.)

* I care that armed forces of Russia, Ukraine or any country don't drop cluster munitions. I understand they will explode IN UKRAINE. So even if Russia does it, my conclusion is the same: bring an end to this war, as quickly as possible. Finally happened last year in Yemen. That's a GOOD thing!

> This is Russias doing more than anything,

The blame game isn't much use in ending a war. Even if one party was 100% responsible for starting it (which is rarely, if ever the case), the goal of diplomacy and compromise is to end the war. It doesn't do much good to blame one actor if the result is the entire country is destroyed, or maybe human civilization on the planet. Our statemen need to grow up. "BUT HE STARTED IT!" is how kids argue in kindergarten, these people are supposed to put their egos aside and hear each other out to avert disaster for millions of innocent civilians.

> but can you blame the Ukrainians, would you want to "speak" with the person who raped your child, killed your wife and executed your bother before they annex some of your house?.

Nope. I don't blame the civilian population. Just like I don't blame Iraqis for what Saddam Hussein did. USA is of course largely to blame for invading Iraq, BUT at the same time I can blame Saddam for ousting the UN inspectors (Hans Blix and co). Had he not done that, USA wouldn't have been able to claim he had WMDs as a justification to invade. In short, I can blame USA for invading AND I can still blame the government of Iraq for failing to avert the invasion by doing basic things. Same here, I can blame the liars in Kyiv government for pretending to be interested in implementing Minsk II but really never doing it, because they used it to "buy time" for this war. Had they done it, all of Ukraine would have been MUCH better off.

The elites predicted this war, and concluded (in their infinite wisdom) that it far preferable to no war, and has to happen (of course, these elites somehow magically never get a summons to go to fight that war): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwcwGSFPqIo

> These articles get attacked because they are ridiculous and come from a very privileged position.

Really, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documenting suffering from cluster bombs "comes from a privileged position"? I think the privileged position is the war hawks in the USA, and the Ukrainian politicians, who never have to go to the front lines, but send peons (abducted on the street) to the meat grinder instead. Whenever a couch warrior volunteers others to die for their geopolitical ambitions, that's the personification of privilege.

> Yep and this crossfire will go to 0 when Russia leaves Ukraine, so until then we need to arm them with all the weapons they need to make Russia leave.

Sure, the same fantasy logic could have been used in every other war. It's very rare that an imperialist country "just leaves", especially after fighting for so long. It would have been far better to have prevented the war.

Imagine Saddam Hussein using this logic, "The war will be over when US leaves, so I might as well continue to escalate". It would be ridiculous.

Or here is another example... Palestinians in Gaza have been blockaded by Egypt and Israel for almost two decades, after Hamas got elected. Using your iron-clad logic, the gulf states and Iran sending them weapons made them SAFER. Any day now they're going to defeat Israel and Egypt with those weapons, right? On the contrary, had they never got the weapons, and THEIR GOVERNMENT simply abided by previous agreements, they would have never had this situation. But they got stuck with a government that acted like maniacs:

2006: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/middleeast/22cnd-mi...

2014: https://www.jordantimes.com/news/region/hamas-will-not-recog...

They also disarmed all the hamullas, making it impossible to remove them. Zelensky also canceled 2024 elections recently.

> You do want Russia out of Ukraine right?.

I do! I also want China out of Hong Kong and Tibet, Spain out of Catalonia, and so on. I want Russia out of Chechnya. I am for decentralization.

But what I really want more is for people to live in peace. I don't really care if Crimea is under Russia or Ukraine. And most people living in these regions do not care enough to fight and kill for this. In 1954, when Crimea went from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR, no one wanted to fight and kill. It was regarded as an administrative decision. No one asked the population. But every time the population was asked, they were very clear they wanted to be independent of Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

So, the formulation "I want Russia out of Ukraine" assumes I am a statist who believes the rights of states trump the welfare of millions of people. After watching this video, you will see why I am not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-2zaOhYlAM

[lisasays]

Same here, I can blame the liars in Kyiv government for pretending to be interested in implementing Minsk II but really never doing it, because they used it to "buy time" for this war.

