I'm not familiar with them, so I can't state. They might well be or have acted as mercenaries.
No, not just about any. And "proxy war" is relative to the actors at play. For the US this is a proxy war. For Russia not so much. For Ukraine not either. It's more then just non-combatants having a stake, it's the level of support and engagement from these "non-combatants".
Why proxy war means justification for Russian agrresion ? Again most proxy war even any war start by agrresion and invasion. Thus it means calling them proxy war give justification ? It is completely unrelated on justification of war with ir is developing as proxy war.
i think the US is the one winning, the US has finally achieved it's long term goal of cutting Russia off the EU gas market, selling it's gas to EU 4 times the price
www.politico.eu
I said this as this is not a proxy war by definition, as I felt that the term was being miss used.
mist -Permanently banned for trolling.
Is US give everything to Mujahadin in Afghanistan ? Is USSR give their long range missiles to North Vietnamese ? Since when Proxy war means the will depend on what type of weapons being supplied by the supporters ? That's abosolutely got nothing to do on conducting Proxy War. They will support whatever they believe appropriate to their interest and enough to support that.
I think you need to read all that I have said in regard to whether tis is a proxy war or not and not just pick at pieces. What is happening here is simply support for Ukraine to maintain its sovereignty, nothing more nothing less. As to the type of weapons supplied it is not the weapons them selves that defines this but rather the intent of the suppliers which have made it very clear that this is only for Ukraine to defend it's self. . Your statement about containing Russia is interesting as it does show were the problem is as in this world NO COUNTRY SHOULD TRY TO TAKE ANOTHERS SOVEREIGN TERITORY and every country should contain itself within its recognized boarders irrespective if it is Russia, the USA the UK, China or France or whatever. This also means that the rest of the world has an obligation to assist countries whose boarders are violated by another aggressor. This is my last word on the subject as for now.
Im not arguing against you, but I was trying to illustrate that we can find common truth with things that are not in contention, even in this zone of high noise-to-signal. While some elements of the MSM and social media might be claiming that RU is about to collapse, I dont think anyone here would think that is the case.
Dramatic ? You havnt seen anything yet:
Biden approved the Nord Stream2 pipeline. That doesnt seem to agree with a strategy of splitting RU gas from the EU.i think the US is the one winning, the US has finally achieved it's long term goal of cutting Russia off the EU gas market, selling it's gas to EU 4 times the price
Why cheap US gas costs a fortune in Europe
European politicians are pointing the finger at US gas sellers, but the blame lies closer to home.
Victory and defeat are ultimately political objectives. Russia can't win not because of poor military performance but because there is no outcome to this war that leaves Russia better off then when it started. This was the case from day 1. Even a steamroll over the Ukrainian armed forces followed by a victory lap around western Ukraine with minimal resistance would still not be a victory because of what would follow. Russia can't win. Regardless of how well or poor Russia performs military, the war itself was the key strategic mistake. Russia can recover from this mistake well or poorly, but either way this war leaves Russia worse off, no matter the outcome.
Completely agree. The economic fallout from events so far are going to be with us for some time.
Economic and political sure. But it's bigger then that. I believe we are heading for another major rearrangement of the international status quo. Economic and demographic realities have shifted pretty drastically in the past ~75 years. In '14 Russia was perfectly positioned to take a bigger role then it got after '91. Russia's economy was doing well, the demographic situation was well in hand, and the modernization efforts of both the first two Putin presidencies and the Medvedev presidency had good effect. Russia was integrating well into the international trade networks, and had a great relationship with the EU despite the Georgian hiccup. Actually the 888 war showed just how much things had changed. Annexing Crimea was bold, though not unproblematic. Stoking the fire in the Donbass and getting involved in that war was a mistake. Recovering from that mistake required finding a solution that wouldn't involve selling the population of the LDNR downriver, but repairing relations with the EU. Invading Ukraine openly was maybe not literally the worst option, but it's certainly a terrible one. Russia has put itself in a terrible position for the rearrangement to come.
Did you just confuse the state budget with the GDP?
.....oops, yes I did. 30% of the >state budget<
Certain things; namely things you saw fit to mention and which are widely known; were never in contention.
I merely pointed out that based on all the reports we've been fed with for months; it's a miracle the Russians haven't collapsed already. We've been fed with the same claims over and over again; like watching a performance of circus seals [which I'm extremely fond of] repeating the same acts.
Whatever keeps your boat afloat.
It hasn't been good for months and this is a well known and accepted fact but this really provides us with no firm indication of the end result as the war - despite being 10 months old - may still be in its early days.
A Russian defeat might not necessarily equate to a Ukrainian victory. How this war ends when it eventually does may be very different from what many expect or hope.
I don't think they are. I think Russia is stuck. They recently tried to gain ground everywhere, and had a series of minor successes, but no major ones. The Artemovsk/Bakhmut assault in my opinion is pure inertia, with Wagner playing first fiddle. For Prigozhin this is a chance to prove that his organization is more then just shadow forces for Africa and Syria. But all in all, Russian and LNR forces have been just as persistent in trying to advance on Seversk, just less successful. Truth be told, Wagner has good infantry at the squad-platoon level. They can presumably, with recently gained assets (like IFVs, MBTs, and Arty) launch a btln-level op successfully. However they're strategically impotent. Hence their stubborn, persistent, and relatively (emphasis relatively) success full campaign around Artemovsk/Bakhmut. Note their focus on attrition for Ukrainian forces, rather then any real strategic effort to gain ground or win the war. Their advances are all opportunistic.
All good. Russia is purported to be spending 30% of government spending on defence/security/law, or about 6.9% of GDP (all spending including companies and consumers) based on 2021 Nominal
In hindsight, do you think Russia should have conducted this war back in 2014? It seems like they would have a better shot of winning if they striked in 2014 when Ukraine was weaker. The 2014 war allowed Ukraine time to regroup and prepare for the next war.
I think Russia shouldn't have struck at all. I think Russia should have continued to invest in internal development, while draining Ukraine's population by being an attractive destination for work migrants. Annexing Crimea makes some political and geo-strategic sense. But even that was a very costly move. Anything more and the cost is prohibitive. The cost of annexing Crimea is probably 100+ bln USD to Russia. And that's one area, with a very friendly population of 2.2 mln. Annexing Lugansk and Donetsk regions would easily cost double to triple that, even if Russia had moved in '14. Add Kharkov? It would cost even more. Kherson and Zaporozhye are non-starters.