Is it really a proxy war if NATO is reacting to Russian agression, though? Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the term, but I don’t see much evidence that NATO was rooting for this conflict to escalate the way it did.
In my understanding, calling the Ukraine war a NATO proxy war suggests that NATO is seen as an agressor/enabler in this conflict, effectively exploiting Ukraine to further NATO’s agenda. I’m not sure if that’s what the other commenter was implying (cause if so I would disagree with them), but that’s why I’m asking :)
I just looked up the definition and you’re absolutely right. I’m not the OP but I would have used it the same way. I always thought a proxy war was any war between two great powers where at least one didn’t get involved, I never realized it required an absent power to be the aggressor.
Is it really a proxy war if NATO is reacting to Russian agression, though? Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the term, but I don’t see much evidence that NATO was rooting for this conflict to escalate the way it did.
Trying to make sure I understood the root of your question here.
Is it that the war in Ukraine can’t be a proxy war because NATO isn’t rooting for it?
In my understanding, calling the Ukraine war a NATO proxy war suggests that NATO is seen as an agressor/enabler in this conflict, effectively exploiting Ukraine to further NATO’s agenda. I’m not sure if that’s what the other commenter was implying (cause if so I would disagree with them), but that’s why I’m asking :)
I just looked up the definition and you’re absolutely right. I’m not the OP but I would have used it the same way. I always thought a proxy war was any war between two great powers where at least one didn’t get involved, I never realized it required an absent power to be the aggressor.