Proxy Wars and Existential Threat
Two words I hear on a regular bases are “proxy war.” Ukraine fighting a proxy war. Israel fighting a proxy war with Iran. Maybe Russia is a proxy of China now too. Proxy war actually now has a dictionary definition: “a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.”
Another phrase I’ve heard that relates to “proxy war” is “existential threat.” That also has a definition now: “an event that could cause human extinction or permanently and drastically curtail humanity’s existence or potential.” Is there any country an existential threat to the United States? Russia would not be an existential threat, as I see it, unless a country drove its leader to total desperation. Or, if another country could compel Russia to ally with China and maybe Iran into a more cohesive and powerful threat to the United States.
Who would want to escalate conflict between Ukraine and Russia toward a dangerous end? In a famous moment of the debate between Obama and Romney for the 2012 presidential election, Obama mocked Romney for his high estimation of Russia. He disparaged Romney for exaggerating a Russian threat, saying:
The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
Later in 2014, Obama then said:
Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. . . . Russian actions are a problem. They don’t pose the number one security threat to the United States. I remain much more concerned about the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.
Russia, Ukraine, and the United States
Obama stood by as Russia annexed Crimea, invaded Eastern Ukraine, and intervened in Syria. Why? Obama considered the machinations of Putin as a mere regional concern. Russia was of little threat threat to United States security. What changed? Two things and from two different perspectives.
Trump and Clinton
One, Trump won in 2016 against Hillary Clinton. Immediately upon that outcome, the Clinton campaign began a predetermined or preplanned Russian collusion hoax with cooperation from the outgoing Obama administration. They had already taken preemptive action on this strategy. With that commitment to Russia as the reason for Trump’s victory, Russia and Putin took on greater importance as an international power and villain. Suddenly Russia had the power to choose the United States president. I guess 1980 called and Obama and Clinton got their foreign policy back.
When Michael Flynn communicated with his Russian counterparts, it wasn’t the typical beginnings of diplomatic relations of a new administration. No, it was instead a secret conspiracy with Russia, negotiating its reward for handing Trump the election. One proof you heard at that time was that Trump in a speech asked Russia to find Hillary’s 30,000 emails that she deleted. According to the conspiracy theory, Trump was signaling Russia to fulfill their pact with one another. You can’t make this stuff up.
Democrat Party and Media Puppets
The Democrat Party and its media puppets had to keep this charade going. They took it to an incredible extent by impeaching Trump for a phone call, asking Ukrainian president Zelenskyy to look into Biden corruption at Burisma. The Democrat apparatus conformed every event into a particular narrative that required Russian criminality.
Russia remains China’s chief crude oil supplier. The false Russia narrative pushes Russia and China into a dangerous alliance along with Iran. Democrats talk like this occurred distinct from their narrative puppets.
A coalition of neocon establishment Republicans, invested in the defense industry, with establishment, elite Democrats accentuates the sham narrative. It protects the status quo for top corporations, banks, and investors, who prefer the reliability of conventional partnerships and woke culture.
Ukraine and NATO
Two, the Russians see the trajectory of next door neighbors joining the NATO alliance, threatening Russian security and national sovereignty. Russia says the West pledged no NATO expansion into the former Soviet bloc countries. The Ukraine especially has long historic ties with Russia and its joining NATO crosses a red line, comparable to the Monroe Doctrine of the Western Hemisphere and the United States. Soviets crossed a red line when they put missiles in Cuba.
Putin opposes influence of so-called Western democracy in neighboring countries, endangering Russian culture. This is like the concern of the British with Brexit. The left, as you might know, call it democracy. It isn’t democracy. They impose leftist “values.” If you don’t accept, you’re cancelled. Mitt Romney doesn’t care about that.
Supporters of funding a U.S. proxy war in Ukraine call the Ukraine a democracy. The present administration won’t stop an invasion at the southern border. Instead, it wants to stop the invasion on the Ukrainian border. Many traditional Russians do not trust the West. 70 to 80 percent of Russians support the war. Not Putin. Russians. Surely there is a woke faction there that opposes it, but they support it for the reasons I’m expressing here.
John Mearsheimer
International relations scholar, John Mearsheimer, has gone viral with articles and speeches blaming the War in Ukraine on the United States. His arguments are very persuasive and give massive evidence to back his assertions.
Trump would have kept good relations with Putin. The left and neocons would have mocked Trump, calling him a pro Putin puppet, to fit that narrative. He would have kept NATO expansion from Russia’s neighbors. When I say this wouldn’t happen under Trump, this is the explanation. Putin could believe Trump, because he saw Trump in action. If Trump had won, Russia would not have invaded, mainly because Trump had ejected a 1980 cold war policy with NATO.
