It is a good start, but in the last 50 years, Russia has started maybe 1 or 2 wars at most, arguably. Can you even count the U.S. wars? I mean, I really wish U.S did start to imitate Russia more.
Ukraine, Georgia, Afghanistan, Chechnya. These are clear-cut with Russia as the driving aggressor. All the other 20 or so in eg. Mali and Dagestan might be less so, but should probably also be counted.
By that logic the US independence war (1775-1783) was not a ”war” either because the colonies were part of England. Neither were the war of 1861-1865 between the northern and southern states. Can’t be at war with yourself?
Not really (unless it was at least recently a different country), I wouldn't call what ETA or IRA were doing a war, Google calls it (separatist) campaign and I tend to agree, though first words which came to my mind were separatist movements and terrorism (though I can see their reasoning).
With Palestine vs Israel I would tend to call it a war since Palestine's own country was taken and it is occupied by different artifically created country, so I would say it is two countries at war.
US invaded by proxy through arming and supporting Islamists to destabilise a fairly legitimate government because it was aligned with Russia.
Think if Russia today arms an anti-democracy militia in Canada in order to destabilise USA. Any subsequent invasion of Canada by US would be a natural order of power play.
"Invaded by proxy" is not actually a thing. You're trying to make arming an insurgency sound equivalent to a full-on invasion, and they are not equivalent.
The US did not arm the Islamists in order to destabilize Russia, just a Russian client. In response, Russia invaded and removed the client government - the very government that the Islamists were trying to remove.
If Russia today armed an anti-democracy militia in Canada, would the US invade Canada? No (at least, any previous administration would not). We would share intel, help cut off the flow of arms, maybe even do a joint operation against the militia. But conquer Canada? Why would we do that?
So your analogy is as flawed as your moral equivalence.
"Invasion by proxy" is very much a thing. And I am not trying to make it sound like equivalent to a full-on invasion, like the one the US did later on, but it is a thing the same way "being in a proxy war" is a thing, and of course, that is not the same as being "full-on at war".
Insisting on dichotomy between attempting to destabilise a union or one of it's bordering states, a client/satellite state is clutching at the straws.
You overlook categorical differences where it matters and then makeup binary lines for nuanced and things that happen on a spectrum like destabilisation where it is convenient for you. That is lazy at best, or dishonest at worst.
> But conquer Canada? Why would we do that?
You seem to have no idea about US is conduct with it's allies throughout history where it comes to her interests priority. Henry Kissinger didn't say "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." because he felt like it. It is a reflection of US's modus operandi. Liberia, Panama, Argentine Junta, Iraq, Iran, Iraqi Kurds of 70s, Peshmarga of 2020s, Nicaragua in 80s, endless examples.
The problem is not with the analogy, it is your lack of understanding of US's modus operandi and her historical conduct.
I'd argue the US only got dragged into lots of conflicts because of its role as de-facto global hegemon.
A lot of wars it did not really start; if you blame the US for Vietnam (instead of the french), you also have to count South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transistria and Chechnya 1 & 2 on the Russian side.
The industrialized nations that actually did laudably little warmongering in the last half centuries are (somewhat ironically) the core WW2-axis powers: Italy, Austria, Germany, Japan; despite having plenty of "opportunities" to start something (e.g. over Königsberg/Silesia, Dalmatia, Kuril islands, ...)
> you blame the US for Vietnam (instead of the french)
I'm all for saying french caused a lot of death and destruction, but the Vietnam war was clearly created by the US during the 1954 Geneva Conference. Also, US-British involvement in France politics during the Indochina war (under Truman: Roosevelt didn't had to deal with Dixiecrats and give racist idiots a new enemy) probably made the 'sale guerre' last way longer that it had to.
My view is that France tried to hold on to Indochina unjustifiably for almost a decade after WW2.
So they get the blame because the US could have hardly escalated a proxy war without proxies.
Not saying America is blameless though, but I do blame France for setting the whole thing up basically (split Vietnam), and for all the wrong reasons, too.
You ought to remember that 40% of french voted communist in 48. Without heavy involvement of CIA and MI6 to curb the movements (including assassinations), the sentiment would probably have grow, which would have stopped the war (also, now that I think about it, it also means that the soviet are even biggest culprits on this as they did kill more french leftist in 5 years than everyone else combined). The more centrist government also would have tried to get out by 49 without the heavy British investment, and later USA support. And during the peace deal in 54, the milk toast also known as Mendes France accepted a first peace deal that the US then refused, and the division of Vietnam was probably US decision too.
Not counting China (and South Korea) because they joined the "industrialized" club much later than the rest, but so far it is looking good, and I'm somewhat hopeful because their demographics make war an increasingly risky proposition.
Can we stop with this already? American oligarchs are perfectly able to destroy the country on their own. And they've been very transparent about their intentions to do so for a long time.
Both can be true. Trump and family do have very deep Russian connections in terms of financing. That's very true. His own sons have admitted it. Trump has said he loves Russian banks.
American oligarchs are also schmoozing trump, clearly, because he's an easy mark.
I was already thinking how the Iran situation is to the USA what Ukraine is to Russia.
Manly men (in their own heads at least) try to use testosterone to remove the thorn in their side, find things out the hard way. But although the finding out period is expensive, other people pay for it, so they are very slow learners.
Russia is trying to occupy land using ground troops and failing. Right tool for the job, but the tool is rotten.
The US is trying to enact strategic change by (competent) airpower, which in 100 years of airpower has never worked. No matter how potent that tool, it is the wrong one for the job.
The dynamic is completely different though. Russian has a culture and acceptance of sacrifice, sometimes in huge number. America is far more transactional and has increasingly treated sacrifice as unacceptable or even contemptable. There is an element of machismo in the way that the politicians talk and behave, but more in terms of executing on a transaction. But in general both sets of leadership are very protected from consequences of war (very unlikely to suffer violence to themselves or their family) so it must all be a bit abstract.
Not that Trump would have an ounce of good intentions but those wars are quite different in important ways:
- The greatest enemy of Iranian regime are the Iranian people. They want to get rid of that government. Unlike the Ukrainians. Thousands of Iranian protesters were gunned down by their own government in December/January.
- Iran is not "winning" by holding the line in conventional warfare (like Ukraine). They would not stand a chance. They're winning because they're pain tolerance for collateral damage is higher than the US tolerance for high oil prices.
- Ukraine was attacked completely unprovoked, while Iran is a terror state and the single biggest reason for instability in the middle east.
Broadly agree; while I don't see these as important to the kinds of similarity, the things I am focusing on are essentially arbitrary.
> - Iran is not "winning" by holding the line in conventional warfare (like Ukraine). They would not stand a chance. They're winning because they're pain tolerance for collateral damage is higher than the US tolerance for high oil prices.
I'd push back a bit on that. I agree the Iranian government is extremely pain tolerant; my understanding is that the terrain and strategic considerations mean an actual invasion would take around 1/3 to 1/2 of the current US army, marines, and airforce, 1/5 to 1/3 of the navy, for 6-12 months.
This is the other half of the pain tolerance question: the US, isn't. Despite the bombast of the Executive.
This is a western take on the situation. Another take would be that the US/Israel are the largest force for destabilization in the middle east (see also Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Iran itself from 1953-onward).
> They would not stand a chance
The west would absolutely lose a ground war in Iran. Iran has been preparing for an invasion for 50 years, the terrain isn't like other countries in the region and is incredibly hostile to a ground invasion, and the IRGC will fight to the bloody end (see also the Iran-Iraq war).
Military Ops, Armed Conflict, Defensive strikes, Global war on terror, counter terrorism ops to name a few. These are the labels given to recent conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam wars.
"US officials also acknowledged that they had initially provided inaccurate information, and that her husband's last pay cheque had included – but incorrectly itemised – "combat pay", which amounts to $225 a month, and was not conditioned on a formal war declaration"
Given how many times Trump declared the war a victory, I'm also curious to know if they declare it a war, how many time the families will be compensated? ten wars? a hundred wars? two wars and a a hundred rounds of ceasefire friendly matches?
Wait a second...Trump, Hegseth, and various Republican lawmakers have repeatedly said that Iran started a war with the US 47 years ago and that he is going to finish it.
Trump also called it a war in his Truth Social video announcing the attacks in February [1]:
> My administration is taking every possible step to minimize the risk to U.S. personnel in the region. Even so, and I do not make this statement lightly, the Iranian regime seeks to kill. The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future. And it is a noble mission.
He was still calling it a war 4 days ago in other Truth Social posts, such as [2] [3] [4]:
> The people and Media Outlets that keep harping on the fact that we have no ammunition (And they are 100% wrong!), are actually treasonous. They do it because they would rather see the United States LOSE a War that we’re easily WINNING, than see me WIN! [...]
> For the treasonous SCUM that refuses to accurately report on our Military Operation in Iran, we have virtually unlimited amounts of Mid to High Grade Ammunition, far more than we could ever use for this, or for any other War. [...]
To be fair, there were also times he did not call it a war. For example from March [5]:
> “I won’t use the word ‘war’ because they say if you use the word ‘war,’ that’s maybe not a good thing to do,” Trump told the crowd of GOP lawmakers at Union Station in Washington, D.C. “They don’t like the word ‘war’ because you’re supposed to get approval. So, I’ll use the word ‘military operation,’ which is really what it is. It’s a military decimation.”
If Republicans didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all. The lie is part of the appeal to Republicans. He's telling them what they want to hear not matter how irrational. Listen long enough, you can probably find something you agree with. Just hold on tightly to that one thing while ignoring everything else and you too can be part of the cult.
reply