The definition of "proxy war" hinges upon being
instigated by another party. Every narrative I've seen about Russia being some reluctant participant is full of holes or based on innuendo. If missiles were the problem, then why not attack those military assets and leave it at that? Having lost so much influence with your neighbor that they're cozying up to another sphere of influence to protect themselves still doesn't create a justification to conquer them, regardless of whether you call yourself a super/great power or not.
Without the US instigating the war, heavy support (including intelligence sharing anyone with half a clue knew was going on) still does not constitute a proxy war. Like many narratives, "proxy war" falls apart under scrutiny. But it does sound edgy and contrarian if you don't examine it too closely.
I do agree that there are some terrible realpolitik incentives here. The US isn't doing this solely for freedom and democracy, just like it wasn't in Iraq, regardless of the advertising for both. But that doesn't mean that Ukraine itself cannot be benefiting. Based on experiences of people who fled the previous Russian ("Soviet") empire, I can certainly see why they would choose this despite the cost.
> seek peace over escalation
This is the complete wrong framing for the defensive side of a war. Deescalating defense means that Russia will escalate attacks. I too had been lured by the hope that military might was becoming less relevant. But now Russia's actions have demonstrated that the peace we had (and still have, for the most part) is a product of military might.
Without the US instigating the war, heavy support (including intelligence sharing anyone with half a clue knew was going on) still does not constitute a proxy war. Like many narratives, "proxy war" falls apart under scrutiny. But it does sound edgy and contrarian if you don't examine it too closely.
I do agree that there are some terrible realpolitik incentives here. The US isn't doing this solely for freedom and democracy, just like it wasn't in Iraq, regardless of the advertising for both. But that doesn't mean that Ukraine itself cannot be benefiting. Based on experiences of people who fled the previous Russian ("Soviet") empire, I can certainly see why they would choose this despite the cost.
> seek peace over escalation
This is the complete wrong framing for the defensive side of a war. Deescalating defense means that Russia will escalate attacks. I too had been lured by the hope that military might was becoming less relevant. But now Russia's actions have demonstrated that the peace we had (and still have, for the most part) is a product of military might.