More to Come
Why are you writing this stuff? You know nothing really about foreign affairs other than what is spoon-fed to you.
Interesting that you like Mearsheimer. I think he is probably more right than wrong. But, you accept what he says about Ukraine and discard what he says about Israel. Or maybe you don’t know what he says about Israel. You might check. And also, check what he says about Trump.
Why don’t you stick with theology and stay in your lane? People suddenly sound 50 IQ points dumber when they start talking about politics or other things they are not qualified to talk about.
Julia,
I taught history, government, and economics for thirty plus years. Maybe that is my lane. As you know, I’m not going to insult you like you do here. You, I guess, think you have the liberty to do that. I understand your doing it. You have some skill at disparaging remarks. Is that a gift of the spirit? I haven’t seen that in the list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12.
I’ve found almost exclusively that someone, like yourself, that constantly resorts to insult, especially with zero evidence as you show, can’t make a cohesive, substantive argument. Look above at what you wrote. Nothing there. You’ve got to use “dumber” and “IQ” and “your lane” and “spoon fed.” That’s really all you’ve got going for you. You’re “good” at that. There are a few areas that make you more angry when you write like this, but they are when someone points out something scripturally wrong in your life. If that is really my lane, as you seem to intimate above, you’re not open to finding out when you’re wrong. You don’t like what you would call, my lane.
To answer your first question a little better, I think that believers should make judgments on the world based on scriptural principles. You might be trying to do that yourself, although I haven’t gotten anything scriptural out of what you’ve written.
I usually do not make replies to justify another from insults. In this case it is warranted, even your rebuke is warranted against a woman running her mouth.
What you wrote is excellent and based on all my understanding of scripture, godly principles and world events, your analysis of the situation is very reasonable when looking at all the evidence of world that is heading into the great tribulation.
Tom
Your internet provider number comes up with your name and two others: Frank McMaster is another one, and then “Grant.” Three different identities come up for your number, all written with the same style. Just think people should know.
LOL. A high school teacher is qualified to talk about complex current world affairs. Ridiculous.
You ignored my question. What about what Mearsheimer says about the Israel situation? Is he wrong on Israel but right on Ukraine? And what about what he says about Trump? Is he wrong on that? Who are you to say what he is right and wrong on?
The thing is this: you know nothing really about either Ukraine or the Middle East except what you read from people like Mearsheimer. So, what do you bring to the table? Nothing. Why not let the experts talk and you stay in your lane?
Julia,
You’ll have to give me your position and the evidence for your position to get me to bite on more insults. I am fine with people judging you on their own. I’m also unsure whether you are Frank or Julia or Grant, based on the IP number. Enjoy.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this series. I have a few questions. I am probably not going to have the time to respond again, but I intend to read what you say in response, if you are able.
You said: “Russia would not be an existential threat, as I see it, unless a country drove its leader to total desperation. Or, if another country could compel Russia to ally with China and maybe Iran into a more cohesive and powerful threat to the United States.”
Are you saying that Russia was not allying with China and Iran before, but that they just started doing it now because they were “compelled”? Also, they have a huge supply of nuclear weapons, enough to kill everyone in the world, easily. Could you clarify your statement on them not being an existential threat in that situation unless driven to “total desperation”? They threatened to use nuclear weapons if we helped the Ukrainians have weapons to defend themselves. Would you view selling or giving weapons to Ukraine—a much smaller nation that has no desire to invade Russia—as something that would drive Russia to “total desperation”?
You said: “Who would want to escalate conflict between Ukraine and Russia toward a dangerous end?”
Could you clarify who you think wants to escalate conflict between the two countries and who wants a dangerous end to it? I can think of who started the conflict by invading, murdering, raping, pillaging, and destroying Ukraine. Is it Putin who you think wants to escalate conflict, or is it someone else?
You said: “Obama stood by as Russia … invaded Eastern Ukraine.” I am aware that they armed fake separatist proxies in Eastern Ukraine, but before their current invasion, when did Russia itself invade Eastern Ukraine?
You said: “The false Russia narrative pushes Russia and China into a dangerous alliance along with Iran.” Just to clarify, are you saying that Russia and China were not in an alliance with other bad actors like Iran, and they only started to ally because Democrats made up nonsense about the Russia collusion hoax? Why did the dictators of Russia, China, and Iran care so much about Democrats making up nonsense in our country that they decided to ally when they presumably were not allies before?
