Rogers offering buyout packages to roughly half of its staff (financialpost.com)

submitted 3 days ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/canada@lemmy.ca

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 days ago

Since you appear to claim that Groh is not an authoritative source, then perhaps you'd prefer Andrew Mumford. Who in in Proxy Warfare spends an entire chapter titled What is Proxy War? unpacking the levels of engagement and making it painfully obvious that not all indirect assistance qualifies. Or perhaps, Geraint Hughes and his book My Enemy's Enemy: Proxy Warfare in International Politics which builds a whole framework around the specific strategic relationships that turn a conflict into a proxy war. And of course, we can't forget the Routledge Handbook of Proxy Wars which is four hundred and fifty five pages long and exists entirely because the concept is so much more complicated than your little copy pasted internet definition could ever dream of being.

But sure, a definition you googled frantically is so much more authoritative 🤣

[-] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

None of what you link change the definition of a proxy war.

I can share a thousand books about communist ideology, doesn't change any of the pure uncut definitions.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 days ago

The discussion isn't about changing the definition of a proxy war, it's about your infantile understanding of the subject. All you can share is drivel that falls out from an underdeveloped mind that's not capable of doing any intellectual rigor.

[-] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Nope. You said the whole thing about Russia not being proxy because they don't tell the Iran government what to do.

That is incompatible with the definition of what a proxy war is.

You can share a thousand books on peoples opinions on the subject, they have books like that on communism too doesn't change any definition or meaning of any definition, at all.

"I can't believe you don't even know what proxy is"

And by your own books you linked. If USA is fighting proxy that makes when Russia supplied Iran with weapons an act of also being a party to a proxy war. You don't get to just have one side be a proxy war and the other side supplying their enemies not a proxy war. Or at least, I don't because I'm capable of understanding what things mean and able to read definitions and understand them. If you want to listen to the opinion of people who talk about it, then do that the very book you linked agrees that if USA is fighting proxy with Ukraine, then Russia is too with Iran. One side doesn't get to just act like it isn't part of the proxy war, even by the very books you yourself linked.

So are the books you linked valid or not? Is the definition valid or not? Guess it depends on what opinion you want to present at the time? If USA is fighting proxy that just makes Russia an ally to Iran? Not according to the books you linked.

See this is the problem. You don't actually read any of it, you don't actually care about what the definition really is because you just want to say that Russia is doing great and whatever they are doing is just and acceptable across the board. The USA is the only one capable of proxy wars, right?

So which is it, are the books right or wrong?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Oh you really thought you had me with that one just yelling if this is true then the other thing must be true. Let me explain your mistake. You are treating all foreign support as identical. The books I cited do not do that and if you had actually read them, or had any clue regarding the subject you're attempting to debate, you would know it.

Tyrone Groh writes about the principal-agent relationship. The patron directs the use of force by the local actor. Not just sells them some hardware. The US supplies Ukraine and also sets the boundaries of what Ukraine can and cannot do. No ATACMS strikes inside Russia without permission. No F-16s until Washington says yes. Ukraine is operationally independent on the ground but strategically dependent on American will. That is what makes it a dynamic of a patron and a client.

On the other hand, Russia sells Iran drones and Iran pays for them, but Iran then uses those drones however it wants against whoever it wants. Russia does not direct Iranian foreign policy, nor does Russia tell Iran when to attack Israel or which militias to fund. Iran does that entirely on its own for its own reasons. That is not a relationship where one party directs the other. That is an arms deal between two sovereign states who happen to share some enemies.

Russia and Iran are business partners while the US and Ukraine are in a patron and client arrangement where the client cannot survive without the patron. Those are different points on Mumford's spectrum.

You also said books are just opinions and do not change definitions. That is the most anti-intellectual thing I have read all day. The dictionary is a starting point. The books are the analysis of how that definition actually applies to real conflicts. You cannot just scream the dictionary says support and ignore four hundreds of pages explaining what kind of support and direction actually constitute a proxy war. That is like saying a medical textbook is just an opinion on what a heart attack is.

You asked which is it are the books right or wrong. The books are right and you are dismissing them in favor of a superficial definition you googled. The US is fighting a proxy war through Ukraine because the US sets the strategic parameters. Russia is not fighting a proxy war through Iran because Iran acts independently. Both conclusions come from the exact same scholarship. You just cannot accept that because it complicates your little bumper sticker worldview.