> It perpetuates a cold war approach and vocabulary, making Russia look like the superpower it was (and is not anymore).
It isn't the "superpower" status of Russia that makes this a cold war, but the "nuclear power" status. It is precisely a proxy war because you have two nuclear powers that are explicitly avoiding direct conflict due to the risk of nuclear war.
However, One might argue that the true cold war is between the USA and China and that both Ukraine and Russia are proxies.
> The cold war way of talking about it, additionally, makes it look like there are two sides, two alternatives, which are equally valid and justified.
In what way? "Cold war" absolutely doesn't have any connotation of moral equivalence between the two sides.
This is the sort of weird absolutism and rejection of nuance that is a hallmark of propaganda. It is absolutely possible to assign culpability to certain actions taken by the US without even remotely asserting that both sides are equally culpable for the war in Ukraine.
It is possible to think that containing an expansionist nuclear power without triggering a nuclear war is hard and requires a walking a fine line while also thinking that there are powerful forces inside the US that stand to gain a lot by encouraging and then prolonging this conflict.
Part of the power of narratives is that they become an easy way to group and dismiss dissent without engaging with any of the specific concerns expressed in that dissent.