You said: “A coalition of neocon establishment Republicans, invested in the defense industry, with establishment, elite Democrats accentuates the sham narrative. It protects the status quo for top corporations, banks, and investors, who prefer the reliability of conventional partnerships and woke culture.”
Are you saying that Republicans with a hawkish foreign policy hold their foreign policy views, not because (for example) they think allowing Russia to invade, murder, rape, pillage, and take over its neighbors is bad for US interests around the world and is also immoral, but because they make money in defense industry stocks and because they like woke culture? Could you provide proof for this affirmation, such as (for example) the actual percentages of defense stocks owned by the particular people about whom you are speaking, and how their ownership of defense stocks is tied to their adopting a hawkish foreign policy, having held to a dovish foreign policy before purchasing defense stocks?
You said: “The Russians see the trajectory of next door neighbors joining the NATO alliance, threatening Russian security and national sovereignty.”
Latvia joined NATO in 2004, as did Estonia. Both are on Russia’s border. Can you explain why their joining NATO did not lead to war, while Ukraine—who was not joining NATO any time soon—was a justification for Putin to invade their country?
You said: “Russia says the West pledged no NATO expansion into the former Soviet bloc countries.”
Could you also comment on Russia’s pledge to never invade Ukraine, which caused Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons? Why was Ukraine owning nuclear weapons on Russia’s border not a threat greater than their hoping to eventually join NATO, like their neighbors on Russia’s border in Estonia and Latvia?
You said: “Putin opposes influence of so-called Western democracy in neighboring countries, endangering Russian culture. This is like the concern of the British with Brexit. The left, as you might know, call it democracy. It isn’t democracy. They impose leftist “values.” If you don’t accept, you’re cancelled. … Supporters of funding a U.S. proxy war in Ukraine call the Ukraine a democracy.”
Are you saying Ukraine is not a democracy? I am not asking if they are a perfect democracy, but could you explain why you would say they are not a democracy at all? What form of government do they have there? I can see why Putin would not like flourishing free countries as neighbors, and how that would endanger Putin himself. Why would “Russian culture,” rather than Putin, be endangered by free, prosperous neighbors, so that it is important to invade, murder, rape, and pillage so that dictatorships and poverty are on Russia’s borders? Wouldn’t Russian culture be better if Putin was gone and the country was free, instead of keeping a dictatorship in Russia that helps the country have a GDP smaller than Germany’s?
You said: “Supporters of funding a U.S. proxy war in Ukraine call the Ukraine a democracy. The present administration won’t stop an invasion at the southern border. Instead, it wants to stop the invasion on the Ukrainian border.”
Are you saying that the large majority of Republicans in Congress who have helped Ukrainians defend themselves from death, torture, and slavery to Russia are in favor of Biden’s policy on the border with Mexico? Also, while I believe Biden’s refusal to enforce immigration laws is an impeachable offense, could you explain how allowing millions of poverty stricken people, most of whom want to come here to work while a minority are drug people and other bad actors, into the USA (again, they should NOT come in illegally, but legally) is the same as what Russia is doing in Ukraine? Is Mexico sending tanks, soldiers, rockets, etc. across our border, killing thousands and thousands of US citizens, kidnapping their children and taking them back to Mexico, crushing Baptist and evangelical churches, blowing up hospitals, church buildings, apartment buildings, etc. with no military value, while seeking to march on Washington D. C. and take over the USA to set up a pro-Mexico dictatorship?
You said: “70 to 80 percent of Russians support the war. Not Putin. Russians. Surely there is a woke faction there that opposes it, but they support it for the reasons I’m expressing here.”
Could you clarify why you think Russians support the invasion of Ukraine for the reasons you are giving here, rather than because Russia does not have a free press and so the Russians think that Ukraine is run by Nazis—like their Jewish president—who want to invade their own country? Also, when people who oppose Putin in Russia mysteriously disappear, or have planes they are on blow up, or have their bodies discovered with signs of torture on them, could you explain why you think surveys of how many Russians support Putin are reliable? Are you saying that Russians who are brave enough to risk prison, torture, and death in Russia for opposing the invasion of Ukraine and the rape and slaughter of vast numbers of Ukrainians are all doing so because they are “woke”? What are your sources for this?
You said: “[Trump] would have kept NATO expansion from Russia’s neighbors.”
Could you explain what you mean by that, since Estonia and Latvia were NATO members for many years before Trump took office? I am not asking if it is wise to push NATO to Russia’s borders. I don’t want to fight a nuclear war over Estonia. I am just asking for an explanation of what you mean here. Also, can you explain how it is possible to predict with accuracy historical events that never took place? I do not believe it is easy to make claims of certainty about what would have happened when something never did happen.
Also, I would be interested if you could comment on Russia’s open war on Baptists and evangelicals in Ukraine, the country in Europe with the second largest number of Baptists, only following the UK:
https://patriotpost.us/articles/102457-in-brief-the-evangelical-case-for-us-military-aid-to-ukraine-2023-11-29
Do you think that these children of God and adopted joint-heirs with Christ be allowed to defend themselves from torture, rape, and murder by Russian prisoners who were let out of prison so that they could invade and slaughter Ukrainians?
Thank you again for your series.
Thomas,
Only to get started, I’ll give you three examples.
Does funding the Ukraine make Russia/China/Iran/Putin more or less likely to fire nuclear weapons at us? If that’s the threat as you communicated it, not funding Ukraine would seem to be less offensive to a nuclear power like Russia. A big part of my argument was the violation of a NATO agreement at the end of the Cold War, akin to putting missiles in Cuba. The narrative you seem to support is that Putin is an imperialist with his heart set on conquering Europe and beyond. When Hitler invaded Poland in WW2, he did it with 1.5 million forces. Putin sent 190,000 into Ukraine. He’s got more there now, but not close to 1.5 million and he would need something far more than he has there now (300,000) to occupy the country. That doesn’t fit the narrative. That is a false narrative.
I have so many problems with what you said, but I’ll give only two more. You are saying that Putin did not invade Ukraine under Obama. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 when Obama was president.
Third, I didn’t say Ukraine was woke, even though they supported their own gay pride event. I’m saying that the West is woke. The West poses as a superior civilization in its present state, and Putin sees it as a threat to a Russian way of life. That doesn’t mean I agree with his view of the world, but he does have some point, just like when Xi prohibited “sissy boys” from showing up in Chinese media. They see the West as decadent. You basically just twisted what I wrote. I expect more of it.
That’s all I’m going to write. I’ve got part four coming today, Lord-willing.
Kent wrote:
“That doesn’t mean I agree with his view of the world, but he does have some point, just like when Xi prohibited “sissy boys” from showing up in Chinese media. They see the West as decadent. You basically just twisted what I wrote. I expect more of it.”
Exactly. You cannot use moral grounds of this God hating country to justify anything the US does in the world today. They do not do it for democracy, but rather “money answereth all things”. It is not that Russia and China are better, it is as you said, “they do have a point”, even higher moral grounds at times.
To justify almost anything this country does politically as being on the right side is just plain foolish. This country is in a similar position of the prophetic utterances of the prophets against Israel, a whorish nation whose god is their belly that worships the creature more than the Creator and whose judgment to come will be just.
Only a Christianity whose love is towards this present evil world, needs to be awakened from its deep sleep and therefore Jesus Christ cries out, “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.
Tom
Thanks.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
By the way, there appears to be solid evidence that the percentage of Russians that actually support Putin’s agression in Ukraine is not a majority, although it is hard to get accurate information since disagreeing with Putin means one goes to prison:
https://www.4freerussia.org/current-trends-in-russian-public-opinion-toward-the-war/
Thanks again.
Thomas,
I don’t see a good enough for the United States to keep sending money to the Ukraine. The United States cannot and should not be involved in all of these wars. At one time, this was the conservative position. We don’t have the economy, the money, to do it. We are borrowing money to do it. These wars have sent us into further and further debt. I don’t believe Putin is showing he wants to take over Europe or return to the Soviet Union. This is a very narrow purpose that is a regional one.
People like myself see the corruption also in the Ukraine, as seen in the Hunter Biden situation. I’m not going to go over it again. It’s very important to keep the Putin narrative out there, much about the 2016 election, the Russian hoax. This ran directly against what Obama said in the Romney debate in 2012. This change is very suspect.
It’s very possible that Putin would not have invaded if the U.S. didn’t push the Ukraine into NATO. It didn’t make any sense to get Ukraine into NATO, especially when we see the Europeans not even supporting NATO. I’ve had my say here on this. Let people judge. I don’t agree with your position on this. Not wanting to fight a war doesn’t mean that we support whatever dictator or autocrat wants. Lots of people die in African conflicts. Christians dying. I don’t hear a clamor to save those people. It doesn’t mean we want them attacked and killed. Right? In other words, I think it is a bad argument.
Anyone who does not want to send money to President Zelensky is a Christian Nationalist, which is a very bad thing to be. It’s almost as bad as being a Trump supporter. Nuff said.
Incisive, Pastor Jonas T. Where do I write the check?