You can "blame" them all you want if it makes you feel better. But there's no evidence that this was their intention. The whole "they did it to buy time" meme rests on single quote from Merkel, well after the fact, taken judiciously out of context.

Overall this is highly misleading representation of the events that led to failure of the Minsk protocols. But even if this is what they did - so what? To suggest that this is somehow an important thing in itself, to be weighed against the broader insanity and evil of the full scale invasion -- let alone, as you are implying, that it effectively caused the invasion (even partially) -- is just asinine.

Like a lawyer who offers in defense: "I blame that lying hussy that some are calling a 'rape victim' for feigning cooperation with the my client's perfectly natural and understandable impulses, while she looked for a sufficient heavy object to club him with."

[chrysler]

>> Proxy war is not a hollow Russian talking point, it is a literal description of what happens. This article on Proxy War fits what is going on and it happened all throughout the cold war the same way, leaving many countries ravaged: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

Calling the war in Ukraine a "proxy war" doesn't match the provided definition on Wikipedia. Ukraine is not fighting at the instigation or on behalf of others. Ukraine is fighting for itself and struggled hard to get any considerable military support in the first months of the war.

>> What you call “the USSR crumbling” is in fact what I described — a federation whose constitution allowed for its members to get together (originally in a secret meeting in Beloverzhakaya Puscha, much like the creation of the Fed on Jekyll island) and sign an agreement to secede.

Latvia did not sign any seccesion agreements. Can't secede from something you never joined. The constitution of invaders has no bearing on Latvia, it's null and void.

>> How do you always manage to ignore everything about genociding the native population, ethnic cleansing, conquest of huge swaths of territory from a neighboring country — when your own country does it

My country has never done it. I am the native population. Perhaps you should assume less about other people before trying to smear them with white guilt.

[EGreg]

Well, if you are the native population, what do you have to say about USA's actions since its founding until now, towards your people? It is a fair bit worse than "occupation" or "annexation", it would seem to me.

I forgot to answer this part: > "Allowed to secede", you say? Fuck you. People fought for their freedom and won, it wasn't handed to them.

I am all for freedom and decentralization. In fact I have spent over a decade of hard work with my team in Ukraine and Russia, Armenia and other countries, building a system to help make that happen: https://qbix.com

However, I do not believe that in people killing and getting killed for a flag. If people want to have more autonomy and freedom, they should do it within the system, because many other people don't want to be caught in the crossfire. The vast majority just want to go to work and they don't particularly care about this, despite any "fuck yous" you may throw their way. I don't want PKK to endanger Kurds, PLO to endanger Palestinians, Tibetan activists to endanger Tibetans, etc. What I want is international courts to be set up and cases brought there. I care about the health and safety of the vast majority of regular people more than I care about the national aspiration of separatists and nationalists. I want the people to rise up democratically and demand that negotiations take place on video, so we can all see what happened. Sorry if that offends you.

In fact, the secret Molotov-Ribentrop pact would not have been possible in a world where governments provide transparency to their people, and the Baltic states would never have been occupied by the USSR. Latvia, Lithuania and others throughout their history were often occupied.

> "can't secede from something you never joined"

When it came to the USSR, they did in fact become a member: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Soviet_Socialist_Repub...

As far as "allowed", I quote In 1989, the USSR also condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and herself that had led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries, including Latvia. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Latvia_in...)

I believe in non-violent resistance and bringing cases within the democratic system. Women's suffrage got male politicians on board, and that's how they got it done ultimately. Martin Luther King's approach got the US to pass the Civil Rights Act. Gandhi's revolution got the British to leave, and again that didn't kill a lot of Indians.

Of course, when an actual genocide or famine is going on, that's different. Some people you may respect (like Winston Churchill, who was instrumental in fighting the Nazis) also was responsible for exacerbating major famines (in Bengal for instance). British also exacerbated the Great Potato Famine in neighboring Ireland. This was actually a lot more motivated by nationalism and racism, than the famines cited in socialist countries. For example, Stalin's government exacerbated a famine throughout Ukraine but also Volga region and Kazakhstan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%93...). China under Mao had a "Great famine" as well. If I had to rank which ones were more motivated by nationalism / racism, it would be in the less socialist countries (because socialists often considered that they were uniting "proletariat of all countries").

