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 does this refer to? Googling "taking the fight to the Russians" just brings up statements that have been made after February 2022.
When it comes to statements made before the invasion, Biden - a figure of considerably more importance regarding US Ukraine policy than "two senators" - was quite clear in December 2021 that US is not going to send in the troops. When it comes to other aid, US and West have offered Ukraine more of it and taken bigger risks than just about anyone would have predicted before Feb 2022.
They didn't say they were going to send troops. They said they're going to give Ukraine everything it needs to win though, and press 'the case against Russia' and so on. Politico article on the visit. Video of the speech
I believe the plan was something like a fork in chess - give aid and support to Ukraine so it crushes the rebels and thus also wrecks Putin's domestic support and international prestige, or force Russians to intervene in which case you can paint them as a horrible danger to Europe and impose more sanctions and wreck European trade with Russia, which directly benefits you as they're forced to buy more from Canada and the US. Whatever reaction Russia does, it loses. Pretty basic plan but it can't help but work.
You are right. Almost no one did, but people in Ukrainian politics thought US would take even bigger risks. Check the image. And perhaps also the video of Arestovych talking about the situation.
[Here's a video from 2019 of then presidential advisor Arestovich] explaining the situation as he sees it, and casually stunning the interviewer with frankly speaking about a large-scale war with Russia. I don't really fault much of the analysis, except for the bit saying that a "major war" is a price worth paying for not being in a Russian led union. The fate of Bulgaria isn't one to envy, and that's what'd have awaited Ukraine, at best.. Fodder to keep the population shredder of the EU going for a bit longer. Why would anyone stay in a corrupt & poor state riddled with political strife when they can move abroad easily ?
It's funny how it neatly ties all it together. He says that NATO members weren't certain about taking in Ukraine - but Skripal affair, the airliner shootdown, coup in Montenegro and Syria made it clear they have to oppose Russia by accepting Ukraine.
Skripal affair was, to a 99.99% probability, a psyop done by someone in the British state. There's no other explanation for the utterly unlikely presence of one Britain's highest ranking military medical officers on the scene. It was really weird and poisoning a guy you exchanged who wasn't even very nasty doesn't make sense.
The airliner shootdown might have been malicious, in the sense that Ukrainians did not close their airspace over the area after losing a big jet to a SAM missile. Whether that was deliberate or incompetence is unclear. And as to Syria and the refugee wave caused by the war Americans supported and possibly caused, and in which they supported Al-Qaeda and allegedly also ISIS.
Grand strategy is a pretty nasty affair, the stakes are basically infinite so it's of course going to be absurd.
/images/17265908505155094.webp
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link