7 March, 17:01
Yesterday, Senator Marco Rubio stated that Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine is a "proxy conflict" between the United States and Russia and that Ukraine is allegedly merely prolonging its conclusion. Such an interpretation is not only erroneous but also dangerously manipulative, as it contradicts established norms of international law and the concept of state sovereignty.
According to the principles enshrined in the UN Charter (1945), every state has the right to self-defense (Art. 51) and to respect for its territorial integrity (Art. 2.4). Defining a war as a "proxy conflict" implies that one of the parties is merely an instrument of external influence, which directly contradicts Ukraine's international legal status as a sovereign state. According to the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law, independent states act as autonomous subjects of the international order, and their defense against external aggression cannot be characterized as a delegated war effort.
Following Rubio's logic, Israel in the 1960s, receiving military aid from abroad, should also have been considered a mere executor of foreign will. At that time, the Soviet Union provided Syria and Egypt with modern tanks (T-55, T-62), aviation (MiG-17, MiG-21), artillery, and communication equipment free of charge, while Soviet military personnel directly participated in combat operations, particularly in the so-called "War of Attrition" (1967–1970). However, even under these circumstances, Israel clearly defined its confrontation as a conflict with Syria and Egypt, not the USSR. This demonstrates that the presence of external military assistance is not sufficient grounds for classifying a conflict as a proxy war.
The term "proxy war" in modern international discourse is typically applied to conflicts where one or more parties lack official state status (e.g., the Syrian Civil War, the conflict in Yemen) or where one of the state actors is a puppet entity without autonomous political will (e.g., the Vietnam War, where North Vietnam received significant support from the USSR and China but maintained strategic autonomy). Thus, the attempt to apply this term to Ukraine is not only conceptually incorrect but also aimed at undermining its international status.
This rhetoric is part of a political strategy that, whether consciously or not, aligns with the Russian narrative portraying Ukraine as a "rebellious province" of the Moscow Empire rather than a sovereign and independent state fighting for its existence. According to international law, including UN General Assembly Resolution No. 3314 (1974), which defines aggression, Russia's war against Ukraine constitutes an act of armed aggression, and Ukraine's actions are fully legally justified as an act of self-defense.
The actual course of events, including Ukraine’s ability not only to defend itself but also to strike deep into the aggressor's territory, once again disproves such manipulative statements and reaffirms Ukraine’s agency in the international arena. Thus, Senator Rubio's remarks should not be viewed as a neutral analytical assessment but as part of a political discourse aimed at reducing global support for Ukraine and fostering a sense of inferiority among Ukrainians.
Given the above, such statements should be examined within the broader context of international law, as well as recognized as an attempt at informational pressure intended to undermine confidence in Ukraine as an independent actor in international politics.