They were both proxy wars. But what were they fighting for? In the cold war, usa wanted vietnam to remain a colony to extract profits, but ussr wanted an ally in the region instead. nowadays usa want ukraine to become a vassal state to destabilize its geopolitical adversaries in the region, specifically russia, much like israel is used against many middle eastern nations. russia has no virtuous intention other than self preservation, and they are not a superpower anymore, so they used the tools they had which was a military operation to disarm ukraine.
Listen, I’m not answering you rn because you sound super fucking smug and it’s annoying. Also you haven’t actually offered a detailed opinion of your own and it sounds like you are just waiting for me to give mine so you can criticize it instead of offering something of substance yourself. Answer my original question and I’ll back to you when I’m sober and it isn’t a few past midnight.
This isn’t going to be a in depth explanation because I have writing I need to do today and haven’t even started but I will do my best to be thorough.
Vietnam is nation formed by very very old culture that has inhabited the land of vietnam for millenia. It was invaded and colonized by France in the early 1800s who exploited its labor for tobacco, indigo, tea, and coffee. France combined it with other cultural groups into a singular politico-economic entity known as indochina. By the early 1900s nationalist sentiment, fomented by the brutal labor conditions imposed by the French, rose to such a level that violent organized resistance was attempted. Early resistance was relatively inneffective however and French occupation would last until Japanese invasion in WW2. Japanese occuption was somewhat more extractive than the French but the relationship was materially the same. In 1945, after the Japanese defeat, the resistance forces led by Ho Chi Minh toom back Hanoi and Hue. National independence was declared. Immediately, because the popular resistance forces were communist, the allies agreed to arbitrarily divide Vietnam in half and maintained that all of indochina was owned by France. When the resistance forces attempted to unify vietnam (1945-1946) they were fought back by French forces with the aid of remaining japanese occupiers. The state of vietnam was then established south of the 16th parallel with the goal of continuing economic relations with France. Conflict continued until 1954 when the French were thoroughly routed at Dien Bien Phu and a ceasfire was signed at the geneva conference. By 1955 the south was ruled by the unelected western supported (for now) dictator Ngo Dinh Diem. By this point the US was already involved. Guerilla insurgency began in the late 1950s and received soviet support after 1960. Diem gets assassinated in 1963 and a bunch of military dictatorships come and go. Gulf of tonkin happens and the US ground invasion begins. You probably know the rest.
Key points:
long term colonial occupation led to domesticly produced organized violent resistance
domestic resistance lasted decades before recieving foreign support
invaded by foreign powers for the sole purpose of economic exploitation
proved that it was capable of sustaining a protracted war against a far more militarily advanced occupier before recieving significant aid.
Ukraine is a similarly old region with similarly old cultures. Its first known political superstructure was Kievan Rus’. This was quite successful until it fractured and was eventually destroyed by the mongol invasion after which it was contested territory for 600 ish years. It was incoporated into the Russian empire at the end of this period in 1700s but there was a brief period of indepencance known as the Cossack Hetmanate. This period was sort of the birth of Ukrainian nationalism and it is the point where a uniquely Ukrainian identity asserted itself. After the Russian empire was overthrown by the Bolsheviks it had another brief period of independence as the Ukrainian People’s Republic but this too was joined to the USSR. When the soviet Union dissolved it became the country it is today. Free market reforms were introduced that effectively allowed foreign capital to buy up Ukraine’s industry and resources, there was a significant drop in living standards as a result and marginal loss of political soveriegnty as the country became economically dependent on western powers. The orange revolution in 2004-2005 sought to address the troubles this caused but failed. A series of crises followed that culminated in the 2014 euromaidan revolution. These crises and revolutions all occurred in response to economic struggles for working people at a time when Russia was doing comparatively well. As a result the eastern, Russian speaking region of Ukraine began to consider reunification with Russia. This was prevented and Russia used this as a pretext to invade and take territory. It is more complex than that but idr want to get lost in the details. Regardless, this was also occuring during a period of eastward NATO expansion in Europe. Since the dissolution of the USSR Russia had made it clear that they considered this expansion to be a threat and drew multiple red lines for the expansion that, if crossed, would be considered an act of aggression. This was ignored and Russia did not act on the red lines it had been drawing. After Euromaidan Ukraine began to thoroughly ally itself with the Western powers and it built much closer financial ties, or rather, had them imposed upon them. Ukraine was the last red line that Russua drew and it was the last possible one to draw. So when Ukraine was considered for NATO membership Russia had to take violent action or have its security further violated by NATO powers. I need to stress that Russia made it very clear that it would not accept Ukrainian membership in NATO, it was clear how they would respond to that. We did it anyway because at the time we thought it would either end in Russia doing nothing and NATO gets missiles far closer to its two major enemies or Russia gets locked into a economically damaging war for years and can’t throw its weight around on the international stage.
Key points:
newly soveriegn nation
very likely to have some sort of border dispute with Russia as these things tend to happen after a dissolution like the USSR’s
brief periods of independence but primarily the territory of other nations that share their culture (mostly)
valued by allies for its militarily strategic position and some resources
to some degree owned by its allies
did not choose to fight this war, had it imposed upon them by the geopolitical posturing of more powerful nations
Keyest points:
vietnam would have kept fighting with or without foreign support, Ukraine almost certainly would not
vietnam did not have a long history of being the territory of its invader or share its culture
Ukraine’s allies are using the war to acquire ownership of Ukraine’s resources. Even if the Ukrainians beat Russia, they won’t ever be independent again
So Vietnam wasn’t a proxy war?
Not in the way the war in Ukraine is
Please, by all means elaborate.
They were both proxy wars. But what were they fighting for? In the cold war, usa wanted vietnam to remain a colony to extract profits, but ussr wanted an ally in the region instead. nowadays usa want ukraine to become a vassal state to destabilize its geopolitical adversaries in the region, specifically russia, much like israel is used against many middle eastern nations. russia has no virtuous intention other than self preservation, and they are not a superpower anymore, so they used the tools they had which was a military operation to disarm ukraine.
The USA, along with the rest of NATO, wants Ukraine to remain independent, and not fall into Russian hands.
Remember, the US is just one nation providing military aid to Ukraine. Even Australia and New Zealand are contributing.
Lmao
Mark Rutte leader of NATO said it himself that NATO is just means for the US to project power.
Even “CIA Base pretending to be a country” is contributing. They literally disappeared a PM for not being thankful enough for pine gap.
Why did you mention USA, USA[Economic Vassal], and USA[Economic Vassal] for a total of three times?
Your original question asks me to refute an unfounded claim you’ve made based on no evidence whatsoever, just what you want to believe is true.
And I’m not playing that silly game.
I was giving you my personal perspective and asking that you develop yours beyond the meme. I am genuinely curious why you think this way.
So what’s the difference?
This isn’t going to be a in depth explanation because I have writing I need to do today and haven’t even started but I will do my best to be thorough.
Vietnam is nation formed by very very old culture that has inhabited the land of vietnam for millenia. It was invaded and colonized by France in the early 1800s who exploited its labor for tobacco, indigo, tea, and coffee. France combined it with other cultural groups into a singular politico-economic entity known as indochina. By the early 1900s nationalist sentiment, fomented by the brutal labor conditions imposed by the French, rose to such a level that violent organized resistance was attempted. Early resistance was relatively inneffective however and French occupation would last until Japanese invasion in WW2. Japanese occuption was somewhat more extractive than the French but the relationship was materially the same. In 1945, after the Japanese defeat, the resistance forces led by Ho Chi Minh toom back Hanoi and Hue. National independence was declared. Immediately, because the popular resistance forces were communist, the allies agreed to arbitrarily divide Vietnam in half and maintained that all of indochina was owned by France. When the resistance forces attempted to unify vietnam (1945-1946) they were fought back by French forces with the aid of remaining japanese occupiers. The state of vietnam was then established south of the 16th parallel with the goal of continuing economic relations with France. Conflict continued until 1954 when the French were thoroughly routed at Dien Bien Phu and a ceasfire was signed at the geneva conference. By 1955 the south was ruled by the unelected western supported (for now) dictator Ngo Dinh Diem. By this point the US was already involved. Guerilla insurgency began in the late 1950s and received soviet support after 1960. Diem gets assassinated in 1963 and a bunch of military dictatorships come and go. Gulf of tonkin happens and the US ground invasion begins. You probably know the rest.
Key points:
Ukraine is a similarly old region with similarly old cultures. Its first known political superstructure was Kievan Rus’. This was quite successful until it fractured and was eventually destroyed by the mongol invasion after which it was contested territory for 600 ish years. It was incoporated into the Russian empire at the end of this period in 1700s but there was a brief period of indepencance known as the Cossack Hetmanate. This period was sort of the birth of Ukrainian nationalism and it is the point where a uniquely Ukrainian identity asserted itself. After the Russian empire was overthrown by the Bolsheviks it had another brief period of independence as the Ukrainian People’s Republic but this too was joined to the USSR. When the soviet Union dissolved it became the country it is today. Free market reforms were introduced that effectively allowed foreign capital to buy up Ukraine’s industry and resources, there was a significant drop in living standards as a result and marginal loss of political soveriegnty as the country became economically dependent on western powers. The orange revolution in 2004-2005 sought to address the troubles this caused but failed. A series of crises followed that culminated in the 2014 euromaidan revolution. These crises and revolutions all occurred in response to economic struggles for working people at a time when Russia was doing comparatively well. As a result the eastern, Russian speaking region of Ukraine began to consider reunification with Russia. This was prevented and Russia used this as a pretext to invade and take territory. It is more complex than that but idr want to get lost in the details. Regardless, this was also occuring during a period of eastward NATO expansion in Europe. Since the dissolution of the USSR Russia had made it clear that they considered this expansion to be a threat and drew multiple red lines for the expansion that, if crossed, would be considered an act of aggression. This was ignored and Russia did not act on the red lines it had been drawing. After Euromaidan Ukraine began to thoroughly ally itself with the Western powers and it built much closer financial ties, or rather, had them imposed upon them. Ukraine was the last red line that Russua drew and it was the last possible one to draw. So when Ukraine was considered for NATO membership Russia had to take violent action or have its security further violated by NATO powers. I need to stress that Russia made it very clear that it would not accept Ukrainian membership in NATO, it was clear how they would respond to that. We did it anyway because at the time we thought it would either end in Russia doing nothing and NATO gets missiles far closer to its two major enemies or Russia gets locked into a economically damaging war for years and can’t throw its weight around on the international stage.
Key points:
Keyest points: