https://www.jpost.com/international/internationalrussia-ukraine-war/article-749796
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said Britain and its allies will double down its support for Ukraine.
I feel like people are starting to lose track of the big picture as the war becomes more and more normalized. I imagine the same goes for Ukraine seemingly taking the allies' support more "for granted" than in the beginning of the war. Obviously, Ukrainians are fighting this war in the interest of the entire western community, so to ask them to be more grateful for western support just seems petty imo.
This is literally a NATO proxy-war with Russia. If we don't want to send actual troops, we better be giving them all the equipment they ask for. Blank check.
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.
Probably the main goal is defense of Ukraine and not hurting Russia like in cold war proxy wars. So it feels a bit inappropriate to use that term as if they were just a puppet being used to fight Russia for some vague NATO aims beyond their own survival and maybe future trade, when they are mainly fighting as to not get genocided.
That statement is pretty tone deaf. They aren’t spoiled, they are fighting to survive and defending the eastern EU border.
Zelensky's response showed Wallace to be a fool, and did a good job of reminding the audience that his country was fighting for survival while Wallace was paying some some shitty game.
The entire response was :
"It seems to me we have always been very grateful to the United Kingdom, always grateful to the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, Mr Wallace…
I just do not know what he means, how else we are supposed to express our gratitude. He can text me to explain it… We can wake up every morning and personally thank the minister.
The UK is our partner, we are grateful to it, maybe the minister wants something specific… But I think we have a good relationship.
We are grateful to the people. After all, strong support from the people influences the support from any state’s leadership."
Zelenskyy also turned to Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine’s Minister of Defence, who was in the audience. "Oleksii, are you on bad terms with the UK Defence Secretary? You get along perfectly? Then thank him. Call him today."
Reznikov stood up and said thank you to Wallace.
I agree with you, but from reading the article he did say “I didn’t drive 11 hours to be given a list”. So it sounds like he said it out of agitation, albeit not professional. I kind of understand where he was coming from, the dudes ass and legs were probably so crapped and didn’t expect to be handed a laundry list. Lol!!
Perhaps if the UK conservatives didn't mess up their country so badly with Brexit and privatization, they wouldn't be so concerned about paying for another country to stop Russia's imperial expansion.
They (UK) are also not meeting their obligations under the Budapest 1994 agreement. In that US and UK (and ironically Ruzzia) agreed to have “boots on the ground” to defend Ukraine!
We should definitely allow Russia to do anything they want because WWIII. Caving to their imperialist program is obviously the only way and can't possibly backfire on us, ever. It definitely won't send a message to other countries to use the same threats to get what they want.
👍
What? Nuclear retaliation is the threat. It's a legitimate one. Plus, after NATO scrubs Russia and its allies off the map, who takes over their country or nuclear arsenal?
I stopped listening to people who said we shouldn't fight back because the enemy may retaliate.
That's not how wars are won.
"We're not Amazon", said the country that during the Second World War was begging for help to United States so they could stop Hitler.
Stop acting like the spoiled child of Europe and start helping a country that is fighting for its existence.
Start helping? I dunno what to tell you if you think the UK hasn't done anything to help Ukraine.
It is a bit demoralizing, as a human, to see leaders in the free world doing this. I don't think I know of a time the Ukrainians have been ungrateful. I know they've been impatient, but that happens when you see children dying from the army that's invading. NATO weapons are finally being used in the purpose they were manufactured for, defeating the Russian army.
Send the clerks to make sure the weapons aren't being diverted, and let them fight for their lives.