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 -
When did Zelensky ask for 'every weapon' under the sun? He clearly didn't, so what exactly do you mean? He is asking for what makes sense, the US and EU to assist in defeating or at least deterring Russia. If you ask me why that makes sense it would indicate a lack in your geopolitical knowledge and it would induce me to ask why you think you are capable of taking a position on this if you can't understand something as simple as that? Bullshitting and 'trolling' your ally and the person whose side you are supposed to represent in negotiations while supporting the other side's propaganda is the most insane thing you could say to support the lunatic's ramblings. Your last paragraph again indicates your lack of understanding of the greater picture. Would you be ok with Trump disentangling from NATO if the Russians decide to attempt to get a chunk of estonia? Because this is where this is heading when your own president is parroting enemy propaganda verbatim. I am sure you are also trying to explain away the guy's ramblings on Greenland and Canada. You guys elected a dummy that watches too much nonsense on twitter and you will say anything other than " oh shit we fucked up"..
I'm also european (german) and tbh this is exactly the attitude that pisses me off about the current EU. We're the equivalent of a guy who moved in with a friend because "it just makes sense, we save lots of money and we get along great". But as our friend moved forward, has a great job and pays more and more, we got stuck in place and increasingly skimp on the rent. And then we pretend to be surprised when he moves out to the big city, disgusted with us.
The US kept their backyard reasonably clean (Mexico and Canada), their economy has been growing tremendously compared to ours, and they invest appropriately in the military to safeguard their interests. We did none of those things. Russia is pathetic, we should have been able to easily defend Ukraine, but we couldn't, so the US had to jump in despite the fact that keeping Russia at bay is far, far more important to us (even if it may be one interest among many for the US, it's their decision whether they continue investing in this one).
Just to be clear, I want the war to continue, I want Russia to get nothing but a bloody nose. And if we had kept our house in order, we could let the US and Russia have their little peace talk, tell them to fuck off, and continue the war in Ukraine on our own anyway. But we didn't, so we depend on them, and we have no-one to blame but ourselves. WE are the dummys, not them, and we're way too far up our own asses to realize that.
First of all I completely agree, I hate the current European culture of naive pacifism and hyper-leftist tendencies. In my mind the situation is unsalvageable but anyway. What I believe you are missing though is that the US is not doing anything out of it's good heart , instead it's influence and protection over the continent is a big part of why it's still the global hegemon. Giving that up is not a result of ' you dummies fend for yourselves I am done paying ' but more the result of bad policy and a senile president whose understanding is clouded by Russian propaganda. In fact there is an interesting book by Alexander Dugin that talks about how it should be a Russian plan to disentangle Europe from the US by destabilization and sabotage etc. In fact it's not just a book but something of a manual to the Russian geopolitic influencers. Other then that even though I agree with you in principle I believe no European would like to see the eastern front repeat in the 21st century , well a US-EU breakup brings that infinetly closer in my opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As a European - yes. GTFO please. Europe should be able to defend yourself. And Russia is pathetic foe anyway.
Not sure I understand , are you European or are you referring to me being European? Whatever the case may be , Europe is not ready to defend itself and if we are abandoned by the Americans we will suffer very very badly in a war we might not even win. Forget our militaries , we are culturally unable to actually fight , and the Russian propaganda machine will have a field day destroying our democracies.
I am European. Not everyone in europe is globohomo. If push comes to shove Moscow will burn. Ankara too if it comes from the south.
Now we may have to execute majority of current elites and do some nasty stuff with the refugees, but it is doable.
I am Greek by the way, I hope your optimism is not misplaced , it will certainly not be easy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
These sound like very serious problems. I would be in favor of trying to cooperate with Europe in trying to fix them, if Europe hadn't convinced me that they are implacably dedicated to the destruction of my society and my values. Given that they have done that, why should my tax dollars, the attention of my politicians, and the lives of my fellow countrymen go to propping up a system whose agents absolutely would see me persecuted by the full power of the state for exercising what I perceive to be core human rights of conscience and liberty?
