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 have seen some on youtube but not a single one on this forum actually.
The most important idea is making it clear to Putin that he needs to back off or the US will take a more active role in the conflict. I would have given him an ultimatum, a week to make significant steps towards a ceasefire or 5 US divisions arrive on the front. In fact, I assumed this was exactly what Trump meant while talking about "ending the war in 1 day". Putin would have caved because his nation is barely hanging on while fighting against a 3rd rate local power. This is from the perspective of 2 months ago of course, when this was still a US proxy-war. I actually don't think the US is in a position to threaten anything anymore, Donald Trump burned too many bridges and diverted too many resources.
The "ideal" outcome would probably be a return to pre-war Ukrainian borders or similar, and a somewhat neutral Ukraine. Meaning, not Russia's puppet but not a puppet of the EU either. So a neutral grayzone and a hard stop to the Russian conquest of neighboring countries. And the US could have gotten A LOT of natural resources, of course. They would have been the obvious side to build mines and factories since the Ukrainian infrastructure and economy will be in shambles whenever the war eventually ends.
Maybe there's an asteroid about to destroy Earth tomorrow and Russia is somehow the only country in a position to stop it and conquering Ukraine is somehow necessary for destroying it?
I dunno, I have a difficult time imagining the continuation of the conflict as necessary or good or sensible in any way. Some people are afraid of MAD but I can't imagine Putin dooming his country to nuclear devastation. He doesn't care about many things but he does care tremendously about Russia's stability and continued existence.
As a matter of fact I think this is not how we should be perceiving Ukraine, and in the present condition it would likely have been able to overwhelm any European military except perhaps France and Poland one on one. Consider that Europeans are not actually Aryan superhumans, their pretty exercises would amount to meme material in a week of fighting a real large scale war, and they have very little in the way of materiel too. They are concerned about Russia for a good reason: they are in fact weak.
What are you basing this on? I dont really know much in that regard, but e.g. noone has air superiority in the current war, and thats something I would think the europeans are good at. Of course, a lot of european countries just arent that big individually, and certainly Germany would need time to get its infantery running, but getting overwhelmed? And France has nukes.
Experience in modern warfare, army size, operational logistics. Western aviation is unlikely to be a game-changer.
I do not account for nukes.
Yes. Great power should be able to easily overrun small shithole country in three day special operation (and then get bored by decades of guerilla warfare and go home).
The implications of late Eastern European events are:
Either Russia is shithole country too or Ukraine is Great Power too.
My radical thesis is that both are shitholes but not really militarily inept ones in the way people might imagine.
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
How do you intend to achieve a neutral Ukraine? The ukrainians can decide to be pro-western without our consent, and as things stand it seems that they would.
A treaty between Russia, the US and major European nations to defend Ukraine against further aggression. A token military force from said nations overseeing the relevant borders.
Investment, humanitarian efforts and debt relief from both western nations and Russia so Ukraine can recover within a reasonable period of time (decades as opposed to centuries).
In return, changes to Ukraine's constitution comparable to Switzerland's so they're not legally allowed to join any alliances or start offensive wars. And maybe some small payment in natural resources (nothing even remotely close to 50% of revenue).
All of this is assuming smart, competent leaders guided by a sense of empathy, of course.
I guess I expected something stronger. Im from Austria, and we also were and are nominally obligated to be neutral since the end of allied occupation - but in practice, we were and are a western country. Our neutrality is great, we used it as an excuse far more than it stopped us from doing things we want - many americans wont even know it exists. But for that same reason, I doubt this kind of neutrality is much of a concession. Propably NATO Ukraine is equally achievable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link