This is about a lot more than minerals and resources, and while you can't extricate those motivations from the larger rational, first and foremost this war was about regime security, or at least Putin's perception on the issue.
And then when it hit a brick wall almost immediately, it really increased Putin's concerns about his regime security.
That, and people who have certain underlying mental health issues, or a family history of them, such as schizophrenia, should never take psychedelic drugs.
Consult a doctor, or at least Google, for a more complete list of the conditions that do not respond well to psychedelics.
The irony is that with that response, either you lost the plot, or I did. I honestly don't know which.
I genuinely don't know what you're referring to, and don't care enough to read this entire thread to try and figure it out.
If you want to post examples, I'll take a look.
I will say that if you decide not to reply and post specific examples, I will not take that to mean anything other than you not wanting to waste anymore time here in this pointless back and forth.
No, what you literally did was qualify it, and then follow that up with a fantasy game plan for your morally righteous white knighting in defense of flat earthers and (presumably) Holocaust deniers, from those that would dare speak down to them.
You can go back to smelling your own farts whenever you're ready.
That's a very roundabout way of answering, "Yes".
Also, lol.
It's not my analogy, and I've already pointed out how bad it was, but they keep insisting on using it.
But yes, I agree, it's a shit analogy.
Your analogies keep leaving out location, which is very relevant here.
A more accurate analogy would be Russia bombing a meeting between Ukrainian and American officers, that was happening in Warsaw.
I don't disagree that this is a significant event, I just disagree with your analysis and attribution.
Iranian officials are frequently assassinated while they're with meeting with elements of their proxy forces, additionally, this didn't happen on a front line or in an active war zone.
You're claiming that somehow Iran his risking escalation because Israel is assassinating their military leaders in civilian areas, that aren't active war zones. Which is like saying your risking escalation if you attempt to defend yourself after someone breaks into your home, and murders your family.
Technically, I guess that's true, but it removes the onus from the person actually doing the home invasion and murdering.
Also, your analogy is wrong. Russia killing US officers would not give Russia more cause to escalate, but the reverse....
Regardless, none of that has to do with your original comment about Iran losing deniability in this proxy war.
This is Israel trying to force an escalation, because they want to draw out a wider regional war that forces US naval assets (including marines) to intervene in.
If you walked into a conversation with someone telling flat earthers that the Earth was actually round, would you get pissy with them, ask for their sources, defend the flat earthers, and then tell the round earth advocate to get off their high horse because they're not the smartest person in the room?
If we were discussing the pros and cons of certain political systems, or other subjective topics, I would agree with you, but we aren't.
Instead, you jumped in to white knight for the people who are objectively wrong. Does that make you feel morally superior?
Get over yourself.
Deniability is not the primary driver for, or purpose of, proxy wars. They are a means of escalation management for great powers, and post-WWII, a way for nuclear armed states to go to a version of war, that doesn't carry a high risk of nuclear war.
And even in situations where deniability is a factor, that doesn't apply here. Iran has always been Hezbollah's primary benefactor, since the organization's formation, and it's not a secret that they serve as a proxy force.
The only deniability is the face saving kind, to again, help escalation management for the great powers.
So you just jump into the middle of threads to chime in about your perceptions of attitudes? Ignoring the fact that where and how you inserted yourself meant taking agreement with one side of the discussion?
Maybe you should start reading a thread from the top, and use the context clues, to understand the implications of how you insert yourself.
In case you're too lazy to do that, let me show you the comment and commenter you came in defensive of:
Some people just aren't worth engaging with. They get their entire world view from rich "leftist" tankies on twitch and think the israel vs everyone else in the middle east conflict started last fall.
Unless you feel some moral imperative to always turn the other cheek, I don't understand why my attitude is such a great offense, when you clearly had no problem with their attitude. And even came to their defense.
Modern air defense is layered, and latest generations are layered and networked.
Short, medium, and long range all have different kill methods/platforms, but may share radar and sensors suites, along with command and control systems.
The operator, system, or mixture of both, then decides which targets are threats, and which kill system to engage them with.