As far as "proxy war" see the sibling thread

[chrysler]

>> As far as "proxy war" see the sibling thread

That does not address anything I've said.

>> Well, if you are the native population, what do you have to say about USA's actions since its founding until now, towards your people?

Nothing. The US has not committed any "actions" against my people.

>> The vast majority just want to go to work and they don't particularly care about this, despite any "fuck yous" you may throw their way.

You are totally out of your depth again. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have a combined population of about 6 million. In 1989, they organized a protest against Soviet occupation, the largest protest in the history of the world, with 2 million people taking part in it - a third of the whole population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way

In Estonia in particular, about two thirds of all Estonians came together on the same day and participated in the protest, precisely to send a fuck you to people like you who kept making excuses for the occupation.

>> When it came to the USSR, they did in fact become a member

No they didn't.

While in alliance with Germany, USSR made increasing demands to Latvia in 1939-1940, culminating with demanding establishment of Soviet military bases on Latvian soil due to "security concerns" (sounds familiar?). Latvian government kept making one concession after another to appease the USSR and avoid war, but once the bases were established, USSR used them to overthrow Latvian government, staged mock elections where only collaborants were allowed to set up their candidacy (and got all the votes), then those collaborants "asked" to join the USSR literally at gunpoint (armed Soviet military personnel were in the parliament), and then in the finale, NKVD and the Red army murdered members of legitimate Latvian government and other officials, and murdered or deported tens of thousands of people, and gave their home to Russian colonists, and then continued to exploit Latvia economically and suppressing Latvian language and culture and bringing in further colonists for 50 years.

All international organizations, from the European Court of Human Rights and European Council to the United Nations recognize the Soviet occupation of Latvia as illegal.

From a 2006 decision of the European Court of Human Rights: "Latvia, together with the other Baltic States, lost its independence in 1940 in the aftermath of the partition of Europe between Germany and the USSR agreed by Adolf Hitler's Germany and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union by way of the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, an agreement contrary to the generally recognised principles of international law. The ensuing annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union was orchestrated and conducted under the authority of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the Communist Party of Latvia (CPL) being a satellite branch of the CPSU."

In another case, related to Estonia (shared the same fate), the Court found: "The Court notes, first, that Estonia lost its independence as a result of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), concluded on 23 August 1939, and the secret additional protocols to it. Following an ultimatum to set up Soviet military bases in Estonia in 1939, a large-scale entry of the Soviet army into Estonia took place in June 1940. The lawful government of the country was overthrown and Soviet rule was imposed by force. The totalitarian communist regime of the Soviet Union conducted large-scale and systematic actions against the Estonian population, including, for example, the deportation of about 10,000 persons on 14 June 1941 and of more than 20,000 on 25 March 1949. After the Second World War, tens of thousands of persons went into hiding in the forests to avoid repression by the Soviet authorities; part of those in hiding actively resisted the occupation regime. According to the data of the security organs, about 1,500 persons were killed and almost 10,000 arrested in the course of the resistance movement of 1944–1953. Interrupted by the German occupation in 1941–1944, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until its restoration of independence in 1991. Accordingly, Estonia as a state was temporarily prevented from fulfilling its international commitments."

Even your own liked article says: "The Soviet occupation of the Baltic states from 1939–40 and 1944–1991 is widely considered illegal by the international community and human rights organisations."

Latvia never joined the USSR and any notion of seccession is utter nonsense. Latvia was an occupied territory, and once the USSR collapsed, Latvian government returned from exile, restored its institutions, and continued serving its people after a 50-year pause violently forced upon them.

>> As far as "allowed", I quote In 1989, the USSR also condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and herself that had led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries, including Latvia.

Soviet authorities denied for 50 years that the secret protocol existed, calling it a forgery, and condemned it in 1989 only because an Estonian physicist managed to get his hands on a copy authenticated by the National Archives of the United States, and brought the copy to USSR. After that, there was simply no other option than to condemn the alliance with Hitler as it was, clearly written down in black and white.

