site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31623 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does the idea that disarmament, mutually agreed restraint and maintenance of norms are positive-sum not pop up in those discussions at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum has indicated that it works poorly with Russia.

These sorts of international agreements seem to be in a different class from basic rules-of-warfare/human-rights conventions, and anyhow once you go there (as the subthread below yours aptly demonstrates) you just get stuck in a very deep hole of both sides having equal and opposite stories of treaty violations by the other, and why their own violations as alleged by the other side don't actually count. Meanwhile, even in WWII, at least on the Western front both sides (and especially the morally and militarily victorious one!) upheld a pretense of respecting the rights of PoWs, and neither the Ameribrits nor the Soviets followed a principle of "our goal should be to maximise the number of dead Germans". Are you saying they should have?

Back on the object level of the issue at hand, for all it's worth, reports of Russians abusing or executing PoWs so far - especially after the chaos of the first few days - are very thin on the ground, despite what I assume must have been a very large number of people looking very hard for evidence. It stands to reason that they are certainly not killing and torturing as many PoWs as they could. The person quoted by OP seems to suggest that Ukrainians should kill and torture as many Russian PoWs as they could. If they did this, why would Russians not do the same to their Ukrainian PoWs? I can see why the intermediate state where Ukrainians go wild but Russians haven't yet would appeal to him, but at the inevitable new equilibrium where both of them do it, would his side actually be better off than before?

Meanwhile, even in WWII, at least on the Western front both sides (and especially the morally and militarily victorious one!) upheld a pretense of respecting the rights of PoWs, and neither the Ameribrits nor the Soviets followed a principle of "our goal should be to maximise the number of dead Germans". Are you saying they should have?

"Here are excerpts from three letters found on dead Germans:

Manager Reinhardt writes to Lieutenant Otto von Schirach: "The French were taken from us to the factory. I chose six Russians from the Minsk district. They are much tougher than the French. Only one of them died, the rest continue to work in the fields and on the farm. Keeping them costs nothing and we should not suffer from the fact that these beasts, whose children may be killing our soldiers, are eating German bread. Yesterday I subjected to light execution two Russian beasts who secretly devoured the skimmed milk intended for the sows..."

Mateas Zimlich writes to his brother, Fr. Heinrich Zimlich: "There is a camp for Russians in Leiden, you can see them there. They are not afraid of weapons, but we talk to them with a good lash ..."

A certain Otto Essmann writes to Lieutenant Helmut Weigand: "We have captive Russians here. These types are devouring earthworms on the airfield pad, they are throwing themselves at the garbage bucket. I've seen them eating grass. And to think they're people..."

Slave owners, they want to turn our people into slaves. They take the Russians to their place, mock them, starve them to insanity, to the point where, dying, people eat grass and worms, and the shitty German with a rotten cigar in his teeth philosophizes, "Are these people...?"

We know everything. We remember everything. We have understood: the Germans are not people. From now on the word "German" is the worst curse for us. From now on the word "German" discharges the gun. We shall not speak. We shall not be indignant. We shall kill. If you haven't killed at least one German in a day, your day is wasted. If you think your neighbor will kill a German for you, you have not understood the threat. If you don't kill a German, the German will kill you. He will take those dear to you and will torture them in his damned Germany. If you can't kill a German with a bullet, kill a German with a bayonet. If there is a lull on your station, if you are waiting for a battle, kill the German before the battle. If you let a German live, a German will hang a Russian man and disgrace a Russian woman. If you have killed one German, kill another - there is nothing more fun for us than German corpses. Don't count the days. Don't count the versts. Count one thing: the Germans you have killed. Kill the German! - That's what the old mother is asking. Kill the German! - That's the child's plea. Kill the German! - It's the land itself that cries out. Don't miss. Don't skip. Kill!"

reports of Russians abusing or executing PoWs so far - especially after the chaos of the first few days - are very thin on the ground

Note that Ukraine allowed contact of independent organisation with PoW held by them, Russia failed to do so.

See also how people released by Russia looks like.

Back on the object level of the issue at hand, for all it's worth, reports of Russians abusing or executing PoWs so far - especially after the chaos of the first few days - are very thin on the ground, despite what I assume must have been a very large number of people looking very hard for evidence.