We are able to fight, and we are not helpless in the face of foreign propaganda, or domestic propaganda for that matter. Maybe you should have done things differently somewhere along the line, if this is where your choices have led you? If you have nothing to offer Red Tribe but scorn, why should Red Tribe cooperate with you?
I will say that 'Europe' is of course ultimately a collection of people and tribes, layered over with a set of NGOs. Many of us are not implacably dedicated to the destruction of your society and values - quite the opposite. If America were to make military aid conditional on European progressives shutting down shop a la Vance, many of us would be quite happy to take that offer. It wouldn't be frictionless or permanent, of course, relationships between vassal and master never are, but relationships with Red Tribe could surely be better than they are.
More options
Context Copy link
What are you talking about? Who wants the destruction of your society and your values? Do you spend too much time on reddit? Europeans would love to visit the US and shoot guns and shit , even the left-wingers . I believe that these statements you make come in direct contradiction to your statement ' we are not helpless in the face of foreign propaganda ' , the literal russian playbook is sowing discord , confusion and making us enemies and it seems to me that it's working, if not on you at least on a lot of MAGA Americans. The issues you have with the European left-wingers are the same issues European conservatives have with them , the same exact way I dislike the American left, so what exactly is the problem? If anything the problems are internal for each of us. I guess you can make the case that Europe is more left-leaning etc but so what? You want to give up on the entire continent over what exactly? The Danish fought in afghanistan for you and your dummy of a president just keeps on going at them and here you are speaking over tribes and value theories. In fact the whole Ukraine thing can certainly be blamed on you since you are the NATO member that decides on policy and now after setting the chess board you want to remove the queen and leave the pawns to get fucked?
In any case all of these morality talk is unnecessary. The US holds the role of global hegemon in part because of it's influence over Europe, alienating us and losing that is not only morally wrong but most certainly also bad geopolitics. That's the issue , your president making bad decisions one after the other and bowing down to Putin , not whether my feelings are hurt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Zelenksy blew past several red lines we had previously had in terms of aid because we didn't want the conflict to escalate. And time after time, he got what he wanted anyways, and often used it in ways to try to drag the US deeper into the conflict. Tanks, long range missiles, fighter jets. About the only thing he hasn't been given are nukes, so I suppose, yes, he hasn't been given literally every weapon under the sun. Previously the Biden administration has at least postured about not wanting Ukraine to use our long range missiles to strike inside Russia... which they did anyways.
Maybe the whole thing has been a pointless exercise in half measures. Maybe we shouldn't have slowly trickled increasingly sophisticated and destructive weapons into the conflict, and just gone all in. Maybe we shouldn't have kept up this pretense of trying not to escalate, and not enable strikes deep inside Russian territory, and just bombed the fuck out of a nuclear power. Maybe we should have just gone mask off and thrown all the US troops we had into the conflict and gotten it over with.
I mean, I don't think so. But maybe I'm wrong.
And if you don't think that's what we should have done either, the really only leaves winding this up. Most sober strategist now admit the war is unwinnable. The most we can get out of it is encouraging the Ukrainians to genocide themselves in the trenches to try to bleed Russia. Might be good for the US geopolitical interest, but it won't look like Ukraine "winning".
I have reiiterared my opinion on the issue I believe a couple of times. Both sides (biden and trump) are equally bad but for different reasons. 'Zelensky blew past several red lines ' like which? The only red lines he blew past , way too late in my opinion , were red lines that shouldn't have existed in the first place. The Biden admin was a weak admin headed by a bunch of peace loving staffers that had no idea what it takes to prosecute and ultimately win a war , they drip fed Ukraine and as a result we have the mess we have now. In regards to what you said , not drip feeding Ukraine is exactly what we should have done. Give them everything they need to shatter the russian force in Ukraine early in the war at the kharkiv counteroffensive and if Putin doesn't take the L and decides to go nuclear ( which he probably won't) , then you implement a no fly zone over Ukraine and merk everything with a Z on it. Sounds too risky? Well then I guess you can take half measures but don't be surprised when it backfires.
