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 -
Why is it so important not to break kayfabe?
I agree with Trump and Vance that Zelenskyy is working against peace and deserved the dressdown. If this chastens him and leads to peace, any amount of incivility will be worth it. Ukrainian conscripts are still dying every day.
What peace proposal is there? Suppose they let Russia keep the land they've already annexed with the only concession to stop fighting (already a bad precedent). Then in a few months, after they're refreshed a bit, Russia comes up with some dumb pretext to attack the rest of Ukraine. What mechanism exists to stop them that time that does not exist right now? There's so much distrust I don't see why Ukraine would agree to this.
Without any durable security guarantees from the US, it doesn't seem like peace is tractable.
With Zelenskyy still in power, it seems unlikely that there will be one.
It is not the responsibility of the US to protect Ukraine, a country halfway around the world. I can understand Trump's exasperation with Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy is the one with his hat in his hand, asking for American blood and treasure. He should act like it. And yeah, the commando look is wearing thin.
The correct move for the US here is a large aid and weapons package that is conditional on a peace deal, and withdrawal if there is not. Perhaps the Europeans can step up, if they still want to prosecute the war under Zelenskyy.
But there should be no US security guarantees. In fact, these should be explicitly denied to prevent a repeat of misinterpretations of the Budapest Memorandum.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Zelensky, essentially unprompted, heavily implied that diplomacy with Putin would be ineffective without concrete security guarantees (i.e. a promise of boots on the ground, if not now then at least in the future). Trump and Vance didn't think it was the right time to be discussing that. It spiraled out from there.
You can argue that it should have been handled better, but I don't think you can say that the exchange was irrational, or that it was solely based on an abstract notion of "disrespect".
I'm referring to 1:20 in this clip when Zelensky said "can I ask you...?"
Vance's preceding comment did not demand a response. It was already complete and self-contained. Zelensky could have simply smiled and said nothing and none of this would have happened.
Why should he? If he believes diplomacy with putin to be ineffective, but the trump administration refuses to provide security guarantees, then isn't this the correct response? What other support can he get when "diplomacy" so far involved talks with russia without Ukraine and strongarming them to pay back freely given support?
Also, to me it does not seem like " Trump and Vance didn't think it was the right time to be discussing that", it seems like they were affronted that he dared to disagree.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm really confused about how anyone is interpreting this as Zelensky being unreasonable or childish. Trump spent the first 30 seconds essentiay badmouthing Zelensky, during which time Zelensky sat there quietly and didn’t react. Around the 1:20 mark when Vance mentioned negotiation, Zelensky very calmly and defferentially said "Can I ask you something?" It wasn't in a heated or charged way--he was clearly trying to engage in rational discussion. He even said, "I'm not speaking just of Biden, it was president Obama, and President Trump, and President Biden, and now president Trump, and God bless now President Trump will stop him. But in 2014 nobody stopped him (Putin) he just occupied amlnd took. He killed people. . ." And he goes on to piint out that for 8 years, he tried to negotiate with Putin and that he actually signed a ceasefire in 2019.
What part of that is problematic? What part of that should have caused negotiations to blow up? You're telling me that somehow Zelensky didn't phrase something exactly right and that set Trump off and Zelensky's at fault because he shojld have known better? Not the guy who flies off the handle when someone says something that in any way challenges what he wants to hear, no matter how calmly, kindly or rationally?
Everything from Vance looked to me like a performance intended to make it appear as if for some reason Zelensky was doing something inappropriate, but i can't figure out what he's actually complaining about. "We tried to negotiate. What do you want us to do? ", "you didn't do negotiations that would bring peace, dummy. How dare you come here and say otherwise in front of the media?"
I literally can't believe that anyone is falling for Vance doing anything other than trying to put on a self aggrandizing performance here.
This ignores the 40 minutes before when Zelensky took subtle digs etc.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, there is a lot of subtext when you actually answer, yeah, why didn't anyone stop Putin in 2014? Because the answer, nakedly, is "Because Ukraine isn't worth it." It wasn't worth it to anyone. It wasn't worth it to Obama, it wasn't worth it to Europe that bought cheap Russian carbon energy for the next 7 years, it wasn't worth it to anyone.
