What is a Proxy War?

[User]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

So if you had to choose right now, do you want the war to escalate or to end? Because it seems like you're really eager for expansion right now.  

I am not sure what absurd way you are using the word escalate here. 

You fully support and defend Russia escalating this to a full scale war. You continue to support their continued escalations in taking more of Ukraine and killing more Ukrainians. 

The only way you seem to frown on that word is if Ukraine defends itself against the very Russian escalation you support. 

If you are against expansion, then you should be against Russia moving one more inch into Ukraine. 

[Five of swords]

57 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Right, but there were 2 "reichs" before it. They considered their new empire to be a 3rd edition of the Holy Roman Empire/Carolingian Empire. A "3rd Reich". 

Hitler absolutely wanted to rule over all of Europe. It was just a matter of gathering it all in bite-sized pieces. 

Eliminating the French army was a step, which they completed, but completely ruling over all of the French people was another step, which was left to be accomplished later on. 

Is that what 3 means?

 

There is zero evidence Hitler wanted to rule Europe. In fact you can easily prove he didn't. After conquering france, he didn't even absorb it. He just set up Vichy france. That is exactly what I said and you are talking in circles now.

[NAME REMOVED]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Right, but there were 2 "reichs" before it. They considered their new empire to be a 3rd edition of the Holy Roman Empire/Carolingian Empire. A "3rd Reich". 

Hitler absolutely wanted to rule over all of Europe. It was just a matter of gathering it all in bite-sized pieces. 

Eliminating the French army was a step, which they completed, but completely ruling over all of the French people was another step, which was left to be accomplished later on. 

This is not necessarily true.

Hitler wanted Lebensbrun, or "living space" for the German people. Hitler was focused on conquering Eastern Europe. He wanted to reclaim the lost areas of Germany that were given to Poland, during the treaty of Versailles in 1919, so he invaded Poland. He also wanted to conquer the Soviet Union. To allow himself time,, he signed the Von Ribbentrop-Molotov non-aggression pact with the Soviets, shortly before invading Poland, dividing up the country after the conquest. The Germans never had any intent to honour the non-aggression pact. This was done to give Germany enough time to prepare for total war with Russia.

Hitler initially did not want war in Western Europe. He even reached out to Great Britain, who he considered "Aryan brothers," but the British rejected the overture. Once the UK and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, Hitler had a change of heart, and conquered Norway, for strategic purposes for the naval battle against the UK. He then conqueror Holland and Belgium to give him strategic advantages in the battle with France. 

Hitler was focused in his racial policies, driving out the Jews and Slavic peoples in Eastern Europe. 

 

[Five of swords]

15 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This is not necessarily true.

Hitler wanted Lebensbrun, or "living space" for the German people. Hitler was focused on conquering Eastern Europe. He wanted to reclaim the lost areas of Germany that were given to Poland, during the treaty of Versailles in 1919, so he invaded Poland. He also wanted to conquer the Soviet Union. To allow himself time,, he signed the Von Ribbentrop-Molotov non-aggression pact with the Soviets, shortly before invading Poland, dividing up the country after the conquest. The Germans never had any intent to honour the non-aggression pact. This was done to give Germany enough time to prepare for total war with Russia.

Hitler initially did not want war in Western Europe. He even reached out to Great Britain, who he considered "Aryan brothers," but the British rejected the overture. Once the UK and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, Hitler had a change of heart, and conquered Norway, for strategic purposes for the naval battle against the UK. He then conqueror Holland and Belgium to give him strategic advantages in the battle with France. 

Hitler was focused in his racial policies, driving out the Jews and Slavic peoples in Eastern Europe. 

 

He wanted Ukraine simply because they had farmland and oil which Germany desperately needed as a resource. His plan to 'germanize' Ukraine was via a long period of mass migration...similar to how the western world is currently becoming the 3rd world. His only interest was Ukraine and it was only because of those specific resources.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Why did they take in the first place then? Just to kill people and flatten cities?

I think maybe you read my reply wrong. I agreed with you, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to hold on to their territory that they've taken.

Quote

They already took it. 

Well no they haven't. Currently they hold it. That doesn't mean they can hold it moving forward.

In exchange for being able to keep it permanently they may be willing to give some of it up.

Quote

Militarily Ukraine is even worse off, so how could they win it back? With a long-range bombing campaign? 

Ukraine is indeed nearly exhausted but so was Russia. And it's even money who's going to reach the absolute end of their rope first.

And the Russian people are already starting to seriously complain about the new taxes, the damage to the economy, and the fact that a hell of a lot of their kids are coming home missing limbs or dead.