While it was an important moral victory to Latvian independence movement, it did very little to end the Soviet occupation of Latvia in practical terms. Soviet authorities continued to suppress the independence movement until the very end, until the USSR fell apart several years later. Military forces that enforced the occupation didn't leave until mid-1990s. To this day, Russia denies the illegal occupation, has not paid any reparations nor extradited war criminals, continues hostile rhetoric towards Latvia, and makes excuses for crimes against humanity commited by them in Latvia.

[EGreg]

Who are your people?

I guess I will rephrase — can you, at long last, address what I have been asking about US crimes, which have been far more egregious and affected large swaths of land and people? Where is the CONSISTENCY in the moral and practical stance being advocated?

About proxy war: yes it does, because the strawman is that Ukraine as a whole has to be a proxy for another country, for that to be a proxy war, but that’s not how proxy wars work.

You won’t see much support for invasions or occupations from me, but it is a fact that Latvia was an SSR.

Many regions do not get the luxury of independence at all. Hong Kong for instance was a mere football between two empires (Chinese and British). They don’t have a say. Neither did Kurds or Catalonians or Basques etc.

Hong Kong all by itself also had 2 million people protest recently, and China didn’t care. You don’t seem to say very much about that. I mean China’s a Big Bad too, right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48656471.amp

In Chechnya, far more than 1/3 of the population showed up to protest Charlie Hebdo cartoons. And what is your prescription there?

I think peaceful protests are great. Democracy and international courts are even better! War is not. I am glad that Latvia got its independence without any shots fired. So did Australia. Not so for the USA, they fought a war to secede from the British empire, then fought an even bloodier civil war to prevent the southern states from seceding. They also fought a war with Mexico to annex a lot of territory. And so on.

USA doesn’t have a great track record of getting involved. It supports Saudi hegemony over Yemen, providing planes that bomb hospitals and markets. It supported Pakistan in Bangladesh’s war of independence, even as Pakistan’s army engaged in genocidal rape. These are recent events.

Also, US itself has invaded and occupied many areas much the same way. Some, it annexed (like when it overthrew Hawaii’s kingdom and annexed Hawaii, then stationed troops there — how is that different?) Others, it basically enslaved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Ha... … more recently, it simply invades and occupies, undermines or destroys but doesn’t annex or enslave (Iraq, Libya, etc.)

Anyway, I am critical of the Russian government and can condemn crimes done by it as well as US and China. Are you able to say anything of substance about the long list of crimes by the US? My point is that these imperialist countries and their cold war are the reason that smaller countries get caught in their proxy wars. And the only way out is for them to stop the violence and commit to good-faith dialogue where they agree not to crods each other’s red lines.

[chrysler]

>> About proxy war: yes it does, because the strawman is that Ukraine as a whole has to be a proxy for another country, for that to be a proxy war, but that’s not how proxy wars work.

The war in Ukraine does not fit the definition of proxy war that you provided. Ukrainian army is against Russian army, and both are at war because they want (Russia) or need (Ukraine) to, and not because some third party forces them to and uses them as pawns. It is a traditional war between two countries. The fact that Australia has given armored cars to Ukraine and Iran has given drones to Russia doesn't make this a shadow war between Australia and Iran.

>> I am glad that Latvia got its independence without any shots fired.

Shots were fired and people died. Russians murdered peaceful Latvians, and to this day deny that it ever happened, and shelter people who ordered and commited those crimes. And not only that. Russians have recycled one of those criminals in Ukraine and installed him as an official in occupied Donbas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Antyufeyev

>> You won’t see much support for invasions or occupations from me, but it is a fact that Latvia was an SSR.

Republic of Latvia declared independence in 1918, was occupied by the USSR in 1940, and restored its independence when its government returned from exile in 1991. Latvian SSR was a fake government set up in 1940 by the USSR and it ceased to exist in 1991 along with the USSR itself. Latvian SSR has nothing to do with the Republic of Latvia, nor its independence, nor Latvian people. It was an illegitimate totalitarian regime run from Moscow, similar to Nazi General Government in Poland. You said that Latvia signed an seccession agreement. That is just plain false. Latvia never joined the USSR in the first place. Might as well say that the Poles joined Nazi Germany in 1939 and then in 1945 Nazis "allowed" them to secede when Wehrmacht retreated from Poland. Utter nonsense.

In fact, USSR created fake governments for every country they intended to enslave. One of the best examples is Finnish Democratic Republic, led by Otto Wille Kuusinen. But since the Soviet invasion of Finland failed, they had to abandon the project after a few months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic

The same handwriting has more recently continued in Abkhazia (fake government created in Georgia), Transnistria (Moldova), and now in Ukraine too. Russian forces invaded Ukraine, established fake governments in Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Those fake governments "asked" to join Russia and Russia gladly accepted them. Except no-one was fooled by the charade and no-one in the world recognized them as legitimate governments, and everything they have done is legally void.

[EGreg]

> The war in Ukraine does not fit the definition of proxy war that you provided.

I haven't provided one, Wikipedia has. I will quote it and add emphasis:

A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities.

The non-state actors, as I pointed out, were, respectively:

1) The Right Sector, Azov Battallion, Dnipro and others, which were armed and trained by the CIA, as well as NATO members and allies (e.g. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-07-09/ty-article/ri...)

2) The rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, made up of local militias. They wished Donetsk and Luhansk regions to be absorbed by Russia early on, but Russia refused and told them to deal with Kyiv. The Minsk II agreements had as their aim guaranteeing a degree of autonomy WITHIN Ukraine, and that's what Russia wanted. Strelkov reports being disappointed by that.

In short, non-state actors formed paramilitary groups, one side received support from Russia and the other side received support from US, UK and other NATO members. Do you understand what I'm talking about?

This is how proxy wars form. Wikipedia goes on to say that large nuclear powers (USA and USSR, for instance) did this all the time during the cold war -- instead of engaging each other directly, each side would train rebels inside a country, against the other side. Each promised that they'd defeat the other and take over the country (e.g. Viet nam, Korea, etc. etc.) The sectarian violence is exacerbated and it tears a country apart, and often leads it into much larger conflicts as other countries double down and funnel weapons into it.

For example, KGB trained the PLO, against Israel and Jordan, after they entered the Western sphere of influence (previously, Stalin supported Israel because it was going to be a socialist country in the middle east, and largely was, with the kibbutzes and Labor party etc. but when they switched, Khrustchev and others started training "liberation organizations".) USA had an entire school devoted to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...

Anyway, proxy wars have been happening all over the place. I gave an example of a proxy war happening in Yemen, between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It's a very common scenario and there is nothing new about the Ukraine war except it's in Europe and White Lives Matter More (TM) + Russia can be blamed and surrounded / contained. So this war is in the news whereas e.g. Yemen is not, despite being a far greater humanitarian catastrophe than in Ukraine.

You've been arguing with civility, so please let's not be obtuse on purpose. You see what I mean now, right? Ukraine has been a staging ground for a proxy war, and eventually it turned into a "regular war" as you call it, perhaps it will become a world war. I hope not.

(To be clear: your examples of Australia and Iran totally miss the mark. Read the wikipedia article, and try to steelman my argument before strawmanning it.)

>> Shots were fired and people died.

Alright, fair enough, you may know more about what really happened than what is available in official sources. But the extent of the violence was much smaller than, say, the American Revolution, or Bangladesh war of independence, or any of the dozens or hundreds of independence movements that were a lot more bloody.

> Latvian SSR was a fake government set up in 1940 by the USSR and it ceased to exist in 1991 along with the USSR itself.

What makes a government fake? History is written by the winners, but if a government allows people to elect their representatives, then it has some legitimacy. I sympathize with people's desire for complete sovereignty, but sometimes they have to settle for a degree of autonomy (as I mentioned, Hong Kong, Catalonia, etc.) and the vast majority of civilians prioritize health and safety over flags and geopolitical aspirations. I think it's obscene to volunteer people far away for the meat grinder just so you can enjoy a flag on a map for 50 years. Look at a time-lapse video of Europe to show how provincial these aspirations are. It's only recently that this myth arose that the borders of nation-states will be enshrined forever, now that UN is here.

> Latvia never joined the USSR in the first place.

By that standard, the Kingdom of Hawaii never joined the USA in the first place, and Hawaii currently has a fake government. Would you agree, if you applied a consistent standard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_King...