I think the main reason you haven't heard about it is that Russia's torture of both POWs and civilians is so routine and well-known that it isn't considered very newsworthy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_torture_chambers_in_Ukraine

https://thehill.com/policy/international/3543197-inside-russias-war-camps-ukrainian-pows-detail-torture-abuse/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/28/russia-ukraine-war-un-report-details-accounts-of-rape-torture-and-executions.html

I find it hard to imagine that this wouldn't be carried by our media with much greater continuing intensity if the evidence situation were actually good enough. More importantly, though, it seems that there are some obvious test cases where PoWs like the top brass of Azov or the handful of international volunteers that were captured came back in one piece as part of a prisoner swap, where disposing of those people would have been a natural choice that would have been very advantageous to Russia if optics of PoW treatment were not a concern (as the Azov leaders and those who would see themselves in their position are valuable to Ukraine by virtue of ideology, combat experience and motivation, and conversely anything from just not releasing them to the full ISIS treatment would have improved Russian morale).

where disposing of those people would have been a natural choice that would have been very advantageous to Russia if optics of PoW treatment were not a concern

Did you miss what happened at Elenovka? Or do you find Russian version plausible, that it was a Ukrainian strike on their own people because "they started to talk about crimes of Zelensky"? By the way, UN had to disband the group tasked with investigating what happened there because Russia denied the investigators access.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/un-disbands-fact-finding-mission-into-olenivka-prison-attack-in-ukraine/2780833

Just curious, you’re so passionate about the war that you set up a Google ping for themotte when anything critical of Ukraine pops up. (Nothing wrong with that, why not give your POV.) You mentioned last time you are living in Ukraine. Have you considered fighting in the war? I know Ukraine is drafting every young man they can find; I think their recent bill allows recruiters to enter homes to find young men. Or do you have a desk job with the Ukrainian military that permits you to engage in forums from time to time?

Just curious, you’re so passionate about the war that you set up a Google ping for themotte when anything critical of Ukraine pops up. (Nothing wrong with that, why not give your POV.) You mentioned last time you are living in Ukraine. Have you considered fighting in the war? I know Ukraine is drafting every young man they can find; I think their recent bill allows recruiters to enter homes to find young men. Or do you have a desk job with the Ukrainian military that permits you to engage in forums from time to time?

Uncharitable, antagonistic, and snide.

Believe it or not, we are actually capable of reading between lines, and just because you write a post in a conversational, friendly tone doesn't mean we can't tell what you're actually saying. No, you are not "Just curious." Don't do this.

that you set up a Google ping for themotte when anything critical of Ukraine pops up

It's false. I read this forum sometimes, but I don't find American culture war that interesting so I rarely post.

Have you considered fighting in the war?

I did. But I have a dependant, and some of my relatives including my father are fighting, so if something happens to us, no one would be able to take care of my underage sister. Plus I don't have military experience, my father has. Also I have relatively lucrative job in IT, and I donate most of my salary to AFU. Make of that what you will.

I know Ukraine is drafting every young man they can find

It's false as well.

Or do you have a desk job with the Ukrainian military that permits you to engage in forums from time to time?

And that is comical. Interesting that people who laugh at conspiracies involving "Russian bots" fall to the same temptation of accusing anyone of being a "glowie", or an "Ukrobot".

And that is comical. Interesting that people who laugh at conspiracies involving "Russian bots" fall to the same temptation of accusing anyone of being a "glowie", or an "Ukrobot".

To be fair, the people who are referred to as "Ukrobots" do exist. I doubt they'd consider obscure heretic forums to be worth astroturfing, though, as opposed to Russian Telegram channels.

I thought that both the version of the Russian narrative you quote and the Ukrainian version about them shelling themselves was nonsense (Ukraine was pushing the "Russians shelling themselves" thing about every single shelling that may have looked bad in the eyes of anyone on their side at the time, including anti-personnel mines fired into the urban areas of Donetsk and the near-daily shelling of the Zaporozhye NPP). Surely they would have had better ways to dispose of them if they were interested in this, especially since this sort of shelling presumably only actually killed some hard-to-control small subset of the PoWs on site.

