Summary
Former Ukrainian boxing champion Wladimir Klitschko accused podcaster Joe Rogan of “repeating Russian propaganda” after Rogan criticized U.S. military aid to Ukraine and suggested it could escalate into World War III.
Klitschko defended Ukraine’s resistance against Russia, highlighting the country’s fight for freedom and condemning Rogan’s remarks as aiding Putin’s agenda.
He invited Rogan to discuss their differences on the podcast “like free men.”
Rogan, who recently endorsed Donald Trump, called the war a “proxy war” and criticized Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russian soil with U.S.-supplied missiles.
Why is “proxy war” in scare quotes?
It’s just a war where at least one of the belligerents is supported by at least one third party. Is there anyone who doubts that the Ukraine war meets any part of that definition?
I don’t consider it a proxy war.
Ukraine isn’t a US proxy nor is Russia anyone’s proxy.
I’m not sure why people keep saying this.
A proxy war has nothing to do with either side being “a proxy.” It only means that one of the sides is being supported by some nations that’s not part of the war. That’s very obviously the case here.
I imagine it’s the latter part of the above from Wikipedia and long-term use in Cold War language with that part stressed.
The “in behalf” is what I believe is missing in the current example unless then Russia is also a proxy of China and North Korea.
I see. Even with that expanded, and very subjective definition, it’s still hard to see how this doesn’t qualify.
The US has obvious strategic interests in the war. Various US and EU politicians and even Zelinsky himself keeps making that point. Ukraine obviously isn’t just fighting for to support US interests but that’s the case in every proxy war. The rich, third party nation doesn’t hire mercenaries, they fund the groups who already have an interest in fighting (like defending their home).
Zelinsky would obviously like that situation to change. If the US and EU were willing to send troops it would stop being a proxy war and Zelinsky would clearly be thrilled.
If we’re using this more detailed definition of “proxy war”, which includes intent, I’d say that Russia is not a proxy for China. The difference is that isn’t providing any donations to Russia. It’s buying, selling and lending on terms that are so favorable to China that it’s better described as carpetbagging. China, and to a lesser extent India and Iran, are all raking Russia over the coals. China also trades with Ukraine. It does so at a much lower rate than with Russia (565 vs 21,800 respectively in September) but at a higher rate than the US does with Ukraine (197 in September (source: https://oec.world/).
Because proxy wars are deeply associated with the Cold War era of superpowers funding long and brutal wars. The problem is that the Ukraine war is closer to the lend lease portion of WWII, we’re putting our thumb on the scale, but it’s an economic strategy as much as a geopolitical one.
That makes it even more like a proxy war.
The cold war era proxy wars were all about saving Democracy and the “free world”. We funded one war after an other under the “domino theory.” Those are the same arguments we hear today except we’ve replaced USSR with Russia and Communist with Authoritarian. The message is the same; we don’t want to get involved directly but we’ll support this country as a bastion against world domination.
Some of the aid to Ukraine is structured as loans with expedited provisions to forgive the loans and some of it is outright grants. The US made a lot of money off of the lend lease program to the UK. I haven’t ready any analysis that suggests that the US expects to make any money off of Ukraine.
This is much more like our support of Afghanistan than our support of the UK.
That’s fair, the biggest thing though that I think makes it not one is that we promised this aid before the war. Ukraine denuclearized in exchange for protection, they also allied with us out of fear that they’d be invaded. Now they’re being invaded by a nuclear power and we can either write the checks we promised or we can lose the entirety of our international perception of dependability in a way that basically guarantees mass nuclear proliferation (if we pull out Belarus for example would be idiotic to not develop nuclear deterrence).
And I’ll admit, I’ve had an issue with Russia since they annexed crimea and I have a long standing soft spot for Ukrainians resisting Russia. But letting Russia take Ukraine for fear of war feels Chamberlainian.
And it’s fair, I know we started by selling Ukraine weapons that were too outdated for us to use ourselves. So I generally just assumed we’re making net profit off of it.
CFR has a discussion on the aid to Ukraine https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine The accounting can be a bit confusing but it’s certainly costing the US money.
That seems to be the crux of the matter. People are objecting to the implications of a proxy war rather than the actual meaning. Past treaties, and Russian aggression have nothing to do with whether or not it’s a proxy war. The intent to strategically prevent future Russian aggression, without direct involvement, is exactly what makes it a proxy war.
There also seems to be some implication that “proxy war” means that the entire purpose of the war is to satisfy the greed of some shadowy cabal. It literally just means that there’s someone who’s helping pay without being directly involved.
Because Ukraine isn’t a proxy and neither is Russia.
I get that people don’t want to associate Ukraine with the US’s horrible track record with proxy wars but the term is still just a dry political definition and the Ukraine war fits it perfectly.
It would stop being a proxy war if the US (and everyone else) cut off funding or if they actually engaged in hostilities. As long as the US (or any nation) aids Russia or Ukraine without directly participating, it’s a proxy war because that’s how proxy wars are defined.
Would Iran, North Korea, and the other countries sending arms to Russia need to cut their support for it to stop being a proxy war? Or do they get a free pass for being the underdogs?
Yes. They would. There are no “free passes” on a definition.