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 -
As someone who has previously argued that the situation leading up to the invasion Ukraine is far more complicated that most pro-Ukrainian warhawks would like you to believe, and you do make a few valid points I still strongly disagree with your post, and more specifically your responses in this thread.
While I previously defended Russia's actions in a realist sense (and still stand by that post), that doesn't make Russia's actions moral. Make no mistake, invading another country and causing death and destruction is still an immoral act, even if one wants to argue it's the least worst option for Russia's future geopolitical prospects even when counting the risk of failure. Ukraine is of course going to defend itself and it has a right to do so, regardless of questionable geopolitical circumstances leading up to the invasion.
If you want to critique the uncritical pro-Ukrainian warhawkish-ness, you are far better of criticising American foreign policy in Eastern Europe for the last three decades. While Russia obviously bares primarily responsibility for the invasion, the US also bares responsibility for creating an extremely hostile geopolitical environment, and has pursued policy that has not at all been conducive to peace and prosperity to everyone involved (certainly not the Ukrainians), to provide dubious geopolitical benefit to themselves (and when you consider the impacts to the global economy and the US itself is probably a net loss, to say nothing of the billions of dollars spent actually funding the war). Additionally it seems that that much of the 'international community', especially the US, seems more interested in prolonging the war than actually finding a path to peace. Lip-service to peace may be given, but it seems like that there is always a more 'favourable position' to achieve before peace should be negotiated. There is also a certain subsection of ultra-warhawks who seem more motivated by wanting to completely destroy Russia, as if that would be any way moral, and of course only good things have ever come out of failed states, right?
Anyway, the point is that Russia isn't the 'good guy' in this situation, even if there are genuine criticisms to make against the US and the pro-Ukrainian warhawks. You made a few good criticisms in the original post, some of which I echoed above. You should stick to those core criticism and stop with the more blatant Russia apologia.
Ukranian prosperity has always been with choosing war Russia (though they didn’t choose this war if they knew this path led to war they were smarter to choose war). The income differentials between Poland and other former Russian spheres that went NATO versus Ukraine/Belarus/most of Russia is extreme.
Forgive me, but I don't think the war devistating Ukraine and absolutely crippling their country in the hopes that maybe a couple decades from now they join the EU (who knows how the EU is doing in 10 or 20 years anyway) and hopefully get something out it economically is/was the most optimal of all possibilities.
Ukraine isn’t a real country under Russia control. It’s impoverished country that would face constant emigration.
And these aren’t “maybe you get rich” - everyone else who embraced NATO got rich.
I love how the “realists” school never looks at actual data. Russian control just means exploitation of some natural resources and rich oligarch’s while everyone else leaves or is just a poor peasant.
Russian control is a guaranteed death of Ukraine. Fighting gives them a chance.
I guess where I disagree with most people here is that I don't believe that war with Russia was a certainty and that peaceful scenarios where everyone benefits was possible (that doesn't require Ukrainian submission to Russia), had the last 30 years of foreign policy and geopolitics in Eastern Europe had been handled better. And that pursuing a road to peace asap now is ideal rather than trying to 'destroy Russia'.
Maybe this is my own biases speaking, but it seems to me that war with Russia was always certainty in the same way that breaking up with an abusive spouse will inevitably be a shitshow. The only people who believed otherwise were the high IQ idiots who were autistic enough to buy into all that "political realism" nonsense.
More options
Context Copy link
I think NATO has always been false as the cause of Russian invasion and I believe Russian nationalist readily admit this. Russia wasn’t going to let Ukraine culturally and economically align with the west. That is what the war is about. And aligning with the west is necessary for Ukraine to be a real country with a vibrant economy.
Nato never even went into Ukraine. It was all culture/economy right now.
I feel like the “realist” don’t get this. Alignment with Russia long term just mean a few rich oligarchs and a mail-order bride style poverty. That was death.
Russia couldn’t maintain their sphere of influence because their culture, politics, and economics sucks. No one wants them as an ally. Which meant they were either going to lose their old allies or Russia could do what they decided to do which is basically widespread genocide to bully Ukraine into being a colony. Fortunately Russia doesn’t have the military power to enforce that position.
Longer term I feel fairly comfortable predicting that Ukraine will conquor Moscow. Maybe 30 years. Poor Russian peasants will eventually look towards a rich Ukrainian middle class and want the same thing. That’s always been the threat to the regime in Moscow.
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 don't 100% support Russia in all cases. There are many things I don't understand about Russia, and a lot of the propaganda does not resonate with me.
My main issue with this whole situation is that Ukraine is making a claim to power 'We should independently be able to control our own destiny'.
Fair and good, go and fight Russia.
But that claim is not the only claim, the following one is 'So now give us money'
Clearly Ukraine does not have the material means to follow up on its ambitions.
From what I gathered so far, most commenters here support Ukraine, but they do not mostly support Ukraine because they believe that Ukraine should be independent, to my understanding.
Some like @Dean seem to support beating down Russia out of attachment to principles like 'nuclear non-proliferation' and 'preventing annexations'. Fair enough, but that's not making a moral claim, you're supporting the ethical system enforced by the top guy that you so far have been lucky to be on the good side of.
Once Ukraine has successfully 'beat down Russia', will they be independent?
Will the 'reconstruction money' come with no strings attached?
No requirements to Westernify, Americanize, Netflix your society like the Marshall plan, the EU subsidies, the occupation of Japan and West Germany?
I doubt it.
In my opinion, from the demographic, cultural, nationalist point of view, siding with the West is a sure way to end the Ukrainian nation within the next century.
Hence the absurdity of this supposedly 'nationalist' drive.
My intuition tells me that Zelensky is to Ukrainian nationalism what Sam Bankman-Fried is to ethical altruism.
Simply put, I don't believe you.
I believe him on that. I don’t think Russian supporters in the war are real fans of Russia. They seem to be anti-neoliberal regime. I tend to see two groups that buy into the arguments - those on the left typified by NakedCapitalism
Blog and those on the right who tend to broadly classify as anti-global homo types. For both parts they basically believe the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but they’ve all realized that Russia isn’t actually good but a useful fool they hope Can knock down the American Regime.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link