The more plausible explanation was that the Ukrainians shelled it by accident, based on false intel, or because the Russians could have also garrisoned military and equipment at the PoW camp (as they were doing in the NPP) and they were indifferent (as in the NPP) or unaware of the presence of the PoWs. Even in these scenarios, the Russians could have any number of reasons for refusing to admit the UN group, ranging from concerns that the report would find against them regardless of facts (see also the irregularities around their investigation of the Syria chemical weapons incident; it seems quite likely that for a lot of the UN bureaucracy, the US and allies have their thumbs firmly on the scale), via concerns that the group might pass intel to Ukrainians (the Russians repeatedly accused OSCE monitors of doing this since the conflict started, and my impression is that well-connected people on their side do in fact believe this), to the circumstance that they might find even an accurate finding that they were garrisoning valid military targets in a PoW camp to be embarrassing (in fact I'd assume there are some agreements against this as well?).

Though the same group proves that PoWs were treated awfully by Russia.

So apparently really bad treatment is happening, though without routine murder of surrendering Ukrainians. Always nice to be passing some standards.

neither the Ameribrits nor the Soviets followed a principle of "our goal should be to maximise the number of dead Germans"

The claimed goal was German surrender. Which is more than the US demands from Russia today, namely, retreat to 2022-01 or 2013 borders. The Russian people also aren't burned alive by tens of thousands, with the alternative being putting themselves at the mercy of a regime as bloodthirsty as Stalins.

I don't think you would prefer this being the goal, and those being the methods.

You're making a series of statements that I think are all correct, but I don't understand what this has to do with the question at hand of whether it is actually advantageous for Ukrainians or their Finnish allies to call for reducing their side's adherence to norms and conventions such as that you should not execute prisoners of war (or, basically equivalently, reducing their efforts to enforce their side's continued adherence; non-adherence can be expected to follow naturally if adherence is not enforced).

The Iran deal, the US expanding right into Eastern Europe after Russia pulled back and the long list of self proclaimed US exceptionalism gives the rest of the world strong reasons not to trust the US.

Fact check. All those people just wanted to get rich and we never invaded any of those countries.

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-polandmalaysia-model

Honestly thought about doing a top-level posts. Polands economical miracle sums up this entire war. Russia offered their colonial possessions nothing and once every 50 years a famine. The West offered wealth. Maybe if Russia didn’t want colonies and offered economic development all these Slovak countries would want to be friends with them.

Mershemere meet Poland. Maybe he could study their economy and realize why no one wants to be friends with Russia.

The Russians built Ukraine's heavy industry in the Soviet period, it was a key industrial region of the USSR. It had a lot of power infrastructure, which is ironically making it harder for the Russians to destroy it, now that consumption is much less. Post breakup, Russia paid off all of Ukraine's share of Soviet debt and supplied cheap gas. The attached article makes the case that Russia supplying gas at below market rates limited Ukrainian economic modernization and encouraged corruption. Nevertheless, that could be said about all economic aid.

'Russia offered their colonial possessions nothing' is false. They made a generous offer in 2013, promising to bail out the indebted Ukrainian economy with bond purchases and lower gas prices. They were consistently supplying below market price gas back in the 2000s and 1990s, keeping Ukraine from complete economic collapse.

In 2008, the price paid by Ukraine for gas was still less than half of that paid by Western European countries.

The reason Ukraine didn't want to be friends with Russia is not because Russia was not willing to provide but because US-based, US-aligned NGOs like the Endowment for Democracy and Open Society Foundation were paying billions to politically influence the country directly, manipulating media, education and governance.

Isn’t Ukraine under Russia control at 1/3 the income of Poland joining the EU and at a slower growth pace? Like look at the data. And besides the fact Russia literally starved Ukraine.

The whole western whore analogy your trying to make makes no sense. Does Japan not have their own culture?

Ukraine under direct Russian control was doing fairly well. Their income only recovered to 1991 levels in 2006. Have a look at Russia. Would oh-so-corrupt and incompetent Russian governance really have hurt Ukraine that much?

