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 -
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.
These assumptions seem far to optimistic to me.
Russia is not some backwater country like Iraq. They were a superpower just 35 years ago. U.S. boots on the ground will mean tens of thousands of U.S. casualties at a minimum. It will also result in the destruction of the GPS satellite network, as well as likely disruptions to shipping and all sorts of other unknown consequences.
Your scenarios say there is a 90-99% probability that everything goes well. I would put scenario 1 at less than 10% and scenario 2 at about 10%. Russia is not going to simply surrender until they determine whether or not the U.S. military is a paper tiger. By the way, is it?
The most likely outcome would be large casualties on both sites. Assume 10,000+ NATO casualties and 100,000+ Russian ones. A nuclear exchange would be unlikely, but still a high enough probability to dominate any calculation of mean expected deaths.
Even a 1% chance of a nuclear exchange = 1 million deaths.
This is madness. People who want this war should go fight it in.
If E(death toll) is dominated by the small probability of nuclear armageddon in the way you say it is, then the people supporting the war from their armchairs have plenty of skin in the game.
Personally, I think my personal risk of being nuked in my bed is lower if NATO responds robustly to Russian aggression in Ukraine than if every tinpot country with a land border with Russia or China acquires nukes yesterday as a matter of basic national survival.
More options
Context Copy link
I am talking out of my ass of course. And would say you are doing likewise. Putting probabilities on things like this is an inexact science but my read on Russia has me in that camp.
Interesting though if the rest of my probabilities are correct a 1% chance of 100 million lives lost in a nuclear exchange added to my probabilities would still marginally favor American troops on the ground. Current war strategy on both sides of attritional warfare probably costs another 200-400k Ukranian lives and some multiple of that in Russian lives. Versus in my scenario the dominant probability is Russia backs down and sues for peace after a show of NATO force. The primary result of which would be Russia viewing Ukraine as no longer winnable.
"some multiple"? That's retarded. It's Ukraine not letting its men out and catching them on streets, not Russia. It's Ukraine who asked "all for all" POWs swap. Given how slow fronts are moving, losses are probably close to 1"1
In case "Russia backs down" you do not consider a number of deaths in civil war in Russia, just NATO shows and everything becomes good and sweet?
Why is Russia having a civil war. I am not sure why I have to account for deaths in a war that hasn’t happened.
I support better guns for Ukraine so they can win the war faster with fewer casualties.
More options
Context Copy link
It looks like you're using Ukraine's mobilization intensity as the sole factor of judging losses, without considering that Ukraine is a lot smaller and has a smaller mobilization pool in the first place.
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
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