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 -
You seem to be assuming that the most straightforward avenue "to win the war" is also the most viable for Ukraine to take. It reads as "just break the Russians' offensive head-on, bro", but in more words.
My impression is that they, in fact, believe that with the resources available they can't just break the Russians' offensive head-on, or otherwise accomplish straightforward victories that would be legible to you as "trying to win the war", so they're going for headline victories. Which aren't nothing.
Then what, exactly, is all of this western aid paying for?
What is the length of commitment necessary from the West for Ukraine to win the war?
I think the average American is happy to support Ukraine, less happy, if it proves to be a Afghanistan-level commitment. Open-ended conflicts with no clear objective is the kind of foreign entanglement I do not like.
Presumably to bleed Russia of manpower and materiel. Ukraine definitely isn't winning the war right now, but Russia's eventual victory (barring some sort of black swan event like an internal coup or civil war etc.) will definitely be a Phyrric one. Russia will likely become a client state of the Chinese (see China already bending Russia over on petroleum deals), the embarrassing performance of a lot of their systems (like the S-400) will cause tons of nation states to turn to other suppliers for arms. The widespread incompetence seen in the Russian military is unlikely to lead to significant or lasting reforms.
In the end Russia will likely secure a peace deal that gives them Crimea officially (along with a land bridge connecting it, basically the territory that Russia currently controls). But at tremendous cost to their capabilities and their place in the world order.
For me any ideas I had of Russia being able to go head to head against NATO were obviously wrong after the failed Kiev offensive at the start of the invasion. Russia clearly can't into logistics when they don't have uncontested railways within 50 km of where they're operating. Logistics is what wins wars, and has ever since the advent of modern weapons/air power/etc. have made armies unable to support themselves solely on raping and pillaging the countryside. See America's barge dedicated to making ice cream for troops in the Pacific vs. Japan not even having enough fuel for their remaining fleet by the end of WW2 (and the US also had several more ice cream barges serving the European theater).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link