Look at this data: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=UA-RU

It was a mistake to break up the Soviet Union completely, these countries were not supposed to be separate. Their economies were interlinked, there was no sound political basis for self-government in most of them. Ukraine inherited huge heavy industry that it didn't need, without the domestic energy to use it properly. I reckon that if you told Ukrainians in 1991 'if you elect for independence and freedom from hated Russia your economy will crater, won't even recover for 16 years, your country will depopulate, get brain-drained and go from rough parity with Russia to half their income' they would've thought again about independence.

And now they're looking at hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded because... why? So they can aspire towards reaching the level of income Russia already has in 15 or 20 years, provided they get EU membership at some later date? The above graph doesn't even count the war damage, which is going to be severe.

Does Japan not have their own culture?

Well they do but it was heavily manipulated by the US who rewrote their constitution. You know how they have this weird censorship of genitals in Japanese pornography? Like tiny lines that don't cover anything, even though the actual content can be rather more perverse than showing a penis. That's because of the tortured interplay between the US officially enforcing freedom of speech and pre-existing Japanese obscenity laws. Or to put it another way, can you spot any differences in Japanese culture between 1944 and 1954?

Yeah, yeah. Median monthly salary in Russia is around 400-500 USD

https://tass.com/economy/1301957

Just a little lower in Ukraine. Somehow this huge GDP and revenues from exporting raw materials didn't translate in passable living standards for people outside of several large cities.

According to World Population Review, Russia's median income is $5500 to Ukraine's $4400, which is a fairly substantial difference.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

Consider also that if it weren't for Russian aid and debt relief, Ukraine's situation pre-2014 would've been much worse. Cheap energy is good - nobody is saying that the fad of refusing to buy Russian gas imports is a great opportunity for Germany since they'll be able to 'reform their economy'.

Adjust it for the cost of living which will make the difference negligible (of course, the war made everything costlier, but Russia can make drop a few nukes on Ukraine to make life there completely miserable).

Consider also that if it weren't for Russian aid and debt relief, Ukraine's situation pre-2014 would've been much worse.

Russian "aid" enriched Ukrainian oligarchs, barely anything of it dripped down to the general population, and reliance on Russian gas made investment in domestic production unprofitable. People talking about Russia relieving Soviet debt apparently forget the fact that Russia got most of Soviet assets, but also a lot of countries had debts before Soviet Union — now they had to repay Russia.

More comments

So why didn’t Russia maintain Ukraine then? USSR failed. Stick to reality. If you lose you lose. They lost and turning to genocide should not be an option when you lose economically.

Well they do but it was heavily manipulated by the US who rewrote their constitution. You know how they have this weird censorship of genitals in Japanese pornography? Like tiny lines that don't cover anything, even though the actual content can be rather more perverse than showing a penis. That's because of the tortured interplay between the US officially enforcing freedom of speech and pre-existing Japanese obscenity laws. Or to put it another way, can you spot any differences in Japanese culture between 1944 and 1954?

This still isn't quite the same thing as having no cultural agency. The Kerberos Saga is just one of what are certainly multiple internal assessments of WWII, the occupation, and their impact on Japan.

At no point did I say that Japan had no cultural agency. Where are people getting this idea from? However, Japan's culture was heavily manipulated and affected by the US. I don't know how anyone can argue with this, nor do I really think Japan has any relevance to my main point.

Ah, one of the most persistent tropes of Russian propaganda. "Stupid Ukrainians/Lithuanians/Estonians! We, Russians (or rather American engineers whom we invited), uplifted you, built your industries, infrastructure, and that's how you repaid us! Just look at those stoopid Finns who rejected our generous attempt to conquer them and build industries for them, and now all those northern ooga-boogas live in squalor"

US-aligned NGOs like the Endowment for Democracy and Open Society Foundation were paying billions to politically influence the country directly

When globohomo pays "billions" to supposedly brainwash Ukrainian population — it's bad. When Russians do it, corrupt politicians and put their agents everywhere (most of ministers, head of SBU etc. under Yanukovich were literally Russian citizens even before Maidan) — it's good. Got you.

keeping Ukraine from complete economic collapse

Please don't. Allow Ukraine to reform its economy and reorient toward other markets who don't try to ensure political compliance through economic means (enriching oligarchs of both countries in the process).

Well it's a persistent trope because it's literally true! The Russians did provide below-market rate gas and they did pay off Ukraine's share of Soviet debt. You can't deny that.

When globohomo pays "billions" to supposedly brainwash Ukrainian population — it's bad. When Russians do it, corrupt politicians and put their agents everywhere (most of ministers, head of SBU etc. under Yanukovich were literally Russian citizens even before Maidan) — it's good. Got you.

They admitted it themselves. Victoria Newland said the US invested $5 billion in Ukrainian democracy and civil society since 1991. If you want a citation, it was a remark at the US-Ukraine Conference, National press club, December 13, 2013. You're surely aware of the phone call where she literally discusses who will be minister in the new government. Clearly this investment was very effective, it obviously achieves better and cheaper results than Russia providing actual economic assistance in terms of acquiring influence.

Allow Ukraine to reform its economy and reorient toward other markets who don't try to ensure political compliance through economic means (enriching oligarchs of both countries in the process).

Firstly, I have no power to decide these issues. Secondly, if Ukraine wants to reform their economy that's their business - but receiving cheap energy is a boon not a curse. No Briton bemoans the copious reserves of coal they were bequeathed. Saudi Arabia is not weakened by its oil wealth. Sound management can prevent dutch disease and similar effects. Thirdly, how is 'promoting civil society and a good form of government' with billions of dollars not acquiring political compliance through economic means? The money still filters back through to those in high places - Hunter Biden didn't earn his sinecure from Burisma with his petrochemical knowledge.

Maybe if Russia didn’t want colonies and offered economic development all these Slovak countries would want to be friends with them.

All that shines isn't gold.

Would you be upset if Andrew Tate invited your sister to join him in his mansion and become rich by showing off her body?

Would you slap your sister if she told you she was considering it, because you don't treat her right and she needs some of that self-care mmmh mmmh?

Would you slap your sister if she told you she was considering it, because you don't treat her right and she needs some of that self-care mmmh mmmh?

No, because slapping is a poor way to persuade people.

Also, if that would happen then thing went horrifying wrong before and I prefer actions taking far earlier.

It works in Afghanistan.

You are making a big assumption that the west doesn’t treat people well.

But sure she can stay with him if she’s not a prostitute and she flirts with rich guys looking for a wife.

Oblivion awaits the childless, godless West.

But sure she can stay with him if she’s not a prostitute and she flirts with rich guys looking for a wife.

Absolutely haram.

Let’s stick within real arguments here instead of if you disagree with me your sisters a prostitute. I think that’s a reasonable standard

I'm trying and I can't understand what you're all arguing about? There are three actors in this game. It is true that Poland joined NATO, as the prospect of access to the closed EU market and subsidies from Germany, France and the UK is very tasty. It is true that the US is interested in expanding its sphere of influence. And it is true that for Russia, the expansion of NATO and the EU is a loss of market access and unacceptable security threats.

That is, Poland has reasons to join NATO/EU, the US has reasons to increase its influence, Russia has reasons to perceive expansion as aggression.

All of these things can be true at the same time. Right?

Russia has reasons to perceive expansion as aggression

I reject this part.

Though it would be accurate to treat it as a threat on Russian imperialism and pre-empting USSR 2.0. That is exactly why Poland and other joined NATO and Ukraine wanted to join.

Russia is not entitled to having an imperial sphere of influence.

I reject this part.

First, the presence of nuclear weapons does not guarantee security in the medium term. Especially when your opponent has much more financial and human resources. Secondly, the loss of buffer states creates huge opportunities for proxy wars. Starting from attempts to arm the non-systemic opposition, ending with the Ichkerian separatists.

Isn't that enough reason?

Secondly, the loss of buffer states creates huge opportunities for proxy wars.

It seems to me that starting proxy war against NATO is a poor way to avoid proxy wars against NATO.

Ukraine was never a military threat to a nuclear armed country so security is false but loss of culture/economic control is true.

And there is the fourth actor Ukraine whose opinions should matter the most.

There seems to be discussed the expansion of NATO in general. In the case of Ukraine, I would replace Poland with Ukraine and not much would change. (Although the armed coup and the right of the population to self-determination make this case more difficult).