On the other side let's not fool ourselves that Trump is a man of logic and red lines. He is an impulsive guy with a bully mindset, sometimes if channeled correctly it can work , sometimes it won't. In this case it's backfiring since the man has clearly been corrupted by russian disinformation operations and so the bullying is focused on Ukraine. What does the war being unwinnable mean to you? Do you mean for the Russians? Because sure , the Russians unless we remove all assistance will literally never get exactly what they wanted and by default we win. Ukraine gets to live and fight another day so again that seems like a victory to me. The fact that Russian propaganda has convinced even you that the war is somehow unwinnable is maddening, this line of thinking is so problematic. Hearing ' to the last ukrainian ' and 'poor ukrainians are dying' from the people whose biggest celebration is their fanatical resistance to nazi germany and who today are getting slaughtered in the thousands for meters of empty land is absolutely wild.
I do have a couple of ideas on what the current best avenue of approach would be for NATO in Ukraine , but that would take too much writing and be speculation. What I am certain of is that Trump's position and rhetoric ensures that Ukraine gets fucked and that russia gets a blank check to do it again and unless he stays in power and goes full isolationist the next goverment will have to decide whether Estonia , Poland or Taiwan is worth dying over, because the message you give will be clear " Pump the air full of propaganda , and you can take whatever ".
Risk management 101:
Strategy A backfires and causes some land in Eastern Europe (not part of NATO or any US treaty ally) to change hands. And some people on the internet will complain about being betrayed.
Strategy B backfires and results in the incineration of Europe and North America, hundreds of millions of deaths by fire and famine. Western civilization is finished. And Ukraine especially is finished, they are at the front line. Zero good outcome for them. There are other delightful possibilities, like a still-bloody war of tactical nukes where Ukraine and much of Eastern Europe gets wrecked but most cities survive more or less intact.
Hmm, which is preferable? How should we reduce the risk here?
Yours is a genuinely dangerous line of argument. No Russian leader would think that the US would extend its nuclear umbrella so far beyond its treaty allies in the fashion you're proposing. It makes a complete mockery of nuclear strategy to signal totally uncredible deterrence and then back it up like this. Why so cavalier about a nuclear exchange? Why should anyone in Dallas or Manchester risk being incinerated over towns nobody can even name changing hands in Donetsk? Nobody promised to do this, there was no treaty, no deterrence.
Normalizing this hyper-aggressive attitude is one of the greatest dangers to civilization on the planet. Just because Ukraine made a fatal error, it does not follow that the entire Western world needs to double down and make an even bigger blunder.
I guess the end point of that is Poland,Itally, Japan and every other major (former) US ally that doesn't already have nukes telling the US to shove non-proliferation right up its ass and developing there own nuclear weapons stockpiles. They would probably even work together doing this.
More options
Context Copy link
To me normalizing the defeatist attitude you espouse is more problematic for NATO. Are you suggesting that the west/NATO can never again win a conventional war? Because whether it is the Iranians , the Russians or the Chinese they will always hold the nuclear stick over our head. What happens if the Russians invade NATO territory in a couple of years? Are we allowed to take back anything they take ? Or will they call it Russian and hold nuclear war as the ultimate card. Do you agree that at some point , if it comes to it, people in Dallas or Manchester WILL have to risk being incinerated over towns nobody can even name? Maybe these towns will not be in donetsk ok let's agree to that but certainly at some point you have to draw a line and risk getting nuked , correct? I hope you see the issue , the dichotomy of strategy A and B you mentioned will exist whether its NATO territory or not, it's just that I assume when it comes to NATO territory you will be ok with the risk? If your answer is no then I hope you are ready to always be bullied by autocrats and their absolute control over the population.