If you crane also starts hitting oil refineries, electrical facilities, key bridges, things that they've avoided attacking so far but may very well be able to soon with any equipment then that puts even more pressure on the public

There are a lot of reasons why it may turn out to be worthwhile for Putin to save face and retain something rather than risk continuing and losing even more

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, User said:

I am not sure what absurd way you are using the word escalate here. 

You fully support and defend Russia escalating this to a full scale war. You continue to support their continued escalations in taking more of Ukraine and killing more Ukrainians. 

The only way you seem to frown on that word is if Ukraine defends itself against the very Russian escalation you support. 

If you are against expansion, then you should be against Russia moving one more inch into Ukraine. 

I was against the war starting, but Ukraine wouldn't relent and here we are. 

If you can't even acknowledge that "bringing in NATO" has some kind of a negative effect on Russia then what's the point of even talking to you about this? 

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Is that what 3 means?

 

There is zero evidence Hitler wanted to rule Europe. In fact you can easily prove he didn't. After conquering france, he didn't even absorb it. He just set up Vichy france. That is exactly what I said and you are talking in circles now.

It's what the 3 means in "3rd Reich", if that's what you're asking. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I think maybe you read my reply wrong. I agreed with you, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to hold on to their territory that they've taken.

👍

Quote

Well no they haven't. Currently they hold it. That doesn't mean they can hold it moving forward.

In exchange for being able to keep it permanently they may be willing to give some of it up.

It's possible, but part of Putin's war propaganda is "Ethnic Russians in the Donbas were being targeted for war crimes". 

It's kind of hard to say "Back you go now" to the people who survived the alleged war crimes and very real war.

Quote

Ukraine is indeed nearly exhausted but so was Russia. And it's even money who's going to reach the absolute end of their rope first.

IMO there's no way that Ukraine can push Russia that far back. If it was possible, why stop there? 

[User]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I was against the war starting, but Ukraine wouldn't relent and here we are. 

If you can't even acknowledge that "bringing in NATO" has some kind of a negative effect on Russia then what's the point of even talking to you about this? 

So... you did support this war. 

Some kind of negative effect? How about you be more specific about what exactly it was that deserved the war you support. 

Warmonger. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's possible, but part of Putin's war propaganda is "Ethnic Russians in the Donbas were being targeted for war crimes". 

Sure, and that may very well be a negotiating point. But there is a fair bit of land that's been seized outside of the don bass itself.

I would imagine the discussions will be fairly spirited  

 

 

Quote

IMO there's no way that Ukraine can push Russia that far back. If it was possible, why stop there? 

Well I would point out there already in Russian territory right now. If the front weakens and collapses you could see a rout That drives russia back quite a ways and may very well force them to abandon much of what they have gained. We reading the war reports and looking at their current combat situation their hold is somewhat tenuous, if Ukraine had any significant force still left right now I think the Russians would be very hard pressed to hold on to what they've got. So if that situation changed it all or if the Russians became spread too thin and their line was pierced they could risk losing their gains while at the same time not recovering the territory that the ukrainians are in right now.

It could go either way. I mean the ukrainians could collapse and Russia ould move forward But honestly that's fairly unlikely. The Russians appear to be at the end of their rope and don't have the wherewithal to aggressively pursue further deep conquests. Meanwhile the ukrainians are bleeding the Russians dry but they don't seem to have the wherewithal to be able to turn that into a drive forward into the occupied areas

It's that uncertainty and the fact that both are coming to the end of the rope that is going to make it possible to negotiate and try and come up with a reasonable compromise that makes everybody equally unhappy.

[Five of swords]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I was against the war starting, but Ukraine wouldn't relent and here we are. 

If you can't even acknowledge that "bringing in NATO" has some kind of a negative effect on Russia then what's the point of even talking to you about this? 

It's what the 3 means in "3rd Reich", if that's what you're asking. 

All I would really ask is why you are being retarded. You literally tried to pretend that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe because...the number 3. That was a very dumb argument.

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, User said:

So... you did support this war. 

I 100.00% support the war against Ukraine. I think we established that a long time ago. 

If the Ukrainians (and Americans) weren't dicks, then there wouldn't be a war. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that's not the case just because I live in a NATO country.

Do you think that all Germans supported the Nazis in all of their various endeavours? Did all Canadians support the reasoning behind being involved in the Boer War?

If we go to war against Russia I will hope for our side to "win", and for the planet to survive, but we are the a-holes in that argument right now.

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Five of swords said:

All I would really ask is why you are being retarded. You literally tried to pretend that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe because...the number 3. That was a very dumb argument.

OMG you're stupid. 

You said that "the Germans didn't want to control France".

I said "But they called it the 3rd Reich, and France wasn't left out of the first "Reich"."

Sure, that word is anachronistic, because the other empires weren't called "Reichs" at the time that they existed, but the "3rd Reich" basically means the 3rd European Empire. 

I never said that "Hitler started WWII because he liked the number 3", f-tard.

Edited November 14, 2024 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well I would point out there already in Russian territory right now. If the front weakens and collapses you could see a rout That drives russia back quite a ways and may very well force them to abandon much of what they have gained.

They're in a sliver of Russian territory, but the Ukrainian army is in dire straits, and Russians hold almost 20% of Ukraine. 

Quote

We reading the war reports and looking at their current combat situation their hold is somewhat tenuous, if Ukraine had any significant force still left right now I think the Russians would be very hard pressed to hold on to what they've got.

Don't take this personally, but every "war report" that we've ever seen had the Ukrainians winning, Russians suffering heavier losses than they can maintain, etc, but the battle lines keep pushing further and further west somehow. 

If the war reports were even moderately accurate then Zelenski's boots would be on Putin's desk by now. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Five of swords]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG you're stupid. 

You said that "the Germans didn't want to control France".

I said "But they called it the 3rd Reich, and France wasn't left out of the first "Reich"." Sure, that word is anachronistic, because the other empires weren't called "Reichs" at the time that they existed, but the "3rd Reich" basically means the 3rd European Empire. 

I never said that "Hitler started WWII because he liked the number 3", f-tard.

Considering your 'point' is totally irrelevant and implies nothing, it might as well be correct. If you are going to be irrelevant then at least you can be correct.

 

But you aren't even correct. The first Reich referred to thr holy Roman empire as defined by otto I. France was not even included in the first Reich. Even if it wasn't that wouldn't imply the third Reich should include it, of course, so it doesn't matter.  But you aren't even correct about what the first Reich was lol

Edited November 14, 2024 by Five of swords

[Aristides]

21 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Is that what 3 means?

 

There is zero evidence Hitler wanted to rule Europe. In fact you can easily prove he didn't. After conquering france, he didn't even absorb it. He just set up Vichy france. That is exactly what I said and you are talking in circles now.

There is plenty of evidence and Hitler laid it out with a whole chapter of  Mein Kampf dedicated to Lebensraum.

Vichy France was a puppet state that covered only a third of France. In 1942 the Germans ended the farce and occupied the whole country. They forced French police to round up Jews and kept 2 million French POW's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_prisoners_of_war_in_World_War_II

Edited November 14, 2024 by Aristides

[WestCanMan]

15 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Considering your 'point' is totally irrelevant and implies nothing, it might as well be correct. If you are going to be irrelevant then at least you can be correct.

 

But you aren't even correct. The first Reich referred to thr holy Roman empire as defined by otto I. France was not even included in the first Reich. Even if it wasn't that wouldn't imply the third Reich should include it, of course, so it doesn't matter.  But you aren't even correct about what the first Reich was lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_dynasty#:~:text=The Carolingian dynasty (%2F ˌkærəˈlɪndʒiən %2F KARR-ə-LIN-jee-ən%3B known,Pippinid clans of the 7th century AD.

Where's France on that map? 

Edit... this map: https://worldinmaps.com/history/carolingian-empire/

Edited November 14, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Five of swords]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

There is plenty of evidence and Hitler laid it out with a whole chapter of  Mein Kampf dedicated to Lebensraum.

Vichy France was a puppet state that covered only a third of France. In 1942 the Germans ended the farce and occupied the whole country. They forced French police to round up Jews and kept 2 million French POW's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_prisoners_of_war_in_World_War_II

The germans had no interest in controlling France but duh, they had interest in trying to prevent the allies from landing in Europe from the Atlantic Ocean.

Hitler actually allowed people to have authority in Vichy France who had always been critical of hitler. Because he felt they would simply be better at administration of France. As long as France was not a threat to Germany he really did not care what they did. A 'puppet state' is unnecessary if you actually want to control a country.

In fact, duh, it is the very principles of the nsdap that they prefer not to have any german citizens. If germany absorbed France, then you will have non german citizens. That is the opposite of hitlers ideology...both stated and practiced.