Why was it worth it in 2022? It's hard to look past the deranging effect attacks on Trump along the Russian axis had on people. None of the moral, political, or economic calculus has changed since 2014. The only thing that changed is Trump and Russiagate. You also had a lot of warmongers with nothing to do since Biden forced them to quit Afghanistan.
It doesn't seem like Zelensky knows this. He thinks he's been able to get anything he wants because of the merit of his cause. He doesn't realize he's been riding the coat tails of TDS.
So, what part of that should have caused negotiations to blow up? The part where we are only in this mess because the American Intelligence services fabricated a criminal conspiracy involving their commander in chief. The part where Zelensky presumed he was in any position to ask for anything from anyone. The part where he failed to adequately appreciate why hatred for the man across from him was the only reason he got anything in the first place.
Putin failed to provide a fait accompli that made interference seem pointless and/or Biden isn't Obama?
And, of course, "we thought he'd be restrained and stick to Crimea" appears stupid in hindsight but isn't exactly unthinkable.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's worth synthesizing this with the claim elsewhere in the thread that Obama took an unusually mild response to the 2014 invasion in order to stand by his infamously pro-Russia line in the 2012 debate with Romney.
More options
Context Copy link
Let's take everything you're saying at face value and I'll concede what I'd otherwise consider dubious or false claims in your post.
What do you think the point of even inviting Zelensky was? What concessions was the US expecting that he didn’t offer? What SHOULD he have said in that meeting to make things go more smoothly? What part of that indicated that Zelensky was, in the moment, changing the terms of any deal the US and Ukraine had planned to agree to? All he did was point out that Russia can't be trusted to hold to the terms of a peace deal and that Russia will not be a good ally to the US long term. He was calm and defferential in the dace of a lot of insults. The things you just talked about have nothing to do with what Zelensky said or did in that meeting. He said thank you over and over again and didn't argue with any offensive comments made toward him peraonally. All he did was point out that Russia isn't a trustworthy ally, which aside from Trump, the US generally acknowledges. So what did you expect Zelensky to do differently TODAY and why?
Well, I'm seeing this analysis making the rounds. Judge for yourself. It's long, I've abbreviated it slightly.
Richard Hanania
All of this drama went down while I'm on a flight and I can't watch video right now, so I'm left with everyone else's takes. I love Hanania but am often surprised by how wildly he misreads emotions and facial expressions (he's admittedly autistic, no?)
Has anyone watched the full 40 minute video? Is this an accurate representation?
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really see what this adds to the discussion. I mean, if we start from the framing that Zelensky suddenly became hostile out of nowhere, then, yeah, that would make Trump and Vance upset. My entire contention has been that that's very clearly not what happened, though. When I tried to point out that Zelensky didn't appear remotely hostile to me, you said something about this whole situation being caused American intelligence fabricating evidence against Trump. And when I effectively asked "OK, but what part of what Zelensky did in the meeting was actually hostile," you posted someone stating that Zelensky was hostile. Like, sure, I know you think that already, but you still haven't shown why saying Putin is untrustworthy should be interpreted that way by the US. I know that was the mo.ent JD Vance chose to put on a (very obvious, IMO) show for the cameras, but it’s kind of absurd.
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
"Have you said thank you?" "Yes, frequently." "But have you said thank you today?"
This is the way you talk to a child, not a junior partner. The US has bought vast amounts of soft power in Ukraine and a permanent ally on the doorstep of its long-term geopolitical adversary, and is squandering those expensive gains for the sake of Trump's TV show.
If I only thank Republicans for something the government did and skip thanking Democrats when the chance arises it wouldn't be too shocking they'd potentially be somewhat miffed.
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry if this feels like dogpiling, but Russia is not an important geopolitical adversary of the U.S.
In 1989, the Soviet Union had a greater population than the US and a GDP about 50% as large.
In 2024, Russia's population is only about 40% of the US and its GDP is only 7% as large.
Russia is largely relevant only because of its nuclear arsenal and natural resources. Ukraine matters even less. It's GDP is only about 0.5% that of the US. Russia is not our main adversary, nor is Ukraine an important ally. If they were in the Russian sphere of influence (not saying they should be) it would be completely immaterial to the US.
Russia is China's closest ally, the primary sponsor of Iran and North Korea, and it has led a series of coups in West Africa against US-backed regimes. It has conducted multiple assassinations in allied countries. It has literally attacked US troops in Syria. It seized large numbers of US assets (and several US citizens) at the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine. It is currently under the most comprehensive sanctions regime run by the US against anyone. I can see a case for China being the greater threat to the US in the long-run (though I don't buy it myself), but if Russia isn't at least #2 then I have literally no clue who else would be.
Iran, perhaps?
Depends how much you want the US in the middle east.
Iran without Russia would be a significantly diminished force, to a greater degree than Russia without Iran. I also don't see Iran as a particularly credible threat to the US's (limited) interests in the region at this point, especially with Assad gone, Hizbollah weakened, and Hamas shattered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Zelensky is asking for American boys to die on the steppe in Ukraine on the other side of the world. And he's spent years trying to get that to happen. Honestly, quite a bit more should have been required of Zelensky.
Hardly, Ukraine is losing the war and has no path to victory. The only question left is how much Russia wants to take. And the only thing which stops that is vast escalation by a coalition putting boots on the ground in Russia to stop them. The European militaries are little more than paper jobs programs with empty armories.
The only country which isn't is Poland and you notice their behavior lately? They have no interest either. This is all about Europeans trying to get Americans to fight their war for them against Russia. No thanks; if Europeans want sovereignty they're going to have to earn it. If they want to fight Russia, they're going to have to convince their populations to hop into the shredder like so many poor Ukrainians.
Trump was trying to get some deal where Ukraine gets the "soft security guarantee" of Americans have property and interest in the country which would mean ongoing American interest in the long-term which should deter Russians from taking the rest of the country. This is something the Russians may accept. They will not accept and will not end the war if any European troops or "peacekeepers" are on the ground there. They will just keep fighting.
Instead, Zelensky attempted to push for hard security guarantees in front of cameras, which means a promise for American boys dying in Ukraine. So now, that's all likely lost.
I am curious what you think about this security guarantee: Russia gets to keep the land it annexed, which is more Russian aligned anyway (right?), but the rest of Ukraine gets to join NATO.
That offer is DOA because it would put NATO military within 300mi from Moscow. Russia has repeatedly stated no NATO membership for Ukraine and constitutionally guaranteed neutrality, but if the border was pushed back significantly (like the Dnieper River significantly) they may find it acceptable enough given some other concessions like having at least part of it demilitarized.
My analysis is based on my belief that Russia is winning the war, that the only reason the lines are the way they are is because Moscow prefers the fighting to happen in the east closer to Russian territory where they can demilitarize Ukraine by destroying its armies and burning its equipment (and the treasuries and armories of Europe to boot) and, most sadly, a shocking amount of Ukraine's best. As time goes on, this will just get worse until we have a Germany in 1944-45 situation where collapse leads to a slaughter of their remaining military forces.
The US has already used most of its leverage in the Biden administration. The only thing left is to appeal to Russia to avoid the butcher's bill, but given the above Russia has already paid most of the cost and political will so they're going to need a whole lot to stop.
Why is that the magic number? Maybe the map is distorting things but Ukraine being in NATO doesn't seem much different than Finland, Latvia and Estonia being nearby and much closer to St Petersburg and not that far from Moscow. Ukraine minus Donbas buffer seems like more of the same spitting distance.
Leverage: we could just say okay this bullshit has gone on long enough. The unilateral peace deal is the free part of Ukraine is part of NATO now. Keep Crimea and Donbas etc. Well played, Putin, you got your buffer. Now kindly cut the shit or our air forces will light you up.
Are they going to nuke over that? Seems unlikely.
It's because the Russians believe it's close enough to give the US first strike capability which it will not allow. And if NATO moved cruise missiles into the Baltic states or Finland, I expect Russia would do something about it. The various security agreements Russia has with the US are meant to make sure this doesn't happen. Russia's nuclear arsenal aren't around St. Petersburg for that reason.
You can quibble with whether you believe or disbelieve the Russians claims, but at the end of the day that's what they've stated and why they've said they will not allow Ukraine to be in NATO. This was ignored all the way up until December 2021 when it became pretty clear Russia's "security concerns" were about to be made real whether you believe them or not.
And that's why your "security guarantee" is DOA.
Sure, the US could also just launch nuclear weapons and let God sort it out.
No, the US and European air forces would suffer catastrophic casualties if they tried to do something like this, so Russia would call their bluff and it wouldn't happen.