When it comes to Ukraine, the only thing I said is that we should have given them more from the start instead of half-assing it. If we had done that I believe they would have been fully more capable in destroying Russian forces during the early counteroffensives instead of stalling out and letting the Russians off to fight another day. At that point I seriously doubt Putin would have nuked ukrainian forces , let alone ukrainian civilians and certainly no way he nukes western capitals over a conventional loss by his actual enemy. If he did actually nuke (tactically , the other two situations I consider almost impossible ) them I believe even the Chinese would have been on his ass to end it. But in any case it would have been moot , nukes as I said are strategic weapons and offer no real tactical advantages so no point using them as a result of a conventional loss. The ground you lost is still lost and your army no more capable then before. You just made yourself an international pariah.
There's a huge distinction between a country invading an ally and a country invading a non-ally. That's the whole point of alliances. Russia doesn't throw a massive tantrum when the US invades or bombs countries that aren't Russian allies, even with borderline Russian allies like Syria they show a level of restraint. They didn't give the Syrian government Smerch or Kalibr missiles and encourage them to kill all the US troops based in Syria. They didn't start handing out Manpads in Iraq and tell them to kill every Coalition soldier they saw.
Nukes are literally just big bombs, the 'nuclear taboo' is a social construct designed to keep the little countries servile before the big powers. The US seriously considered using nukes in Korea and Vietnam, wars that were very far from the US, wars the US could afford to lose. Even then they incinerated North Korea such that the entire country was wrecked and all cities were razed, via incendiaries rather than nukes. They wrecked much of Laos and Cambodia in the Vietnam War. Yet the US is not an international pariah because the US is a strong power and has things people want.
Russia isn't a pariah today outside the world of US allies. Even amongst them trade continues just via Azerbaijan or various stans. It doesn't matter whether you kill people with 155mm shells, drones, small arms or H-bombs, it's the same outcome. Russia still has oil and people want energy, minerals, food - even in China.
There are of course disadvantages to using nuclear weapons and various risks (Ukraine assembling a dirty bomb or launching various radiological attacks amongst other things) but it's not unthinkable that Russia would go nuclear over a high-intensity conventional war right next door to them if they judged that conventional victory was unattainable. They could be used for signalling purposes to compel immediate negotiations or en masse tactically to smash offensives, wipe airfields off the map, destroy command and control or logistics hubs, for the EMP effect... These are the ultimate weapons for a reason.
The US doesn't have a monopoly on massacring people and razing cities when easy victory becomes elusive, that's not how it works.
Furthermore, it's unlikely that 'maximum aid' could even achieve that outcome. It takes a long time to train people to use Patriots, tanks, F-16s and so on. Russia could assemble large new formations and try again, just as we've seen in 2023 and 2024.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Each evening before going to sleep I pray that during the night our leader gives the order to launch every ICBM at you.
Well that was uncalled for.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm escalating this to permaban - we know who you are.
More options
Context Copy link
Nope. Previous warning in the mod log for this same issue. Banned for a day, and the bans will rapidly escalate if you continue to communicate in this fashion.
More options
Context Copy link
Why not become useful and go get turned into pink mist by a Ukrainian FPV? At least then your leader will get his money's worth out of you.
Also nope, and "he started it" doesn't cut it. Four warnings in the mod log, no quality contributions, one note recently with "ban next time". This is next time. Banned for a day, and the bans will rapidly escalate if you continue to communicate in this fashion. Next time report and move on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I see I have misjudged you. I didn't realize I was speaking with a "Putin is too much of a pussy to go nuclear" kind of guy.
Uh... alright then. I mean if that's what you actually believe. Glad it's out there.
The position is MAD, which is still the only real response to nuclear threats. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine, every capable nation in the world starts its own nuclear weapons program. How does that fare for global nuclear war?
Every capable nation in the world is already working on it's own nuclear weapons program. The precedent was set when Ghedaffi disarmed, and ended up with a bayonet up his ass inside a decade. North Korea brings it up every time we try to get them to disarm. History didn't start 4 years ago. Nukes have gotten you a seat at the table, and some level of caution for your sphere of influence. Disarming gets USAID sponsoring a color revolution in your country. The US will literally fund the same terrorist organizations that launched the largest terrorist attack on our own country, if it means they also get to coup some petty dictator that pissed them off once and then was foolish enough to back down.