And the threat to Russia is not Ukraine, it is the United States and NATO, of course.

NATO is not militarily invading a nuclear armed power. Not worth it. Russia would be ignored like N Korea.

How do you have such confidence, and how do you have confidence that at some time the US will not invade North Korea?

Anything is possible of course. But why would we want every major city in the world vaporized?

More comments

Polands economical miracle

this sounds a bit funny for Pole given that we are word-class at complaining and doomposting :)

the US expanding right into Eastern Europe after Russia pulled back

Damn, how many invasions did I miss?

In all seriousness, the US (or more broadly speaking, the west in general, don't know why you're leaving western europe out here) didn't "expand into eastern europe", it was invited in, largely because eastern europe was sick of Russia and what Russia had to offer.

Just because a country is invited doesn't mean they have to. The Soviets didn't base nukes on Cuba. If Mexico invited China to join a military alliance they wouldn't be allowed to do so.

Those deals didn't specify that they had to implement mass immigration, a George Soros social policy and end up getting sanctioned by the EU for not doing things that were never in the deal. Furthermore, the either you are with us or you are against us policy of the US gives countries the option of either submitting and becoming vassal states or being more or less blockaded. Countries that want independence from the US either have nukes or are under constant threat or pressure from the US.

Those deals didn't specify that they had to implement mass immigration

And? Note that some fairly minor countries like Poland decided that they prefer to not get it and are not "more or less blockaded" by USA.

UK Brexited over immigration among over things and I do not remember it being "more or less blockaded" by USA.

and end up getting sanctioned by the EU

How that connects to "the US expanding right into Eastern Europe"? Unless you have overly rose image of USA competence and argues that EU is its puppet without any power.

Those deals didn't specify that they had to implement mass immigration, a George Soros social policy and end up getting sanctioned by the EU for not doing things that were never in the deal

I fail to see what this has to do with the US, you're describing largely internal European matters here.

US gives countries the option of either submitting and becoming vassal states or being more or less blockaded

Oh don't be so dramatic, if you believe that all the nations aligned with the US/West are vassal states then you have an unusually broad definition of vassal state to be sure.

The point you seem to be flailing towards here, is that choosing to trade/align with someone opens you up to being influenced and I don't think that this was something missed by the leaders of the various nations that have chosen to flee "Russias orbit" in the post cold war era. They chose to align themselves with the west in general (and the US in particular) because they believe that it is a better deal than what they experienced with the Russians and I cannot blame them.

If the Russians (or anyone else for that matter) wishes to seriously challenge US hegemony, they could start by offering a better, credible alternative. The fact that so much of eastern europe is willing to fight, bleed and die in order to remain part of "Globohomo" should probably be a wake up call that Russia is pushing a seriously bad product.

And I suspect that the best thing that homolobby can do for itself in Ukraine is to play on repeat Putin complaining about homolobby and satanist nazi jewish gay Ukrainians.

Furthermore, the either you are with us or you are against us policy of the US gives countries the option of either submitting and becoming vassal states or being more or less blockaded.

That's false — Turkey, Brazil, Vietnam and many other countries are neither American "vassals", not they are blockaded (though I object to the use of the term "vassal" to the US-aligned countries)

The Soviets didn't base nukes on Cuba.

Americans didn't base nukes in Poland either (despite Poles expressing their desire to have them there).

Just because a country is invited doesn't mean they have to.

So why do you deny their agency? They didn't have to, but they DECIDED to join.

Vietnam is pretty much aligned with the US nowadays, actually.

Probably because it's beneficial for them from the economic standpoint, and also because the US is a counter-weight to the Chinese influence in the region. Not because the US strongarms Vietnam.

after Russia pulled back

After Russia was kicked out of areas it occupied/controlled by force. Large part of that conquests was result of alliance with Third Reich and Hitler.

the US expanding right into Eastern Europe

They were invited by nearly everyone for obvious reasons.

You do know that Slovakia and Croatia entirely owe their existence to Hitler's legacy, don't you? Without him and his decisions, neither country would exist.

Do you still hold their independence to be legitimate?