Oh? Nuclear Armageddon where hundreds of millions die is unlikely? Okay, well I guess let's just push it. After all, we desperate need land on Russia's border in the NATO alliance because... well who cares, Russia has to make the substantive case why we shouldn't!
And what if, instead, they decide to nuke Ukraine and maybe nuke some of the bases those planes are stationed at in some eastern European countries in response? Are we going to embrace nuclear Armageddon over that? I doubt it.
Sorry, but this just isn't serious.
I'm fairly skeptical Russia has a meaningful response to NATO air power but we can call me a Kool Aid drinker if you like.
It doesn't really logically follow that supposing the West surrenders substantial territory and the war can end, it's not enough and Russia is going to push the big red button and now everyone dies. That is the opposite of improving Russia's security posture!
As has been demonstrated, countries that aren't part of NATO get invaded by Russia and there's that whole substantive case of the rules based order where you don't get to just conquer nations because it would totes help quiet your paranoia.
The problem with your comment is it's flippant and unserious. It doesn't actually respond to the risk, it just writes it off. NATO attempts to establish no-fly zone over Ukraine and then Russia nukes Ukraine and maybe a few airbases where the planes were being stationed in Eastern European countries. Are we ending the world over that? Seems unlikely.
Now what?
Russia is paranoid and that's ridiculous! but also, we must swallow all land around Russia!
another good way to avoid being invaded by Russia is to not attempt to join an explicitly anti-Russian alliance which constantly attempts to dominate Russia
that rules based order which stopped NATO from bombing Belgrade and destroying Yugoslavia, then splintering the former country into parts and then conquering each piece
or the long list of countries the US and many NATO members have helped conquer and otherwise destroy over the last 30 years
anyway, thanks for the dialogue
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And if they nuke ukraine over that, are we going to go full-MAD? Also seems unlikely.
We don't need nuclear weapons to open a can of whup ass on Russia. We can use our conventional forces for that and the gloves will be off if they use nukes in a war of conquest.
And even if we obliterate all of their power projection capability, it's still better for them to just take that and not choose suicide by nuking us directly.
The only reason we need to use nukes is to guarantee Armageddon if they nuke us.
I have seen claims that America would escalate to nukes if China succeeded in sinking a CBG with conventional ordinance. I am not highly confident that those claims are inaccurate; I can easily imagine many Americans, including Americans in positions of leadership, reacting to a serious naval disaster with an instinctive desire for a reset button.
It is entirely plausible to me that Russia would use nuclear arms in a tactical role as a response to loss against enemy conventional forces on their borders. It is my understanding that Russia has straight-up stated that this is their plan in such an eventuality. Your assessment, as I understand it, is that this is a bluff.
If a nuke wipes out an American division, is it your position that we should nuke Russian forces in reply, presumably in a similar tactical fashion?
If they continue to escalate, at what point do we cut our losses, short of full MAD?
I'm on the record as considering the nuclear annihilation of America's coasts as not quite the worst-case scenario imaginable, but I still consider it a very bad case. I do not want to play global thermonuclear war today. The impression I get from most Ukraine-boosters is that there is no appreciable risk of global thermonuclear war no matter how far this escalates, but I notice that they have been steadily pushing for escalations for years now, those escalations have not actually delivered the results they promised, and that they don't actually seem to have a plan other than "escalate until we win".
If you are wrong about Russian capabilities and commitment, it is distinctly possible that a lot of people are going to die, and the world that comes out the other end is not going to have much resemblance to the one you have known to date. I think you should take a moment and consider that maybe the juice is not actually worth the squeeze, particularly given that the country you're counting on to prosecute this war is itself coming apart at the seams.
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
I thought he was still just asking for materiel. When did he request troops?
The US has already sent lots of material. Ukraine and Europe want American security guarantees which means American soldiers and military in Ukraine protecting it from Russia. In my opinion, this whole fiasco is trying to manipulate the US into giving a guarantee so that Europe and Ukraine can get the US to fight this war for them. First it started with Europeans talking about "peacekeepers," but only with American security guarantees. The Russians will not allow European troops in Ukraine which means they will bomb European troops which go into Ukraine which would trigger the security guarantees.
This is why both the Biden admin and the Trump admin refuse to give such guarantees.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link