I mean, who's even left to worry about getting nukes, that isn't already trying?
There are very few states right now who are trying in earnest. Most still act as if the Non-Proliferation Treaty is real and that the U.S. nuclear umbrella will protect them. Ukraine thought they were still safe because they were in line with U.S. interests. They had the Budapest memorandum, and destabilizing Russia was a perennial U.S. interest. Now, suddenly, U.S. interests are... the fleeting whims of the current president, entirely divorced from geopolitical realities. So now there is a new lesson to learn: the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally, no longer a benevolent hedgemon. It's a very different lesson than one anyone learnt from Gadaffi's fate, and a dramatically different state of affairs to live in.
All these states formerly relying on U.S. protection are going to want their own nukes now: Finland, Poland, Romania, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand; perhaps Singapore and Taiwan as well, although those may be less practical (no land to test with, risky that Malaysia and China respectively would be aggravated by such programs before they get off the ground).
On top of that, states which were grumbling and maybe learnt from Gaddafi and were maybe doing things slowly in secret but were still somewhat checked by U.S. soft power are now certainly not going to hold back. That's at the very least Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan accelerating their programs.
And what's stopping Mexico and Brazil from starting a nuclear program at that point, other than lacking state capacity?
More options
Context Copy link
Let's not forget that Ukraine had inherited a ton of the USSR's nuclear stockpile when it had collapsed and they were pressured to give them up and transfer them to Russia in exchange for security guarantees. Oops!
Ukraine did not have either the PAL codes or control over the troops that operationally controlled the nuclear weapons. "US stole our nukes" is going to be Ukraine's "stabbed in the back" narrative but the truth is that Ukraine never had the nuclear weapons except inasmuch as they were parked on Ukrainian soil. Quite possibly Ukraine would have gotten invaded 30 years ago if they had tried to touch the nuclear weapons on their territory, and it might very well have been a joint US-Russian operation.
[Now, to be fair to Ukraine, I really do suspect they were treated rather badly by the US.]
More options
Context Copy link
Nukes you can't fire aren't really nukes per se. They were pressured to give them up because they weren't useful to Ukraine and having the raw materials floating around is incredibly dangerous.
But yes, everyone who doesn't have nuclear weapons should want them. I suspect one of the original reasons America started playing World Police is to reduce the incentives for smaller countries to obtain nukes.
As an American it remains an insane oddity to me that Pakistan wasn't given the Gulf War treatment in 1998 after its nuclear tests. We didn't even totally suspend aid!
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
Spare me your irony ,you got any actual arguments other than twisting my words? You think Putin would go nuclear over a conventional loss in Ukraine? Ukrainian soldiers have captured Russian villages for months and they are still there , and you think he would use nukes ( even tactically) because the Ukrainians won inside Ukraine? I highly doubt it, and if you are ready to be bullied on a MIGHT then you might as well disolve NATO right now and go home.
I mean, yeah, that's kind of my thinking.
Just what exactly is your theory of mind with Putin? That he's this bloodthirsty thug that will only respect coming down on him with the full force of the US and NATO combined forces, but that he's also too scared to use his nuclear weapons to backstop a conventional loss on the battlefield a days drive from Moscow? I just don't get it. He's simultaneously this enormous belligerent and also a pushover to you.
When did I say that Putin is a bloodthirsty thug? I think you are projecting someone else's opinions on me. Whatever else he may be he certainly is an enemy of NATO , and at the same time I think he is a relatively rational actor. RELATIVELY. I never said he is scared , I said that I doubt he will nuke kiev as a result of losing conventionally inside Ukraine. In fact if you disagree with this then its you saying he is a bloodthirsty thug that would murder millions over bitterness. Maybe he will use tactical nukes but tactical nukes won't really do much , nukes are a strategic weapon and I doubt he will nuke Kiev over his army getting routed. The 'days drive from Moscow' is inconsequential , it's not the 40s anymore , we can track enemies in real time and just like in kursk today , it would be clear to him whether Ukrainian formations have stopped at the border for example , or if they are heading for moscow.
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