This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What on earth is the fear here? Are we seriously still entertaining the idea that the west wants to invade Russia? For what possible reason? NATO doesn't expand by rolling tanks into its neighbor's territory, it expands by offering protection from Russia which does appear fond of the whole rolling tanks in approach.
Most of the pro-Ukraine side believe that Putin is basically a second Hitler, and can only be stopped by military force. And these people set policy for the west. So yes, the west does want to invade Russia. The only reason they don't is because of nukes.
Until he started invading places caring about Russia was something that got you literally laughed at in US politics. And that some people hate him does not at all imply any kind of invasion. There is zero interest in the west to occupy Russia. Get rid of Putin so he stops fucking around in Geopolitics? Sure. But what is the upside to invading and occupying Russia? Why would anyone bother even if it were realistically possible?
Then why the constant talk about appeasement and Hitler, if not to get people psychologically ready for a war?
The United States does many things that are not rational. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Both were unsuccessful in the long term and huge wastes of resources. But, nevertheless, the Americans reasoned themselves into doing these things. The rhetoric and rationale is very similar to what the pro Ukraine brigade says nowadays. The Taliban and Saddam are monsters, basically Hitler. America needs to project an image of strength. You can't negotiate with Hitlers. A message needs to be sent to potential state sponsors of terrorism/Hitler. What are you, a pussy?
Maybe it will happen, maybe not. Maybe it won't go as far as hot war, maybe it will. But, when I see so many people calling here and elsewhere for dramatic escalation, saying Putin is the next Hitler, calling any move for de-escalation "appeasement", drawing maps of a partitioned Russia, yes, I think the west wants war with Russia. Even knowing it would be stupid.
The appeasement of Hitler is just the most recent example of appeasement not working and people keep suggesting that Russia should be appeased by letting them take over Ukrainian territory. You'll note that after Hitler was stopped the rest of the west did not colonize Germany and it still exists as an influential independent country in good standing.
These were not wars of conquest nor was proximity to NATO countries a major factor.
I'm just not really interested on whether we've hurt Putin's feelings because after he invaded neighbors unprovoked in a war of conquest he gets compared to the last guy in Europe to invade his neighbors in wars of conquest. It doesn't somehow retroactively justify the whole invading your neighbors in wars of conquest thing. You don't get to act like an unhinged lunatic because you're concerned that people around you might treat you like an unhinged lunatic and then pretend your subsequent treatment justifies your behavior. when you escalate and have all the ability in the world to de-escalate you can't call the people you're currently invading unreasonable for not de-escalating, this isn't even behavior we'd accept in our toddlers.
All Putin and Russia need to do is get the fuck over themselves and step out of the 20th century. The whole high school bully act was lame after you graduated and decades on it's just pathetic.
Germany was, in fact, dismembered by the Allies, some millions of Germans were killed or forcibly displaced from territories in the East (so they could be given to Poland), and the proposal was seriously floated to deindustrialize the nation. In the east this was carried out to some extent with factories and plant seized and moved to the USSR. In the West, that wasn't carried out, but for reasons of geopolitical expediency. This is to say nothing of the destruction of cities, mass rapes and the largest book burning project ever conducted. Germany is indeed today, rehabilitated (unfortunately), but it was a very painful road.
I'm not really sure what you mean by step out of the 20th century. The 21st century started with the US invading countries in the Middle East to project power. Is your point that America can do these things and get away with them because they are strong while Russia is weak? But then, isn't the battlefield exactly the place to prove those things?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The reason I bring up Russia's weakness is that it is farcical that they will attack Germany, Poland, Estonia, or other NATO countries.
This is why being anti-war is hard. Every time I bring up my anti-war stance, a bunch of people appear in my replies accusing me of being pro-Russia. I am not justifying Russia's reasons for fighting. Russia is wrong.
Russia is at fault for the Ukraine War
Russia does not present a compelling alternative to Western hegemony. The West is best.
Putin's justifications of the war are not valid
All of these are true, and yet the war should be ended immediately on practical grounds.
The passive voice here is the problem. If I am doing British politics (and I am, as a British citizen posting on a political forum during an election campaign) then "the war should be ended" is either irrelevant cant, or a way of saying "A coalition of civilized countries including the UK should end the war" while dodging the question of how. If NATO actually wanted to end the war without relying on Russia or Ukraine's willingness to act against their perceived self-interest to help us, the fastest way to do so would be to provide Ukraine with sufficient support to win it.
