Olympic gold medalist argues in video that podcaster’s remarks about war in Ukraine is result of Putin-led plot

Summary

Former Ukrainian boxing champion Wladimir Klitschko accused podcaster Joe Rogan of “repeating Russian propaganda” after Rogan criticized U.S. military aid to Ukraine and suggested it could escalate into World War III.

Klitschko defended Ukraine’s resistance against Russia, highlighting the country’s fight for freedom and condemning Rogan’s remarks as aiding Putin’s agenda.

He invited Rogan to discuss their differences on the podcast “like free men.”

Rogan, who recently endorsed Donald Trump, called the war a “proxy war” and criticized Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russian soil with U.S.-supplied missiles.

  • @Hobbes_DentEnglish
    3•1 month ago

    I don’t consider it a proxy war.

    Ukraine isn’t a US proxy nor is Russia anyone’s proxy.

    • @[email protected]English
      0•1 month ago

      I’m not sure why people keep saying this.

      A proxy war has nothing to do with either side being “a proxy.” It only means that one of the sides is being supported by some nations that’s not part of the war. That’s very obviously the case here.

      • @Hobbes_DentEnglish
        6•1 month ago

        In political science, a proxy war is an armed conflict where at least one of the belligerents is directed or supported by an external third-party power. In the term proxy war, a belligerent with external support is the proxy; both belligerents in a proxy war can be considered proxies if both are receiving foreign military aid from a third party country. Acting either as a nation-state government or as a conventional force, a proxy belligerent acts in behalf of a third-party state sponsor.[1]

        I imagine it’s the latter part of the above from Wikipedia and long-term use in Cold War language with that part stressed.

        The “in behalf” is what I believe is missing in the current example unless then Russia is also a proxy of China and North Korea.

        • @[email protected]English
          0•1 month ago

          I see. Even with that expanded, and very subjective definition, it’s still hard to see how this doesn’t qualify.

          The US has obvious strategic interests in the war. Various US and EU politicians and even Zelinsky himself keeps making that point. Ukraine obviously isn’t just fighting for to support US interests but that’s the case in every proxy war. The rich, third party nation doesn’t hire mercenaries, they fund the groups who already have an interest in fighting (like defending their home).

          Zelinsky would obviously like that situation to change. If the US and EU were willing to send troops it would stop being a proxy war and Zelinsky would clearly be thrilled.

          If we’re using this more detailed definition of “proxy war”, which includes intent, I’d say that Russia is not a proxy for China. The difference is that isn’t providing any donations to Russia. It’s buying, selling and lending on terms that are so favorable to China that it’s better described as carpetbagging. China, and to a lesser extent India and Iran, are all raking Russia over the coals. China also trades with Ukraine. It does so at a much lower rate than with Russia (565 vs 21,800 respectively in September) but at a higher rate than the US does with Ukraine (197 in September (source: https://oec.world/).