"MUH WESTERN PROXY WAR" AGAINST "MUH POOR LITTLE RUSSIA"

Also available on YouTube, Odysee, and BitChute

"Victim"

by Colin Liddell

Increasing evidence of actual war crimes by Putin's forces has not dimmed the support he receives from many on the Dissident Right. One reason for this is that they see -- or at least  present -- Putin as the victim of this war.

Yes, I know, it's insane! But how is it even possible to claim that, you ask. After all, wasn't it Putin who sent around 200,000 troops over the border back in February in an attempt to annex a country of over 50 million people?

It's actually quite simple for Putin shills to claim that Russia is the poor little victim here. You see, the war isn't a Kremlin invasion of the Ukraine, as it seems to the rest of us, it's actually what they call a "proxy war" by the West, using the Ukraine to "attack" Putin.

Yes, that's the hill they have chosen to die on, with the term "proxy war" being used to hide a multitude of sins, as it were.

Proxy wars are not new phenomena. There have been many throughout history. Wikipedia goes with the following definition: 

"A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities. In order for a conflict to be considered a proxy war, there must be a direct, long-term relationship between external actors and the belligerents involved. The aforementioned relationship usually takes the form of funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance which assist a belligerent party in sustaining its war effort."

Yes, Western assistance for the Ukraine has some characteristics of a proxy war -- "funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance" -- but there are also problems with regarding the war as a proxy war. The Russian state, you see, does not have a proxy in this war, because it is directly involved in the war itself. For a war to be a true proxy war, both sides need to have a proxy. Yes, you need at least four parties involved. 

The Vietnam War was initially a proxy war, with America (1)  backing the South Vietnamese government forces (2) against the Vietcong (3), who were backed by the Communist North Vietnamese (4) and the Russians (5). But over time it changed to a direct war of America against the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese, with around a million boots on the ground. In order to get out of it, the USA had to change it back to a proxy war, which its proxy then went on to lose in 1975 some years after the US forces pulled out.

Back to the present example. You might claim that Russia had a proxy in 2014, when parts of the Ukrainian Donbas were seized by so-called "Donbas separatists," but that was just the image of a proxy, as it was clear that there was little that was organic or authentic about those "separatists," most of whom were "Little Green Men" working directly for the Kremlin or were employed by the Kremlin-controlled Wagner mercenary group.

But at least the Kremlin State was trying to seem like it had a proxy. Earlier this year, however, Putin dispensed with proxies altogether, and straight out sent in most of the available Russian army, which then got a bloody nose around Kiev.

But even if we accept a definition of a proxy war that allows only three parties, with one side fighting directly (i.e. Russia) while the other side sits back (The West) and fights through a proxy (Ukraine), how does that help Russia's case? After all, Russia initiated the war, both in 2014 and 2022. All the West is doing is helping the victim. It is literally impossible to make the case that the West attacked Russia using the Ukraine as its proxy, simply because Putin's forces clearly did the attacking. 

The best that the Putin shills can come up with is to stretch the truth and claim that the proxy "attack" by the West actually involved "provoking" Putin into striking the first blow. In other words, they depict Putin as a dupe for Western tricks, as a dummy who merely walked into the West's Machiavellian trap.

If they really believed that, the sensible thing would be for them to advise Putin to immediately walk out of the trap, which would mean returning to the pre-war status quo. But, oddly enough, I never hear any of the Putin shills suggest that.

No, the case they make is this: "Putin is the totally innocent victim of Western aggression and he should keep the large chunk of the Ukraine that this violent attack on him placed in his hands." 

If you think you've heard this before, that's because you have. This is just the Alt-Right narrative that Poland somehow "caused" Germany to invade it in 1939, recast with new actors. 

Really, how stupid do these people think you are?

___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).