I just want you to recognize that the same exact situation can be viewed differently depending on what country is doing it.

> Might as well say that the Poles joined Nazi Germany in 1939 and then in 1945 Nazis "allowed" them to secede when Wehrmacht retreated from Poland. Utter nonsense.

No, the Wehrmacht retreated because they were being decimated and killed by an enraged Red Army. Soviets lost 30 million people (largely due to Stalin's incompetence, btw.) Anyway, that is not at all the same as the situation in 1991, which involved far less brutality, genocide and killing. You may be able to show some limited amount of it, but NOWHERE NEAR your example. It's in a totally different league. Find a better example.

Perhaps a closer example would be the end of the British Raj in India, or the British Mandate in Palestine. They also involved far less violence. However -- and this is the cautionary tale -- it left behind a vacuum that led to civil war in which many people were killed or fled to become refugees. My point is that you have to compare apples to apples and look at similar situations around the world, in order to draw general conclusions and advocate for prescriptions.

> In fact, USSR created fake governments for every country they intended to enslave.

Literally that's what ever empire throughout history has done, including USA. And you use the word "enslave" very liberally, I might add. Have you seen what real slavery looks like? People going about their day under a different flag and not having total political sovereignty is not slavery. Tibet is not enslaved by China, in fact China argues that Tibet's own government was far more slave-owning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy

On the other hand, capitalists often did end up enslaving people. Here for example is USA literally setting up a fake government and enslaving Haiti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Ha...

One could argue that many places which the Communists "enslaved" actually liberated women, freethinkers and others, and allowed them to go get an education, they built universities, brought electricity, etc. I'm not saying communists taking over was all-good, but many people were thankful (e.g. in Uzbekistan, etc.) and also minorities that were oppressed. You have to realize that these countries are made up of many different groups.

> The same handwriting has more recently continued in Abkhazia (fake government created in Georgia), Transnistria (Moldova), and now in Ukraine too.

Yes, I agree, and I actually don't consider it a bad thing. People who live in Abhazia want to have their own republic, too. So did Crimea, they overwhelmingly voted to SECEDE from Ukraine, back in 1991: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer... ... whereas the vote to join Ukraine was only 54%. We also can see similar things here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Kurdistan_Region_independ... and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_refe...

The thing is that UN is composed of COUNTRIES, and they don't want little pieces to fly off. So you have a weird double-standard whereby a country like Russia can bomb its own region (Chechnya) and raze its capitol city to the ground, or China can extrajudicially kidnap and lock up 1 million Uyghurs in internment camps, and UN says very little because it's "an internal matter". I find that to be obscene. But likewise when Ukraine's government uses cluster bombs in Donetsk: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-c... ... since 2014 they did it, HRW also reported it last week (!) https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/06/ukraine-civilian-deaths-... and USA just announced a couple days ago that it will send more cluster munitions (banned by most civilized countries) to Ukraine's government to use.

Make no mistake - these munitions will be almost exclusively killing civilians in Ukraine, NOT Russia. So it shows how much USA cares about Ukrainians: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66144153

Surely you can see that there are real problems for the Ukrainian civilian population, and the counteroffensive has now resorted to kidnapping men off the street and shanghaing them into the meat grinder with very little training. It's time to bring it to an end.

And look, here is how US corporations benefit... it's frankly a bit insane: https://www.facebook.com/jaketran.io/videos/9654289727945826...

So yes, I understand the wish to be politically sovereign, but the majority of civilians have other priorities and frankly I think being part of the same federation, (USA, USSR, etc.) is far better and more stable and peaceful for them, than all this endless fighting and war. Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa got left behind most other countries for centuries, because they lacked any serious empires. Empires may suck during the conquering phase, but once they have formed, it's better to keep the stability. The neighboring regions stop fighting each other, and devote resources to working together. They speak the same language, have common roads, share education centers, etc. Throughout history, empires have helped move civilization forward. When people say that "paper / gunpowder / etc. was invented in china" or "algebra / chess was invented by Arabs" etc. what they really mean is that someone in a giant freaking empire invented it, and then it spread. When they talk about Pax Mongolica or Pax Romana, it was a net benefit to many: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3x0ae1/was_t...