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 -
comments that don't praise Zelensky get downvoted it seems. War has always been popular. Even ww2, in which there was trepidation initially, had the full backing of the public (obv. Pearl Harbor). Then when it fails (like Iraq or Vietnam) we can say in hindsight it was a bad idea after it's no longer popular to support it .
I actually would be interested in something about Zelensky that is not hero-worship.
But completely missing point is not interesting. At least this take is not babbling about green screens.
More options
Context Copy link
I downvoted because it seems like a gross denial of reality.
"I can't see why a political leader who had every chance to flee his country while his city was being attacked and live in comfort at the head of a government-in-exile as opposed to staying and risking very real death might be heroic" seems like someone deliberately failing to understand something very obvious.
Imagine if I came in and said "I'm unsure why abortions are considered evil by some people.". The answer is very obvious, oft-repeated and you have to work very hard to avoid hearing it. The same is true for Zelensky not fleeing Ukraine.
Why flee to be a leader in exile when you can stick around, outlaw your political rivals, and establish a cult of personality? The idea Zelensky is standing against an oncoming tide, a bereft underdog, utterly fails to recognize the absolute deluge of nonstop western support propping the country up, and has to acknowledge Russia's own humiliating underperformance significantly reducing any serious risk to Zelensky's health.
The only risk Zelensky's taking is that he might end up sore from the entire fucking world jerking him off.
But even the West's CIA predicted a Russian invasion of Ukraine and that it would topple the country quickly. That doesn't sound like something the overdog anticipates, if it's comfortably over.
I trust nothing said by US intelligence by default, sorry. I did not predict a quick toppling and I don't think anyone serious did, either. Ukraine isn't some goat-herding bunch of terrorists shaking AKs... and even the goat herders didn't go down quickly.
Russia predicted a quick toppling with sufficiently high probability that soldiers packed dress uniforms for the victory parade. Scott Alexander reported that the big US-facing prediction markets all briefly traded at >50% probability of Kyiv falling by April 2022.
If prediction markets thought a war was going to be quick that bodes poorly for prediction markets.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
CIA had better intel from inner circles of Kremlin that enabled them to predict that Putin will start a war. It is not that hard to predict if you have inside info. But apparently even CIA underestimated Ukrainians and their resolve to fight and their preparedness. Anyone who had talked to Ukrainians for the last 8 years would have known how serious they were to fight and resist. It is strange that CIA miscalculated so much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, in hindsight decisions always look low-risk because the the other outcome didn't happen. I'm not a Zelensky stan (and in all honesty I don't care that much about the war in Ukraine despite being very surprised by the sheer Russian inability to win), but I'm not claiming he's considered heroic because of what he did today.
Staying in your country when the West is offering peaceful and safe asylum at the point where your enemies are bombarding the city you're living in and nobody (and if you personally called the course of this war back in February I apologise, but you'd be just about the only one) thinks you have any real chance of victory is brave. By the standards of modern politicians I'd say heroic. Perhaps Zelensky somehow knew they'd push the Russians back, but considering he apparently didn't even believe they were going to invade I find that unlikely. Staying and fighting in what everyone - including likely Zelensky - thought was a doomed effort to repel the Russians and save his country is genuinely admirable, and even if you disagree I don't see how you don't get that other people consider him heroic.
The fact that Ukraine went from 'doomed' to 'holding out exceptionally well and pushing the Russians back in a major counter-offensive' is true, but how could he have known that?
Zelensky maybe didn't believe that Russians will attack exactly at this moment but as Ukraine was already in war with Russia, he already had a strategy to fight regardless when and how Russia attacked. Most likely he minimised the risk of potential attack in order to reduce panic. Had the EU accepted Ukrainian refugees before 24 February? It would have been very messy at the border.
I predicted that Russians might take over larger part of Ukraine but they won't be able to obtain compliance by locals. It will lead to terrible atrocities committed by Russians. Luckily Russians were able to only take over less Ukrainian territory but the point about atrocities remain. Eastern part has more Russian loyalists and potentially less need for Russians to terrorize the population and yet they are doing it anyway, like shooting the conductor at his home for refusing to take part in their concert. But if Russians had taken Kyiv, it would be the same as in Bucha except 100 times greater in scale.
There was an idea (and still suggested by some) that the west should not help Ukraine because that will only prolong the inevitable defeat of Ukraine. I counteracted that actually by letting Russia win, it can cause a second Holodomor. We need to provide all help to Ukraine to defend themselves. I am ambivalent about the Crimea and Donbass. Ultimately it is not that important about whether some territory is lost or gained (although it may cause a bad international precedent). Ukraine still needs more defence capabilities so that at least civilians in the rest of Ukraine don't get blown up regularly.
More options
Context Copy link
I predicted a war that would take three to five years to resolve. I also predicted this would go in Russia's favor, but the important thing is that it was never going to be fast. Anyone who thought it was was engaging in ridiculous wishful thinking -- nothing like this is fast. Savages in the hills last for decades, why would a modern state with a roughly modern if not amazing military not, especially with such significant backing?
