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 -
I think the most disturbing part is how little everyone with such strong opinions knows about Ukraine, Russia, and the conflict between them.
Russia is absolutely in the wrong for invading, but let's look at the actual political and military realities when we're talking about the issue.
The eastern provinces had a strong enough Russian-aligned sector of the populace (with some surreptitious Russian help) to functionally secede from Ukraine and fight the Ukrainians to a standstill for years before the invasion. Ukraine hasn't had any real sovereignty over those territories for over a decade now.
Yes, it's a violation of their treaty for Russia to take their territory. This may shock people, but governments often violate their treaties. For instance, virtually everyone in NATO is violating that treaty.
The military situation has been fairly static for years. Neither side seems to be on the verge of winning. Both are having trouble with getting enough troops to fight, but Russia can draw from a much larger population, plus allies like North Korea. Ukraine is supplementing with mercenaries, but that's expensive.
The economic sanctions on Russia have failed to impact their economy enough. In fact, it's basically just made Russia less exposed to economic sanctions from the west, and more in hock to the Chinese, who now provide most of their consumer goods.
I support Ukraine primarily in this matter, I support funding and arming them to resist the Russian invasion. But I also think we need to be realistic about what peace will look like absent major escalations on our part. The Ukrainians haven't been capable of recapturing their lost provinces militarily. How long should they keep fighting for territories where most of the remaining population don't really want to be part of Ukraine?
Ultimately, it is the Ukrainians who have to answer these questions, not us. At the end of the day, they still live next to Russia, and we don't. I really hope this war reaches its conclusion soon, and I hope the Ukrainians don't lose anything more than necessary. But unless the military situation changes drastically, the Russians aren't just going to give back the territory. And no one can make them without risking nuclear war. That's the realpolitik situation.
I think the eastern territories aren't really the issue, nor is it a question of whether Ukraine loses more or less in the eventual settlement.
Rather, I think it's whether or not the Ukraine gets to live the next couple of decades with the notion that the settlement exhausts everyone's claims -- that whatever has happened is done and final.
More options
Context Copy link
I am extremely sympathetic to Ukraine over Russia on racial and religious grounds. But the fact remains that the best way to save Ukrainian lives is calling a ceasefire and retrenching. No Putin isn't a trustworthy actor but he'll be licking his wounds for a long time, and Ukraine isn't getting its lost territories back. We need to live in reality and that means accepting that Crimeans will get their wish to be ruled by Russia.
More options
Context Copy link
What choices are there?
What actual peace proposal is even credible?
Ukraine can cede the annexed land to Russia and then do what, promise it won't align with NATO and stay neutral? What happens if Russia decides it wants to capture even more of Ukraine in a few years, for whatever reason? The tools available for resolving that are the same as the tools we have now. All that was accomplished from that was that Russia was granted even more edge.
Ukraine should just unconditionally surrender? Their people won't accept that.
Russia won't accept any deal that involves a security guarantee for Ukraine. The West can impose one anyway but some worry that will lead to a nuclear exchange.
It's a shit sandwich no matter where you bite into it.
Didnt the vast majority of wars end this way though? Loser making some concessions, winner in no way reducing his ability?
Sure, though whether or not it's a good idea depends on what the goals of the invader are, no?
Russia has engaged in a series of expansionist salami-slicing tactics like this. Giving in just seems to embolden them.
Sure it depends on the goals. Its just that very few wars are fought to the last, and its not because the typical warmonger is so much nicer than Putin.
Before the second phase of the Ukraine war, they variously supported seperatist and revolutionary movements, and that seems to be fair game for anyone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
1: We fund the Ukrainians until they can't fight anymore, then they get a worse deal or none at all.
2: We enter the war on the side of Ukraine, mudstomp Russia for six minutes before the nukes fly, and we all sing Kumbaya as the bombs fall.
3: We strongarm Ukraine into making a bad deal and hope it gives us time to strongarm Europe into maybe starting to think about having a military at some point in the future.
4: Pre-emptive nuclear strike which will fuck Ukraine worse than the Russians.
Any other ideas?
So. What are the limits to nuclear armageddon blackmail here? Why can't Russia just invade a NATO member like Finland and say fuck you, they're a threat to our security, surrender or the nukes fly?
Because of a treaty that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. You know this stuff.
However, in this scenario it's the US invading Russia, right?
I don't follow. If it's not worth the paper it's printed on why does the "Because" happen?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
my country's core interest: so nowhere close to Russia's borders which is why expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders was idiotic
the other side of this is, of course, what is the limiting principle of ignoring nuclear armageddon blackmail?
if you allow Russia to threaten us with nuclear armageddon if we surround Moscow and bomb it to ruins, you're just giving the nuclear armageddon blackmailer what they want which basically means Finland is next, and also Sweden, and also Denmark, and also Poland, and also Germany, and also France, and also the UK
the fact you don't like it that others aren't willing to face armageddon over Juensuu, Finland, doesn't mean there are no limits to nuclear blackmail, just that most put their limit much closer to their own country's core interests (which could be their borders or even within their borders) instead of on Russia's border
at some point, nuclear superpowers' core interests are distant enough that neither is willing to face the risk of nuclear Armageddon and then we have a détente where the nuclear blackmail isn't a credible threat; that may not always be the case, e.g., Pakistan v India, but it is the case with the US and NATO and Russia
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They might well accept one if it is provided by a party that would not be seen as likely to help or look away as Ukraine + backers prepare to reconquer lost territories. China or India, on the face of it, would be good candidates - the problem is that it's unclear if you could actually convince the Indians to do it, and the West might not fully trust China and moreover under Trump is unlikely to be interested in raising its diplomatic prestige in such a fashion.
The problem is that it also seems unlikely that the Ukrainians would accept such a security guarantee, or in fact any security guarantee that is not actually a guarantee of cover and support as they prepare for reconquest. Especially in the eyes of the leadership, the prospect of being left in perpetuity with exactly what they have now might be scarcely better than actual complete defeat, and they still estimate the value of their position as higher than that. I mean, European boots on the ground are, if anything, more likely now that Trump has sent everyone into hysterics - South Vietnam and France also held out for years with their situation going from bleak to bleaker until the US finally caved and sent in its own GIs.
Right, I doubt Ukraine would give up its sovereignty simply to appease Russia. I don't quite blame them.
Doesn't this also raise the risk of nuclear exchange? It's not like Europeans aren't nuclear powers themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link