I posted again friend maybe you will realize you missed a word or something.
The USA helping Ukraine is a proxy war because the USA wouldn’t dare fight Russia because of the threat of nuclear annhiliation. So they give weapons to Ukraine and Ukraine fights Russia. They are “using a third party” to fight each other indirectly.
Russia is helping Iran because Russia also woudlnt dare fight USA because of the threat of nuclear annihilation. So Russia is giving weapons and intelligence to Iran “using a third party” to fight USA indirectly
You’re like a poster child for the Dunning–Kruger effect. I explained to you what a proxy war is already above. It’s clear that you’re unable to engage with that given the obvious limits of your intellectual capacity. The fact that your whole conception of a proxy war is derived from superficial googling really is the cherry on the cake here.
You mean the fact that I pulled up the actual definition to show you didn’t know what the fuck you were talking about when you said another country has to control that government and tell it what to do for it to be a proxy war. No. For all of modern history supplying weapons and support to another nation that is fighting your enemy has always been regarded as a proxy war.
So I’m able to engage with the fact that you are wrong. And then get all sad when someone pulls up a definition “can’t believe you had to look up the definition because you didn’t know what it means” and call it superficial googling
hahahahahahahahahaahahaha
“Amazing you don’t even know what proxy means” - but hey maybe if you tried some of that superficial googling you would know what these words meant! Shoot, you could even use Yandex friend!
Since you appear to claim that Groh is not an authoritative source, then perhaps you’d prefer Andrew Mumford. Who in in Proxy Warfare spends an entire chapter titled What is Proxy War? unpacking the levels of engagement and making it painfully obvious that not all indirect assistance qualifies. Or perhaps, Geraint Hughes and his book My Enemy’s Enemy: Proxy Warfare in International Politics which builds a whole framework around the specific strategic relationships that turn a conflict into a proxy war. And of course, we can’t forget the Routledge Handbook of Proxy Wars which is four hundred and fifty five pages long and exists entirely because the concept is so much more complicated than your little copy pasted internet definition could ever dream of being.
But sure, a definition you googled frantically is so much more authoritative 🤣
The discussion isn’t about changing the definition of a proxy war, it’s about your infantile understanding of the subject. All you can share is drivel that falls out from an underdeveloped mind that’s not capable of doing any intellectual rigor.
Here, I got my superficial definition here from Yandex comrade!
proxy war is an armed conflict where at least one of the belligerents is directed or supported by an external third-party power. In the term “proxy war,” a belligerent with external support is the proxy. Both belligerents in a proxy war can be considered proxies if both are receiving foreign military aid from a third-party country. 12
It turns out that you can be a communist and possess reading comprehension!! I’m shocked. Might have to look into yandex more often because all this time I just thought you guys didn’t have the right definitions to go by or something.
Nope. Turns out you just didn’t know what the words you said meant that you were so vehemently defending.
Or is this Yandex stuff just dirty western propaganda too?
You went to Yandex and copied the first definition you saw. That is adorable.
Of course, even the dictionary definition says it is about support and third-party powers. That is the starting point, and you are acting like you found the rosetta stone here.
A proxy war is a political arrangement. It is not just two countries who vaguely dislike the same guy and happen to help each other out. If it were that loose then every military alliance in history is suddenly a proxy war. NATO is just a bunch of proxies. The Allies in WWII were proxies. See how stupid that sounds?
Your definition is a child’s sketch of something that takes entire books to understand. You looked that up and thought you had a mic drop while you had a flimsy entry level summary that collapses the moment you apply it to a real world scenario.
By your Yandex logic the US giving Israel weapons makes Israel an American proxy. Do you believe that? Or do you understand that Israel is a sovereign nation with its own agenda and the US just shares some of those interests? That is the exact same relationship Russia and Iran have.
The mental gymnastics here are genuinely impressive. You dismissed actual analysis and instead pulled up a search engine and acted like you discovered fire. Go read a book then come back and tell me your Yandex definition is the airtight argument you think it is. I will wait. Amazing you do not even know what proxy means.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you’re talking about and watching you display it greater increasing detail while throwing a little tantrum about how you’re actually right has been surprisingly amusing.
Top tier trolling or you’re an absolute broomstick. Both? Both.
I don’t know how to provide and lookup what the definition of a word means?
Ok lol its like if you look up communism and thens someone says “well you should really read Trostsky” or whatever. Doesn’t change what the definition of communism is, does it?
Removed by mod
Yes see you have no grasp on what the fuck proxy war actually is.
A war where two powers use third parties as a supplement to, or a substitute for fighting each other directly.
I posted again friend maybe you will realize you missed a word or something.
The USA helping Ukraine is a proxy war because the USA wouldn’t dare fight Russia because of the threat of nuclear annhiliation. So they give weapons to Ukraine and Ukraine fights Russia. They are “using a third party” to fight each other indirectly.
