Why Pro-Russian Individuals Suggest Russia is Fighting NATO despite Proxy War Reality

Russia's claim that it is directly fighting NATO amidst an ongoing NATO presence in Ukraine has raised numerous eyebrows. This notion, however, is more aligned with the realm of propaganda than with factual reality. Let's dissect various reasons behind this stance.

1. Propaganda Purposes

The most obvious motivation is to bolster propaganda efforts. Portraying Russia as the victim in a titanic struggle against the West serves to galvanize domestic support and justify actions taken. Compare the following statements:

“We have taken the special military operation to Ukraine to stop the evil West from invading our motherland, because the West wants to exterminate us.” “We are liberating Russian civilians from a Nazi regime and fighting NATO heroically to do it.” “Yeah, we invaded a country that was not a threat, targeted civilians, and now we are getting our butt kicked with no NATO forces involved. We have also fucked our entire country in the process. But hey, that’s how we say World War II ended.”

The first statement, while boastful and aggressive, is more likely to resonate with the Russian public and receive international support or sympathy, at least superficially.

2. Justification for Failure

Russia’s efforts in Ukraine have proven to be a pragmatic failure. The officially described “quick strike” operation has dragged on for nearly a decade, targeting less than 20% of Ukraine while maintaining a fragile grip. This is a stark embarrassment for a nation referred to as “the second most powerful in the world,” especially when the target is described as a “drug-addled Jewish Nazi” regime.

To maintain a facade of strength and to overshadow this dismal reality, Russia chooses to pretend it is in a direct confrontation with NATO. This serves as a convenient scapegoat for failures and to obscure the genuine inadequacies of Russian military strategies and capabilities.

3. Lack of NATO Involvement

With the logical inference that if NATO were to become involved, NATO would establish air supremacy within 48 hours, followed by the neutralization of any long-range Russian ground assets, the absence of widespread direct NATO involvement in ground operations is a telling omission.

If NATO forces were truly engaged, but not seen on the ground, you would expect to see a NATO air supremacy within 48 hours, leading to the destruction of most of Russia’s long-range assets. This has not happened.

4. Domestic Consumption vs. International Perceptions

Based on the direct confrontation theory, if there had been a two-day special military operation, it should have been deemed a failure due to Russia’s inability to quickly achieve its objectives. This narrative would be difficult to sell to the Russian public, who have endured a grueling and costly war with minimal gains.

Furthermore, confronting NATO in a head-to-head scenario is much more painful to accept than dealing with the consequences of a military operation that has outlasted expectations and produced more deaths and destroyed infrastructure than benefits.

5. Disinformation and Obfuscation

Russia has a long history of disinformation and obfuscation in its propaganda efforts. By presenting the conflict as a battle against NATO, and by bizarrely overestimating NATO’s involvement, they can continue to spin the narrative that their military is engaging in a glorious and necessary conflict against an existential enemy, rather than a failed and futile invasion.

Thus, the myth of a direct clash with NATO is a powerful tool for maintaining the illusion of Russian military prowess and national integrity, even as the real dynamics of the conflict play out on the ground.