Putin beordrar styrkor att gå in i Ukraina - INVASION NU (2022-02-24)

This leads us to three final points about the invalidity of the term ‘proxy war’. The first is that there are frictions between Ukraine and its allies over Ukraine’s requests for arms which may give it an offensive capability against Russia. The second is that Western backing would be of little use if the Ukrainians were not ready to fight. The willingness of Ukraine’s armed forces and civilian population to resist Russia is an indigenous response, and it patronises them to imply otherwise. Zelenskyy’s reported statement during the first hours of the invasion that ‘I need ammunition, not a ride’ was also unprompted by any external ally, which would in all likelihood have been prepared to host an exile government if needed. Western arms may have helped Ukraine to fight back, but were no substitute for the willpower of a nation at arms.

Finally, Ukraine is a sovereign and independent state recognised by the international community which has the right under Article 51 of the UN Charter to self-defence. While there is a genuine academic debate to be had about the implications of aid to Kyiv, claims that Western powers are ‘fighting to the last Ukrainian’ are ultimately insulting to a nation that seven months ago looked as though it could be wiped off the map.

From a Russian perspective, however, the language of ‘proxy war’ offers a way of saving face over defeat. It is easier for Putin and his government to claim that Russia has been beaten by an international coalition marshalled by a superpower, rather than admitting that its once-celebrated armed forces have been humiliated by its former imperial subjects.