Harlan Ullman<\/p>\n
The expectation is that Russian forces will be so badly bloodied that at some stage that war will end to Ukraine\u2019s advantage<\/p>\n
The conflict in Ukraine is, by any definition, a \u201cproxy war.\u201d But it is being fought entirely differently by the US, the West and Russia. The US and the West are waging a traditional proxy war that FDR used to aid Great Britain persevere against Nazi Germany prior to Pearl Harbor and the CIA in Afghanistan after the 1979 Soviet invasion. Ultimately, the Afghan Mujahedin were able to force the Soviets to withdraw using the weaponry supplied by the US, particularly Stinger Missiles.
\nUkraine is being supplied with the military wherewithal and support to defend itself against Russia. Whether enough weaponry to eject Russia from all the occupied territories will be provided is unclear. The expectation is that Russian forces will be so badly bloodied that at some stage that war will end to Ukraine\u2019s advantage. But expectations are not always met.
\nRussia is waging a broader \u201cproxy war\u201d against the West using Ukraine as the \u201cproxy\u201d in essence repeating the US attempt in Vietnam by direct military intervention into Ukraine. In the mid-1960\u2019s, Vietnam became a vital American interest in stopping the spread of \u201cGodless, monolithic communism,\u201d as Lyndon Johnson argued, on \u201cthe Mekong and not the Mississippi.\u201d The US intervened with half a million troops while also trying to build an indigenous army. Both failed.
\nPresident Vladimir Putin has not declared war calling the invasion a \u201cspecial military operation.\u201d Believing that the danger posed by Western engagement in Ukraine is potentially as existential to Russia as LBJ thought Vietnam was to America, Putin concluded that it could only be resolved by military force. Further, Putin has drawn an ambiguous \u201cred line\u201d with the West threatening to use \u201call available means.\u201d
\nWith the exception of the brief US-Mexican War (1846-48) and, after Pearl Harbor, Japan\u2019s occupation of two tiny Aleutian Islands in 1942, unlike Russia, America\u2019s external wars after the revolution were all fought off shore. September 11th was the next time the US was seriously attacked at home. For the Russians and Soviets, virtually all wars, proxy or not, were waged on or inside its borders, most recently in Afghanistan and Ukraine.
\nProxy wars such as the Spanish Civil War pitting Nazi Germany agains the USSR have often been enabled by so-called Merchants of Death. Greek born Basil Zaharoff was the most notorious. Zaharoff made fortunes selling arms to all sides before, during and after World War I; was granted an honorary knighthood by the crown; and whose life made James Bond seem like a second rate spy.
\nUkraine is no exception. About Merchants of Death, Russia is supported by and dependent on two: Evgeny Prigozhin and his Wagner Group and Chechen strong man Ramzan Kadyrov. While not a death merchant, in the 21st century digital age, Elon Musk, the world\u2019s richest man and owner of Space-X, controls Ukraine\u2019s ability to wage war. Ukraine is entirely dependent on Musk\u2019s satellite Starlink for military communications and command and control.
\nWhile Zaharoff sold submarines, warships and machine guns, other competitors always existed. This does not apply to Starlink. Suppose Putin persuaded Musk to deny Ukraine Starlink services in exchange for a negotiated end of the war. For the US, is this a viable and defensible situation when a civilian can control Ukraine\u2019s future on the battlefield? And is this a possible violation of the Logan Act preventing private citizens from conducting foreign policy?
\nWhich variant of proxy war will prevail? The Afghan case worked thirty years ago. Is it still viable today?
\nPutin is emulating the Vietnam example. But if this is indeed a wider war being waged against the West, what is Putin\u2019s strategy? How far will Putin go given the poor performance of his army and improving that performance may not be possible for the foreseeable future? As LBJ was limited in escalating in Vietnam, will the same constraints affect Putin?
\nLosing the Vietnam War had no strategic consequences for America. Afghanistan, it can be argued, began the unraveling of the USSR. What geostrategic consequences success or failure in Ukraine will hold are far from clear. However, dire scenarios are plausible. Given the history of proxy wars, direct military intervention has proven the most costly. Will that repeat for Putin and Russia?
\nAn equally perplexing question is the role of the Merchants of Death. Prigozhin and Kadyrov are latter day Zaharoff\u2019s. But what influence does each have on Putin? By bringing an entirely new dimension to proxy war yet to be explored, Musk could prove the more problematic and more potentially dangerous.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Harlan Ullman The expectation is that Russian forces will be so badly bloodied that at some stage that war will end to Ukraine\u2019s advantage The conflict in Ukraine is, by any definition, a \u201cproxy war.\u201d But it is being fought entirely differently by the US, the West and Russia. The US and the West are […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[1083,1915,11227],"class_list":{"0":"post-291384","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-death","8":"tag-harlan-ullman","9":"tag-proxy-wars"},"yoast_head":"\n