As far as I can see 90% of the people saying "the war should be ended" mean "the civilized world, led by the US, should jawbone Ukraine into surrendering to Russia*". The practical consequences of this probably include the enslavement, expulsion, or extermination of the Ukrainian people (which of these being largely down to the whims of a madman), so how the jawboning is supposed to work is left as an exercise to the reader. I would not wish to speculate how many of the people on the centre and left saying "the war should be ended" would still be willing to say so if they thought about what they were actually saying. I am reasonably comfortable that the pro-Putin right know exactly what they are doing.
More options
Context Copy link
It's just not really reasonable to call people who support the defense of a nation "pro war". If someone attacks me after making it clear they want to kill me I am not pro-fighting when I defend myself. People who support me defending myself are not pro-fighting. It's unreasonable to demand I or the people supporting me should allow the person attacking me to merely severe a limb or two despite them at no point actually making any sign they'd stop after doing so. There is precisely one pro-war faction and it's the one that started the war and could end it at any time, attempting to frame it otherwise is an absurdity.
And yes, we do have some obligation here, Ukraine get rid of its nuclear capabilities under the promise that this would not be allowed to happen. Where Ukraine goes so does nuclear non-proliferation and frankly and kind of mantle of justice.
Victory at any cost is a pro-war position. Throwing out all cost/benefit calculations because Russia started it is unreasonable.
At least spell out what you wouldn't be willing to do to reclaim Ukrainian territory.
I wouldn't be willing to condone firing a nuclear weapon into Russian territory. But supplying Ukrainians with weapons is not even in the ballpark of when we start talking about "any cost", those are the minimum table stakes.
You're trying to change the frame. There is no such offer where Ukraine draws new borders and returns to peace with Russia, It's fictional and the Putin's equally fictional Casus Belli remains, no serious person would trust a peace agreement he has already broken.
Thank you. I respect that.
This discussion originally got started with U.S. boots on the ground which is what I said is "insane" and other users wouldn't renounce. So we need to decide what we're actually talking about here.
I'm trying to understand how you and other people on this forum think the war will end. I suppose a frozen conflict like North Korea/South Korea is possible and if you're advocating for that I can accept it's a reasonable position.
How do you think it will end?
Everything I see from Russia makes me thing it’s win or lose.
What you propose of current lines would seem to be a frozen conflict but I don’t think Russia will make that offer.
I don't know honestly. Here's some things that I think are possible.
Best case scenario would probably be Putin dying which would allow both sides to negotiate without looking weak.
After that, a frozen conflict is possible and not too bad
Ukraine might collapse and negotiate a separate peace under unfavorable terms. If this happens, it will be better if it happens sooner as fewer people will die. More likely it will happen after some years and there won't be much worth saving.
Russia might collapse. Unlikely but it's possible.
West sends boots on the ground. This unlocks a lot of different outcomes: from Russia being sent home with tail between its legs, to an embarrassing fiasco for NATO, to a nuclear exchange. <-- #5 is where I don't want to be.
Who knows. All those scenarios have risks for the most part of “something happens in Russia” and they decide to use nukes or an Ukraine collapse would trigger a dozen countries to get nukes.
The highest upside outcome would be US boots on the ground. Actually less insane that you make it sound. Outcomes
70% chance Putin sees that and immediately sues for peace. This actually provides Putin an out. Losing a war to Ukraine is disgraceful. Surrendering to the U.S. army is not disgraceful. No bullets get fired and lives are saved.
20-29% chance Putin is locked in and we get to see the liberation of Kuwait two. Few US casualties. American generals get to show off their toys and have a good time. China receives a strong message on Taiwan. America most comes together happy we slaughtered the dragon.
Some percent chance tactical nukes are used. Low percent chance he tries nuking population cities.
More options
Context Copy link
Let's expand on the surrender outcome. Putin is already pushing that Ukraine's surrender should include a promise to demilitarize.
3.1: Ukraine reluctantly agrees to this demand. What happens? The way I see it, in ~5 years, Russia invents a narrative the Ukraine broke the agreement, rolls right in and takes over Ukraine who lacks the ability to stop them.
3.2: Ukraine surrenders, but not from such an unfavorable position that they are forced to demilitarize, just forced to give up the territory they've currently lost. What happens? In this scenario Ukraine obviously has to up their military because there's no way they trust Russia not to do it again. Ukraine and Russia both use the time to rebuild their military. I strongly suspect Russia comes back to finish the job, using Ukraine's military buildup as justification.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hard to make predictions like that. Some chance Russia eventually grinds through ukraine and wins. Some chance Ukraine expels Russia outside of its pre war border and putin walks it off. Some chance Putin kicks the bucket in the near term naturally or otherwise and then it's hard to predict but seems unlikely a predecessors decides to bother trying to finish the job.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link