Are you implying Ukraine is a proxy? If so, whose, and by what definition of proxy?
Yes, absolutely, Ukraine is a proxy. And here by proxy I mean someone (or something, ie some outside entity) who/that will absorb an absolute majority, like virtually 100%, of retaliation (death and destruction) to our escalation (so it is our proxy, by definition). In the current arrangement, we are home free, for the most part. That is, until Russia finds a way to keep the status quo in this arrangement while inflicting more physical damage to us directly. Or, alternatively, if we escalate further. It also looks like there is some confusion here in regard to escalation in general, but later on that (maybe).
In other words, we have way more freedom of scope of actions and number of options before we cross the line (call it moving goal posts). The tricky part is we don’t know where that line actually is. Russia’s choices are much more limited because our red line it doesn’t want to cross is fairly well or at least better defined (at least in perception), so it can mostly retaliate or escalate by hurting Ukraine more than it already does and their options here are still plentiful. Their main problem is that it has no effect on us and does not limit us in any way, the aforementioned red line aside, as long as Ukraine itself finds that degree of hurt acceptable. Thus, in this current arrangement we can cause significant damage to Russian forces, infrastructure, civilian and military, etc, while Russia cannot return the favour. It follows, that Ukraine is a proxy at war, one that Russia does not have. Supposedly, we are not at war with Russia, but Ukraine is and vice versa.
The more interesting part is how we got here, to this arrangement. The answer is commitment. Yes, something I talked about numerous times (ad nauseam?). I talked plenty about our side, but only briefly about the Russian behaviour. There is no epic revelations here though, but a simple and natural process. To begin, their signalling from the very beginning was extremely weak and wrong. All that nonsense from Putin about “stuff you have never seen before” or whatever he said… Ok, I will actually pull it up…
No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.
The Kremlin website refuses to load, so I used AI to pull that out (the original text is here, dated Feb 24, 2022:
https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843)
He started from the top of the top of the top top (laughing). That was… at the very least irrational. I mean it was, perhaps, aligned with his (and most parties’ involved) expectations, so it was not completely retarted. That was probably just an indication of a lack of plan B more than anything else though. The problem (and a huge one), however, is that he “committed” to something he had no intention of implementing from the start. Sure, “threats for our country” is very vague (and it still holds true, actually), but words matter and so does perception, and, more importantly, consistency. Once the supply of anti-tank and other (“minor”) weapons began pretty much immediately, Putin was done. He lost all credibility (“tries to stand in our way” followed by “consequences […] you have never seen in your entire history”). At the same time, Russia committed to or accepted the normality of external military aid to Ukraine. That was a bug mistake on their part. The response should have been then and clear. While I have ideas, I am not going to go over what and how (it also doesn’t matter now), but surely it was possible to reinstate credibility via commitment and consistency and show that you mean business. Yet again, the expectations were probably different and the actions were not completely unreasonable (a question mark here).
Since the latter didn't happen, the rest is history. Russia accepted every next step as part of progression of the war they initiated. Occasional (often unreasonable) threats (though from unofficial sources) while committing to acceptance and lack of credibility to begin with is not how things work in the real world. Now the problem here is that we do not know what the red line actually is. Does Russia? There is enough ambiguity here that some genuinely believe (or appear to do so) that the line does not exist at all. This is a huge mistake as well.
At the very least, we know with a fair degree of certainty that they are ready to use nuclear weapons if a strong possibility of a (military) defeat exists. Remember the 50/50 stuff in the fall of 2023, for example? Needless to say, things change and as the general progression goes, one who commits to a bunch of smaller, incremental things, he is much more likely to commit to something bigger. Also needless to say, I do not believe that a defeat is on the table among those things they would commit to. I had already outlined my view on how that works out.
What works for them now is that they have been consistent after the initial mistakes were made, mistakes that changed everything. The official statements are levelled and consistent. I am not referring to some “we liberated X village/town” because that has no relevance (unless the end result will be freezing the front at the line of contact). Anyway, a bit of deviation. But hope the meaning of a proxy in this context is clear.
