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 -
Of the bunch, I think this one is ill-defined --- just larping as if this were Iraq versus the Kurds or Kosovo: the idea of "neutrally" grounding all air assets in the area being helpful to allies that didn't have any. Both Ukraine and Russia have established air forces and the West has even cobbled up aircraft to donate to their preferred side. Maybe it seemed useful in the first weeks when the survival of Ukraine's aircraft seemed questionable, but it's not something well-defined today, I think.
I think more than LARP, it's a materialization of the worst of the kayfabe politics that have been spreading everywhere. The idea behind the wording is to suggest that the US has something like anime demon powers where they go "I said KNEEL" and then the lower-powerlevel figures just find their legs buckling for some reason. Of course the US greatly benefits from the perception that it does have those powers, but it doesn't actually have them, and one failed attempt to use them would forever establish common knowledge that it is so and destroy the resistance-is-futile dividend in all future conflicts even against smaller fry. Therefore it finds itself in the awkward situation of having to convince the public that it obviously could do that, but now is not the right time.
More options
Context Copy link
Also the part where to enforce a no-fly zone, you have to be willing to enter combat. A no-fly zone means being willing to shoot at Russia and have them shoot back directly. Which is usually called "being at war".
I don’t understand the escalation fear for this scenario. US and Soviet pilots shot each other down in both Korea and Vietnam, right?
Let’s say NATO pre-commits to enforcing Ukrainian sovereignty, at either the 2022 or the 2014 borders. NATO starts shooting down Russian air assets first. Russia responds with conventional missiles aimed at a US carrier group. NATO escalates with conventional strikes against Russian ground forces in Ukraine.
At what point would Russia escalate with tactical nuclear weapons? What is their motivation to do this? Control of Ukraine is not critical for Russian security; we know this because they haven’t had it for three decades and they haven’t been invaded or suffered any threat whatsoever.
Even if Russia does use tactical nukes, again let’s say at a US CSG, then NATO counter strikes Russian forces; even if the target is on proper, pre-2014 Russian soil, there still isn’t an incentive to escalate to strategic nuclear weapons, because all Russia needs to do is withdraw from Ukraine and there is no further threat.
So why would Russia commit suicide over Ukraine?
Someone please explain the escalation ladder that leads from NATO and Russian forces in a direct conflict (over Ukraine) to global thermonuclear war.
The problem with a no-fly zone in Ukraine specifically is the parts with the actual fighting are within the range of Russian air defense. So not only would you have American aircraft engaging Russian ones, you would have to fly into Russian airspace and attack Russian SAM bases. I don’t know what exactly that would lead to but it’s a lot heavier than MIG alley in Korea.
More options
Context Copy link
I actually don't think that is what would happen. I think Russia's nuclear doctrine would work.
Basically, Russia would lob a small atomic munition at Ramstein and Germany would get off the ride. The motivation for doing this is to get their enemies to decide that discretion is the better part of valor, the Russians and French both, as I understand it, have "we will shoot you with a small atomic weapon before we shoot you with a big 'ole one in hopes you see reason" as part of their strategic thinking, and the US and really I think probably everyone but UK also have this ability although they might not necessarily talk about it. Of course failing that, there's also ample motivation on Russia's part for doing so on the grounds that it's an emergency and the nukes are right there behind the "in case of emergency, break glass" glass; failing that, their motivation for doing so is probably "screw you that's why."
Anyway, I don't think Germans want to die for Kyiv. Chastise Germany gently with nuclear fire (worst case scenario), war canceled. You probably don't even have to nuke Germany, you could nuke, like, the Baltic sea, or a random Ukrainian military base just to show that You're Really Serious. That's assuming Germany could be persuaded to buy into "no fly zone over Russia" to begin with.
[Edit to add: this also answers your question about "why would Russia commit suicide over Ukraine" - if you think that nuking the other side will win you the war you don't think you're committing suicide, you think you're winning. If you're wrong, well, regrettable!]
But, to answer your question, the basic idea for how it escalates to WW3 is essentially "US and Russia exchange conventional volleys, Russia decides it's read the room and needs to show people that it's serious so it does a tiny nuclear bomb as a treat and then reminds everyone that it has a comically large number of nukes left, but instead of backing down NATO retaliates in kind and then OH BOY WE'RE NUKING EACH OTHER WITH TACTICAL WEAPONS and then either somebody runs out of tactical nuclear weapons and switches to ICBMs which eventually triggers general conflagration, maybe because the Russians see the ICBM coming and crack all their silos open, or the tactical nuclear exchange wanders too close to Moscow and they decide to take their plutonium ball and go home. Something like that.
But unless something really bad happens (like the Russians see what appears to be a massive US first strike but is actually, idk, Elon having a normal one) I kinda doubt we get there.
I don’t think Russia would lob any nuclear weapons at NATO initially. I think the first thing they would do is a large scale tactical nuclear strike against the Ukrainian military to collapse it, then wait and see what the response is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IIRC Coalition forces were shot at enforcing no-fly zones in Iraq a few times without escalating into Desert Storm II (that came later, and largely for other reasons). But you do need to be confident enough to shake off anything thrown at you: it needs to look more like US destroyers shooting down drones in the Red Sea without flattening Yemen in a way that, although still asymmetric, I wouldn't expect US-Russia to match.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link