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 -
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
Then we use conventional weaponry to obliterate all of their power projection capability and they become a pariah even the rest of BRICS can no longer tolerate for having used nuclear weapons in a war of conquest.
And even in that case it still does not logically follow to choose nuclear armageddon (escalating nuclear weapons use).
nato is wholly incapable of something even remotely close to this
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
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