 

Hitler also believed jews were a national security threat. You can try to insist he was wrong, but all of his actions were consistent with that belief.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Five of swords

[Aristides]

21 hours ago, Five of swords said:

He wanted Ukraine simply because they had farmland and oil which Germany desperately needed as a resource. His plan to 'germanize' Ukraine was via a long period of mass migration...similar to how the western world is currently becoming the 3rd world. His only interest was Ukraine and it was only because of those specific resources.

Alberta alone produces ten times as much oil per day than Ukraine. To make room for Germans under Lebensraum, he had to get rid of the locals.

[Five of swords]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_dynasty#:~:text=The Carolingian dynasty (%2F ˌkærəˈlɪndʒiən %2F KARR-ə-LIN-jee-ən%3B known,Pippinid clans of the 7th century AD.

Where's France on that map? 

Edit... this map: https://worldinmaps.com/history/carolingian-empire/

Like I said, otto 1. Who was over 100 years after Charlemagne. The first Reich was not defined as originating with charlemagne...it was under otto 1. 

[Five of swords]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Alberta alone produces ten times as much oil per day than Ukraine. To make room for Germans under Lebensraum, he had to get rid of the locals.

Ukraine has a lot more oil than Germany, and it would be difficult for Germany to occupy and populate Alberta. This is pretty obvious. Also, oil reserves of Alberta increased dramatically under fracking technology of the 2000s, which didn't exist in 1930

Edited November 14, 2024 by Five of swords

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

The germans had no interest in controlling France but duh, they had interest in trying to prevent the allies from landing in Europe from the Atlantic Ocean.

Hitler actually allowed people to have authority in Vichy France who had always been critical of hitler. Because he felt they would simply be better at administration of France. As long as France was not a threat to Germany he really did not care what they did. A 'puppet state' is unnecessary if you actually want to control a country.

In fact, duh, it is the very principles of the nsdap that they prefer not to have any german citizens. If germany absorbed France, then you will have non german citizens. That is the opposite of hitlers ideology...nothing stated and practiced.

 

Hitler also believed jews were a national security threat. You can try to insist he was wrong, but all of his actions were consistent with that belief.

Vichy France didn't border the Atlantic, Germany occupied the whole coast from 1940.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Five of swords said:

Ukraine has a lot more oil than Germany, and it would be difficult for Germany to occupy and populate Alberta. This is pretty obvious. Also, oil reserves of Alberta increased dramatically under fracking technology of the 2000s, which didn't exist in 1930

The real oil production was in the Caucasus and Ukraine was in the way. I'm sure Ukraine knows all about fracking and they still only produce 1/10th the oil.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

They're in a sliver of Russian territory, but the Ukrainian army is in dire straits, and Russians hold almost 20% of Ukraine. 

I doubt very much Russia will be interested in giving up that sliver that they control given its strategic value.

And again, putin may very well feel that having a reduced amount of holdings guaranteed with perhaps some sort of agreement on the military future of Ukraine might be a bigger advantage. That might be much better than having Ukraine and other countries not recognize his legal right to those territories, not getting all of the embargoes and such lifted, and not having any say about the military aid that the various allied countries pour into Ukraine. It would have to watch his back and maintain significant troops in that area moving forward and that was seriously hamper their ability to respond in other places in the world.

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Don't take this personally, but every "war report" that we've ever seen had the Ukrainians winning, Russians suffering heavier losses than they can maintain, etc, but the battle lines keep pushing further and further west somehow. 

If the war reports were even moderately accurate then Zelenski's boots would be on Putin's desk by now. 

I don't take it personally, I know what you're saying. Even if the reports are accurate we rarely hear about how badly the ukrainian army is doing and get only tiny glimpses. So, grain of salt and all of that.

But I do know that Russia has had a couple rounds of mobilization. And it seems to be legitimate that the Kremlin is not interested in doing any more which means that he suffered enough casualties to essentially be running out of men. His use of North Koreans would seem to support that as well, obviously that's not a desirable circumstance.

There's no doubt that they're advancing very very slowly, but it's also obvious they're taking extremely punishing losses. And given their rate of advance they will be many many years before they actually take over Ukraine there's nothing changes even if they do have enough men and material, which seems Highly Questionable.

So again it comes back to what I was saying, both sides appear to be very close to collapse. It feels like Russia is trying to grab as much terrain as it can right now, probably in anticipation of a ceasefire being called at some point when trump gets on which then every inch of ground becomes a bargaining chip, or possibly hoping that if they continue to pressure ukraine's defensive lines will collapse although that doesn't seem very likely in the near term .

On the flip side ukraine has to realize that while they might wind up getting some troops from somewhere or something it's very unlikely that they're going to take all of their land back. If the Russians get spread too thin they could pierce the line at some point and take back a significant portion but it's completely wishful thinking to believe that they can drive Russia completely out of Ukraine.