You also know that Poland signed a nonaggression pact with the Third Reich, and took part in the partition of Czechoslovakia, don't you?

entirely owe their existence to Hitler's legacy

That is blatantly false, for multiple reasons. Dropping "entirely" would help a bit but still would be untrue.

And I am not calling for rolling back anything communist adjacent - I would not support undoing electrification of many rural areas of Poland on basis "it happened under communism". And I am not going to kill myself because I was born during communist rule. Or deconstruct motorways where construction started under Hitler.

But i would support undoing things done by Third Reich and USSR regimes that were unwanted.

Do you still hold their independence to be legitimate?

Yes.

You also know that Poland signed a nonaggression pact with the Third Reich, and took part in the partition of Czechoslovakia, don't you?

Yes. BTW, Trans-Olza is nowadays in Czechia.

But i would support things done by Third Reich and USSR regimes that were unwanted.

Huh?

But i would support undoing things done by

whooops!

It was supposed to be "But i would support undoing things done by(...)"

Then I suppose attaching Crimea to Soviet Ukraine in 1954, without consulting or even asking pretty much anyone involved, falls into the category of "things done by the USSR that were wanted" in your eyes.

No idea how far Crimea should be rolled back but accepting Russian invasion is one of options.

To fix the historical wrongs, Russia should have given Crimea independence as Crimean Khanate. First they destroyed its statehood, then they deported most Crimean Tartars to the Central Asia.

Both Slovakia and Croatia existed as distinct parts of Czechoslovakia (it's in the name) and Yugoslavia before Hitler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banovina_of_Croatia

They did not preserve their independence past WW2.

Yes - "distinct parts" i.e. administrative areas and not nations, which is what they currently are, and claim to be.

Their independence after 1991 was, disregarding foreign help for a moment, only possible because they had a bygone legacy as independent states that was possible to resurrect, and they only existed as independent states pre-1945 due to Hitler's decisions and the Third Reich.

administrative areas

They weren't just "administrative areas". Croats, for example, already existed as a separate ethnonational entity back then.

What was Croatia before 1941 if not an administrative part of the Yugoslavian state?

Ethnohistorical region with a strong separatist movement. Probability of Croats getting their independence as a result of Yugoslavian collapse (in itself a likely event) was quite high, Hitler had nothing to do with it.

the US expanding right into Eastern Europe

Can we put this argument to rest? No one forced Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and the rest of Eastern Europe into NATO. Russia likes to talk about "sovereignty", but evidently it's "sovereignty for me, but not for thee"

Can we put this argument to rest?

We shouldn't, because expansion doesn't necessarily entail the use of force. Applying to join NATO doesn't automatically mean membership. On the part of the governments of NATO members, there needs to be a political will and decision to, technically speaking, invite those countries, and decide that they should join. That's still expansion.

Applying to join NATO doesn't automatically mean membership.

Well, yes. As can be seen from case of Ukraine.

And Ukraine also demonstrates how it ends if you fail to run away from Russian bear quickly enough.

This is nothing but snark, and definitely not an argument. What was the window of opportunity for Ukraine to run away, in your view? When was it too early, and when was it too late?

What was the window of opportunity for Ukraine to run away, in your view?

Directly after fall of communism and some time later. Plenty of stuff was stolen during that time in Poland but Ukraine went far further and economical growth was anaemic later.

The made some steps since 2014 but it was too late to avoid Russian invasion and may be also too late to avoid conquest by Russia.

We shouldn't

Why? It's like the meme "I consent, I consent, I don't". I think Mexico has the right to join any alliances it wants as well (though the US in that case can withdraw from NAFTA etc.). In that scenario, Mexico has to decide whether it wants to prioritize relationships with China or the US, and accept drawbacks of their decision. Poland and Baltic states made their decision — Russia had nothing to offer them, apart from chauvinistic sneering and cheap gas that they might later use to twist their arms politically.

So do the governments of NATO member states have any agency in all of this or not? For Poland and the Baltic states to make that decision, there needs to be a palpable intention on NATO's part to expand westwards, a call to be answered. Mexico can only join any alliance if it gets invited by that alliance, presumably because it wants to expand into the American continent. The issue here is not what it does or does not have a right to do.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats