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 -
Re Zelensky I have a different take. Marco Rubio complained recently that they had what they thought were agreements with Ukraine only for Zelensky to say something totally different to the media a couple of days later.
I think the Trump administration believed they had a framework with Ukraine to end the war — there would be a cease fire, and there would be a soft American guarantee via this rare earth deal but not a hard one.
Zelensky multiple times throughout the process indicated he wanted to with renewed support kick out Russia. When he responded to Vance’s criticism of Biden with saying we can’t do a cease fire with Putin because he will break his word Zelensky was confirming that he wasn’t agreeing with the framework that I think the Trump admin thought Ukraine agreed with hence Vance’s statement re litigating to the media (the same issue Rubio had).
So I think the Trump admin was simply pissed that they felt again Zelensky was welching on a private deal.
I also think the press conference proved to the Trump admin their fears are correct. Namely they are concerned Zelensky will armed with a guarantee try to provoke Russia into an altercation and then demand action by the Americans citing the guarantee in the hopes of regaining their lost territory. If you read Trump’s comments closet this is his concern.
And honestly given the history here, it isn’t unreasonable to believe Zelensky would try to antagonize Russia. The pre war boundaries of Ukraine weren’t natural. It was arbitrary lines drawn on a map with two peoples (more if you include the Hungarians). The Russian minority has faced persecution by the Kiev government and Ukrainian nationalists while at the same time Russia has helped to incite tensions. That is, no one has clean hands here. Zelensky focused on Russia’s untrustworthy actions (true) while ignoring Ukraine’s untrustworthy actions and historic goals re the Donbas and Crimea.
In short, Trump isn’t willing to give a security guarantee because he doesn’t trust either side here. But he was willing to more intertwine Ukrainian and US interests which creates some degree of strategic ambiguity that would help Ukraine without pre committing the US. And Trump realized that Zelensky isn’t really interested in that deal which I think they felt they had hammered out. And that pissed off Trump (who honestly does seem to want to end the war for both humanitarian reasons and economic ones).
Three peoples. Galicians have never had their own state and they're big into Ukr nationalism, but they're not the same as central Ukrainians. Add Hungarians and Tatars and there probably isn't a way to make it not arbitrary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link