So basically it's a war of attrition at this point. Are those wars tend to end with a negotiated settlement and historically they tend to end with any side holding their opponent's land giving up at least a significant portion of it, although not always.

And because land is not the only factor that will be negotiated on it's unlikely that Russia will wind up holding everything that they've taken. So then the question becomes how much will they have to give back, what are the terms under which they're allowed to keep what they keep, and what happens with Ukraine and its military moving forward.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

37 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Like I said, otto 1. Who was over 100 years after Charlemagne. The first Reich was not defined as originating with charlemagne...it was under otto 1. 

Who cares? France was part of what we know as the "Holy Roman Empire" scenario for more than a few decades. 

It's not even a crucial detail of the whole "3rd Reich" plan TBH. Hitler was basically harkening back to a time when there was one guy ruling over all that territory, which did include France for a long time, to normalize the idea of having one big happy empire again. His point is "what was normal before could be normal again". For 1,000 years. I.e., there was a 1st Reich, and a 2nd Reich, so it stands to reason that there could be a 3rd Reich. And the concept of France being part of a 3rd Reich wouldn't be completely unsupported in history, contrary to your odd assertion that Hitler would never want to hold France in his empire. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I doubt very much Russia will be interested in giving up that sliver that they control given its strategic value.

Do you mean "Ukraine won't be interested in giving up their sliver of Russian territory"?

Quote

And again, putin may very well feel that having a reduced amount of holdings guaranteed with perhaps some sort of agreement on the military future of Ukraine might be a bigger advantage. That might be much better than having Ukraine and other countries not recognize his legal right to those territories, not getting all of the embargoes and such lifted, and not having any say about the military aid that the various allied countries pour into Ukraine. It would have to watch his back and maintain significant troops in that area moving forward and that was seriously hamper their ability to respond in other places in the world.

I can see Russia giving back some, but 80% is a ridiculous ask.

Knowing Trump this is layered in negotiating strategies; anchor the negotiations to the topic of Russia giving some land back, start with a ridiculous demand to end up at a conclusion that favours your own side, and also plant the seed in westerners - who are hostile towards Russia - that Ukraine could gain a lot of territory back from Russia bloodlessly, then dial it back towards reality.

I just don't see Putin giving up much at all. Ukraine is falling apart now, and 10K soldiers in nothing for NoKo. Their standing army was at 600,000 the last time I checked. 

Quote

I don't take it personally, I know what you're saying. Even if the reports are accurate we rarely hear about how badly the ukrainian army is doing and get only tiny glimpses. So, grain of salt and all of that.

But I do know that Russia has had a couple rounds of mobilization. And it seems to be legitimate that the Kremlin is not interested in doing any more which means that he suffered enough casualties to essentially be running out of men. His use of North Koreans would seem to support that as well, obviously that's not a desirable circumstance.

There's no doubt that they're advancing very very slowly, but it's also obvious they're taking extremely punishing losses. And given their rate of advance they will be many many years before they actually take over Ukraine there's nothing changes even if they do have enough men and material, which seems Highly Questionable.

So again it comes back to what I was saying, both sides appear to be very close to collapse. It feels like Russia is trying to grab as much terrain as it can right now, probably in anticipation of a ceasefire being called at some point when trump gets on which then every inch of ground becomes a bargaining chip, or possibly hoping that if they continue to pressure ukraine's defensive lines will collapse although that doesn't seem very likely in the near term .

On the flip side ukraine has to realize that while they might wind up getting some troops from somewhere or something it's very unlikely that they're going to take all of their land back. If the Russians get spread too thin they could pierce the line at some point and take back a significant portion but it's completely wishful thinking to believe that they can drive Russia completely out of Ukraine.

So basically it's a war of attrition at this point. Are those wars tend to end with a negotiated settlement and historically they tend to end with any side holding their opponent's land giving up at least a significant portion of it, although not always.

And because land is not the only factor that will be negotiated on it's unlikely that Russia will wind up holding everything that they've taken. So then the question becomes how much will they have to give back, what are the terms under which they're allowed to keep what they keep, and what happens with Ukraine and its military moving forward.

All I know for sure is that cities are flat, fields aren't being plowed, and that millions of people are dead or wounded. 

I'm so sick of all the new wars, I can't even imagine what people went through over here when WWII was going on and people had friends and family members over there.

I'm really hoping that Trump can get sh1t handled in Israel and Ukraine. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by WestCanMan