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 -
As opposed to, say, holding a peace summit with Russia without inviting Ukraine to the table, which didn't legitimately hurt relations?
This is an embarrassment to the Americans after the Americans embarrassed the Ukrainians and the Europeans. The reason you've never seen anything like this is because you've probably not been watching for it, and non-Trump presidents wouldn't have made this sort of summit after shunning a leader. Tit-for-tats aren't uncommon.
Note, also, that the 'much-anticipated minerals deal' would have given the Americans substantial influence over the future of the Ukrainian economy. As in, 'the sort of influence that conspiracy theories are made of' influence, depending how the not-written Fund Agreement would have gone.
Zelensky might have gone forward with it had Trump offered security guarantees rather than the ability to retroactively act as if security guarantees had been offered, but that's on Trump to offer.
This would presume the issue was over Zelensky's pride, as opposed to terms, or Trump's pride. Also- don't ignore the potential that this may have been in part engineered.
Yesterday, media was reporting that today's meeting only happened because of France's Macron making an appeal with Trump. In turn, the Europeans were already raising their invitation of Zelensky to the 6 March summit. Within hours- which is to say, in time for the European evening news and to set the stage for tomorrow morning's news- multinational media is covering Macron backing Zelensky.
And all on a DC Friday, i.e. the cliche timing for any expected bad news story?
So you have a scenario of-
Previous Week: The Americans have a power play of having direct talks with Russia, at diplomatic expense of Ukraine and Europe
This Week: American President doesn't want to meet Ukrainian President; European VIP intervenes; Because EUR VIP intervenes, Meeting Occurs; Meeting goes poorly; EUR VIP among the first global leaders being cited
Next Week: Just who is more humiliated by US-UKR meeting is weekly news cycle; UKR-EU summit is stage-managed; Europe bolsters position vis-a-vis US; EUR VIP claims mantle of anti-Trump european leadership
N.b. it was only 50% of revenues from non-existent and infeasible industries, not that it matters anymore.
More options
Context Copy link
As opposed to a peace summit with Ukraine without inviting Russia to the table? Putin has a tender ego, deliberately snubbing and ostracizing him has worked just as well as beating a toddler to make it stop crying does. Having a widely publicized "discussion between two very important countries" first doesn't hurt Ukraine in any way other than wounding its pride, but saving Putin's face might actually help end the war in 2025.
This would, indeed, not be a productive way to get actual peace term conditions in place.
Mind you, I don't think it had that purpose in the first place, as opposed to inter-pro-Ukraine-coalition politics, but I fully agree to any point that not inviting Russia to a peace summit makes it a bit of a farce of a peace summit.
And should Putin claim snubbing rights- such as holding a summit without Ukraine or Europe- I would give a shrug.
Coincidentally, I more or less shrugged from the summit earlier this month as well. Propaganda, for sure, but completely consistent with my predictions last fall that the early post-Turmp period would be met with pro-forma rather than substantial negotiations.
I'd also note that this would normalize the consequence of Trump getting a similar result for doing a similar thing.
And what if not all the parties involved want the war to end in 2025?
From my perspective, it seems to me that Russia wants the war to end in 2025 because the grind of 2024 for the election year and negotiating shaping are not indefinitely sustainable (as was raised and discussed last year). Reasons why may very, but there is regullar discussions / expectations of significant push potential in late 2025 and into 2026... and with it, the ability to compellingly make demands on terms.
Trump wanted the war to end in 2025 because it frustrates him and he wants to take credit and move past it. Different reads on Trump differ, but I don't think anyone thinks he has a strategic rather than emotional reason for wanting the war to end in 2025.
However, the Europeans and Ukrainians were not the ones who want the war to end in 2025, beyond the general 'we'd love it if our enemies stop fighting' sense, and have consistently signaled hesitation / opposition to a war ending in 2025 on terms Putin finds favorable. Their general position is that better long-term terms are worth fighting longer for, and there is plenty of speculation that they believe Russia's pushing in 2024 is leaving it far more constrained in 2025 and especially in 2026 and beyond.
They have it for their own reasons- the Ukrainians caring more about long-term terms rather than short-term terrain or casualty losses, the Europeans wanting more time for European rearmament- but neither has exactly been shy about supporting more Ukrainian deaths for longer-term security vis-a-vis Russia, which they do not feel they are getting from Trump.
The wisdom / accuracy of their choice may be up for question, but if the war goes on until 2026 or 2027 or even 2028 as a result of this snub-fest, that won't be a failure of the Ukrainians to seek peace in 2025, but a failure of those who actually wanted it in 2025.
(And, for the record, I've my doubts of the credibility of any American shut-off of all forms of aid... but that's another topic and we shall see.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean the Europeans had peace summits with the Ukrainians without inviting Russia. At least the US and Russia having a meeting about their proxy war involves the actual players instead of completely irrelevant countries.
And thus, the Europeans did not have failed summits with Ukraine after not-snubbing Ukraine the week prior, and did not legitimately hurt their relations in the process.
American hyperagency strikes again!
However, I suspect what a lot of people who claim to wish an end to the Ukraine War are going to find is that Ukrainians is not an irrelevant country to the Ukraine War happening in Ukraine.
Okay if it's not our war then it shouldn't make much of a difference if we just pull all funding and stop providing intelligence?
I am pleased to see you have abandoned without defense the claim that Ukraine is a completely irrelevant country to the resolution of the Ukraine War in Ukraine.
I look forward to your future rejoinder that similarly attempts to avoid defending that claim.
There is an old saw that beggars can’t be choosers. If America says “take or it leave” Ukraine could leave it and then lose the war in about six months.
Is this a prediction Ukraine will lose the war in six months? Because they left it.
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