Even now, I think Russia's eventual victory is more likely than not (though this changes bit by bit daily), but it will never be a quick victory. There will always be plenty of time for Zelensky to get out of Dodge if he really needs to, though I don't think he will -- even if Ukraine loses, I don't think the loss will be so total as to endanger him.
Savages in the hills last for decades, but the important thing is that Zelensky isn't one of the savages! He's one of the important people Russia would very much like to get their hands on. The obvious parallel is Saddam Hussein. America wanted Saddam dead and got it, even though the insurgency went in a completely different direction. That insurgencies last for decades doesn't mean the state does. Iraq took less than a month to be knocked out, Saddam went into hiding and was captured a couple of months later.
Again, right now all the things you're saying seem obvious because they're being said with the benefit of hindsight. Of course the Ukrainians would hold the line (no matter that virtually nobody believed this six months ago), and of course the Russians wouldn't be able to land a knockout blow, but given that the entire world seemed blindsided by this, why should have it been obvious to Zelensky that it was true? It's one thing to assume someone will notice the very obvious, but if everyone misses it, perhaps it wasn't as obvious as all that?
Saddam didn't have a friendly border to slowly fall back to and ultimately cross. Ukraine is much muddier than Iraq, and obviously the Russian military is not the US military. Even assuming exemplary performance by the Russians, a walking person would have stayed ahead of their advances, on average.
More options
Context Copy link
These things were obvious to me before this all played out, so I reject your claim it's hindsight. Russia has been an over-inflated boogieman for a long time.
Given that the entire world seemed blindsided by this, why should have it been obvious to Zelensky that it was true? It's one thing to assume someone will notice the very obvious, but if almost everyone misses it (and congratulations on being a lone voice of truth in the wilderness, I'd love to see what you said about this prior to the war), perhaps it wasn't as obvious as all that?
I do not believe serious thinkers genuinely thought Ukraine would quickly fall into collapse. Instead, I think serious thinkers have, for decades, been strongly incentivized to play up the terrible threat of Russia, and that insisting there's no hope and all is lost and the wicked Soviet Monster is going to steamroll in (... unless we support our champ Zelensky and support sending tons of armaments and support coordinating their attacks with our own intelligence services and...) was only ever a cynical farce.
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
Russia was on paper far superior to the Ukrainian forces early in the war. They were shelling Kiev and there was a very real fear it could fall, before Russian logistical and morale problems forced a retreat. No one, not even the Russians themselves, expected such a pathetic showing by the Russian armed forces.
Had the contest ever been "Russia, at max powerlevel, against Ukraine", sure. But Russia has been obviously not as powerful as its loudest detractors say for a long time, and the western world united to support Ukraine in every way. I agree, on paper, the first one suggests Russia will steamroll.
I don't think that first one was ever on the table, though, and people who said so were off base. The war was always going to be Ukrainians supported by the US and its friends against a larger but more sclerotic foe. While Russia's since embarrassed itself, anyone predicting a steamroll was engaging in wishful thinking -- the more reasonable expectation was always a long, drawn-out grind that Russia's got an advantage in, but not an uncontestable one.
We didn't send troops.
Bodies are a necessary component of a war effort, but not the primary one these days. The weapons and the intelligence dominate.
Apparently. And there's no doubt that weapons and intelligence were major contributions by the West, not to mention training in Western military doctrine over the past eight years, which also seems to have been really effective. But the Western world didn't unite to support Ukraine in every way. The West has carefully threaded the needle to prevent (1) arming Ukraine with weapons so long as it seemed plausible that they would surrender them to the Russians, and (2) an escalatory spiral into a hot war with NATO. The second in particular precluded Western boots on the ground and Western munitions capable of substantially longer range than HIMARS.
Very well, I concede 'every way' is incorrect. The west is not officially putting boots down on the ground (though I am sure there's plenty of veterans and consultants unofficially helping out), only the most important ways.
This really does not change what I said at all. Ukraine is getting immense amounts of incredibly important support. It's not standing on its own against the great beast.
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
Hindsight is 20/20. You act as if all of these facts were established before the war started.
Yes, I conceded that one could call it bravery to not flee immediately when invaded -- but it became quickly apparent that the Russian machine is dysfunctional, and anyone paying attention has recognized Russia's threat has been exaggerated for decades in service to the interests of western spooks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Indeed. It's not like he's on the front line, eating bullets and killing Russians. Zelensky is bravely encouraging Ukranians to die for him and the west to fund him. And the first is fine, let a man choose what cause he dies for, the latter irritates me. His reward, should he survive -- which by all appearances he's going to -- is a lifetime of hero worship from the global masses. There won't be a sorority house in the world lacking a woman willing to drop to her knees and salute the Ukranian flag.
I'm not even saying Zelensky's a uniquely bad man. He seems unremarkable to me, other than being photogenic and knowing how to play to a crowd with his performance background. He's just Justin Trudeau by way of pop culture Che.
Kiev was the front line for a good portion of the early war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link