Russia is helping Iran because Russia also woudlnt dare fight USA because of the threat of nuclear annihilation. So Russia is giving weapons and intelligence to Iran “using a third party” to fight USA indirectly
“Amazing you don’t know what proxy means”
You’re like a poster child for the Dunning–Kruger effect. I explained to you what a proxy war is already above. It’s clear that you’re unable to engage with that given the obvious limits of your intellectual capacity. The fact that your whole conception of a proxy war is derived from superficial googling really is the cherry on the cake here.
You mean the fact that I pulled up the actual definition to show you didn’t know what the fuck you were talking about when you said another country has to control that government and tell it what to do for it to be a proxy war. No. For all of modern history supplying weapons and support to another nation that is fighting your enemy has always been regarded as a proxy war.
So I’m able to engage with the fact that you are wrong. And then get all sad when someone pulls up a definition “can’t believe you had to look up the definition because you didn’t know what it means” and call it superficial googling
hahahahahahahahahaahahaha
“Amazing you don’t even know what proxy means” - but hey maybe if you tried some of that superficial googling you would know what these words meant! Shoot, you could even use Yandex friend!
I literally linked you a book on the subject by a well respected scholar ignoramus.
You linked an opinion piece he wrote about the subject.
That does not change the definition of what proxy war means. He wishes it did he makes arguments why he thinks it should.
But guess what, an opinion is an opinion. A definition continues to remain a definition.
“Amazing you don’t even know what proxy means”
Maybe try an opinion piece from NYT or something that holds just as much weight.
Since you appear to claim that Groh is not an authoritative source, then perhaps you’d prefer Andrew Mumford. Who in in Proxy Warfare spends an entire chapter titled What is Proxy War? unpacking the levels of engagement and making it painfully obvious that not all indirect assistance qualifies. Or perhaps, Geraint Hughes and his book My Enemy’s Enemy: Proxy Warfare in International Politics which builds a whole framework around the specific strategic relationships that turn a conflict into a proxy war. And of course, we can’t forget the Routledge Handbook of Proxy Wars which is four hundred and fifty five pages long and exists entirely because the concept is so much more complicated than your little copy pasted internet definition could ever dream of being.
But sure, a definition you googled frantically is so much more authoritative 🤣
None of what you link change the definition of a proxy war.
I can share a thousand books about communist ideology, doesn’t change any of the pure uncut definitions.
The discussion isn’t about changing the definition of a proxy war, it’s about your infantile understanding of the subject. All you can share is drivel that falls out from an underdeveloped mind that’s not capable of doing any intellectual rigor.
Here, I got my superficial definition here from Yandex comrade!
proxy war is an armed conflict where at least one of the belligerents is directed or supported by an external third-party power. In the term “proxy war,” a belligerent with external support is the proxy. Both belligerents in a proxy war can be considered proxies if both are receiving foreign military aid from a third-party country. 12
It turns out that you can be a communist and possess reading comprehension!! I’m shocked. Might have to look into yandex more often because all this time I just thought you guys didn’t have the right definitions to go by or something.
Nope. Turns out you just didn’t know what the words you said meant that you were so vehemently defending.
Or is this Yandex stuff just dirty western propaganda too?
“Amazing you don’t even know what a proxy is”
You went to Yandex and copied the first definition you saw. That is adorable.
Of course, even the dictionary definition says it is about support and third-party powers. That is the starting point, and you are acting like you found the rosetta stone here.
A proxy war is a political arrangement. It is not just two countries who vaguely dislike the same guy and happen to help each other out. If it were that loose then every military alliance in history is suddenly a proxy war. NATO is just a bunch of proxies. The Allies in WWII were proxies. See how stupid that sounds?
The scholarship is very clear on this. Tyrone L. Groh in Proxy War: The Least Bad Option does not just say support like your Yandex definition. He defines proxy war as directing the use of force by a politically motivated, local actor to indirectly influence political affairs in the target state. There is a hierarchy there with a principal and an agent. Not just two buddies high fiving because they both hate the same person. But of course, reading actual books is too much to be expected from somebody like you.
Your definition is a child’s sketch of something that takes entire books to understand. You looked that up and thought you had a mic drop while you had a flimsy entry level summary that collapses the moment you apply it to a real world scenario.
By your Yandex logic the US giving Israel weapons makes Israel an American proxy. Do you believe that? Or do you understand that Israel is a sovereign nation with its own agenda and the US just shares some of those interests? That is the exact same relationship Russia and Iran have.
The mental gymnastics here are genuinely impressive. You dismissed actual analysis and instead pulled up a search engine and acted like you discovered fire. Go read a book then come back and tell me your Yandex definition is the airtight argument you think it is. I will wait. Amazing you do not even know what proxy means.
You linked am opinion piece on how a dude thinks we should redefine what the definition of proxy war is.
Redefine. As in, change what it means. And it hasn’t been changed the definition continues to be the exact same
“Amazing you don’t even know what proxy means”
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you’re talking about and watching you display it greater increasing detail while throwing a little tantrum about how you’re actually right has been surprisingly amusing.
Top tier trolling or you’re an absolute broomstick. Both? Both.
I don’t know how to provide and lookup what the definition of a word means?
Ok lol its like if you look up communism and thens someone says “well you should really read Trostsky” or whatever. Doesn’t change what the definition of communism is, does it?