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 -
Sorry if that was the case. That being said, I don't think there's a point in relitigating the object-level justness of this war for either side yet again, since this has been done on this forum many times already and presumably hardly any opinions were shifted. (For the record, my position is still that all sides are morally in the wrong - the current Ukrainian government for seizing the country in a revolution in 2014 and prosecuting a war against the side that did not back the revolutionaries, the American government for providing material support to the winning side of the revolution since 2014, and the Russian government for entering the war on the side of the losing side in 2022; and yes, I grant that Russia's support is the greater immorality than the preceding ones by virtue of the greater degree and suffering it brought, but this is a difference of quantity, not quality).
I don't think that your predictions about how the war would go are of particular relevance to the question, though I'd be interested to hear why you thought that they are, because I've seen posts that suggest that "believing side X is in the right" and "believing side X will win" is strongly entangled in the view of many and it puzzles me. Despite my position above (and, orthogonally to questions of justice, preferring a future in which Russia has won the war to one in which it has lost, in purely geopolitical terms), I have also believed from the start that Russia's military and leadership is inadequate and their loss is overwhelmingly likely.
I think the sincerity (and plausibility) of their beliefs is significant to their moral culpability, though. I know Americans dislike and have strong memetic antibodies to ("whataboutism") their own country being compared to the villain of the day that they are bringing charges against, but do you really feel that the common American has, for example, the same degree of culpability for the immeasurable amount of death and suffering brought about by the Iraq war (still much greater than what has happened in Ukraine so far, according to most estimations, and supported on the basis of arguably quite stupid beliefs about Saddam-Osama links) that you assign to the common Russian right now? When I ask whether you really feel, I do really mean the sense that they deserve to pay an appropriate price for it in suffering, which I do think the vocally pro-Ukraine posters here generally do feel towards the NPC Russians. I don't think I feel that way towards the common folk of the US, even though I have thought that maybe in the interest of cosmic justice I ought to.
Zelensky ran and won as a blatant bothsidist who would've lost the reelection had the war not started due to his abysmal job approval rating. A more competent Russian MFA could've pulled off a "Reagan vs Iran" or even a "Nixon in China".
I'm aware, but was there actually any significant lull in combat activity on the Donbass frontline under him? Presumably, had he lost the reelection, he would have been replaced by someone more hawkish too, with the effect either way being that the pressure of war against the separatists would have continued.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's a shame, because I find it quite relevant.
For example-
This is a factually incorrect object-level claim. Not only is the current Ukrainian government not the post-Maidan government, but the post-Maidan government did not seize the country in a revolution in the sense of words where revolutions are militarily factions seizing countries.
The Yanukovych administration fell when the President pre-emptively fled the country on 22Feb following the removal of riot police from contested Kyiv and the imminent voting of the Legislature against the pro-crackdown elements of the government including Yanukovych. These, in turn, cannot be separated from the previous week of violence which changed the domestic politics of Ukraine when Yanukovych succumbed to Russian pressure to escalate a crackdown of protestors, which instead destroyed his own domestic power base among the oligarchs and security forces.
Opposition elements joining the government was already a negotiated point by mid-Feb, due to protests and negotiations for a unity government earlier in Euromaidan. That negotiation period towards a unity government was the context of the leaked US diplomat phone call that is regularly raised as proof of a US coup, where the American diplomats are discussing people who could be included for a viable government. However, while the Americans were pressing for a unity government involving the protestors, the Russians were lobbying for Yanukovych to escalate violence and crush the protests, with Russian-aligned media framings being of 'insurrection' and 'terrorism' to justify crackdowns.
A major escalation in the final week occurred about 17/18FEB (depending on time zone dating), when what are now believed to be Ukrainian security service snipers (but at the time were also alleged by Russian-aligned spheres as protestor or american false-flag) opened fire into mostly protestors. Initial reporting was around 20 persons, and at the time the escalation was seen as being a result of direction/pressure by Moscow due to media and Putin associate statements, as well as the Russian sanctions. Putin authorized sanctions against Ukraine when Yanukovych began to make concessions to protestors in Jan that included the dismissal of Yanukovych's cabinet as part of creating a unity government. The sanctions were reversed the day before the 17/18FEB escalation, during which Ukrainian media leaked that Yanukovych had a phone call with Putin coinciding with the start of the operation. The 17/18th escalation, which was a marked increase in state violence with lethal shootings, was accompanied by further destabilization of Yanukovych's faction, as he fired the Chief of the General Staff and had some party members flee his coalition.
This already-destabilizing escalation then escalated further on 20FEB, the Interior Minister Vitali Zakharchenko- the minister in charge of those police snipers from earlier- announced signing a decree authorizing the use of live ammunition against protestors. This time ~50 people were shot, mostly protestors but at the time reports also included police At this time, the presence of Interior Ministry snipers was already circulating in social media but also international media for weeks since late January when the first wave of gun deaths had happened. At the time snipers had started, Ukrainian police were reportedly not being issued guns to shoot with, with the presence of snipers being contested as Interior Ministry, but also claims of radical protestors / false flag attacks. However, the 20FEB escalation, and the Interior Ministry live ammunition decree, drew shifted significant political perception back towards 'it was the government all along' theory of who was responsible for the earlier shootings, even as the government was beginning to try and involve the military (including transferring military forces to counter-protestor interior security control).
However, again, the escalations, even if supported by pro-Russian factions in Yanukovych's administration, were fragmenting Yanukovych's own political base. Remember that Yanukovych had just fired senior military officials for unreliability in the last week. On 21Feb, the Armed Forces Deputy Chief of Staff resigned in protest, but even more importantly the mayor of Kyiv, Volodymyr Makeyenko, a Yanukovych appointment who was also a former Communist Party official and graduated from Leningrad, announced he was leaving the President's party.
To re-iterate: the Russian-educated former communist party member turned appointed mayor with influence over the city riot police didn't want to go along with his own political patron's plan of shooting the protestors.
Long story short, that same day the city riot police gave up contesting public squares, the Ukrainian legislature voted to resciend the President and Interior Ministry powers that were being used to shoot 100 people in the capital streets, and Yanukovych and the pro-crackdown politicians, generally pro-Russian, were fleeing the country and claiming it was a coup to whoever would listen.
But at no point did revolutionaries storm the government.
I am fairly sure you did not know half of this, probably will not believe it, and will otherwise dismiss because position inertia is a hell of a drug and no one likes having ignorance on a topic turned into a bad essay, but object-level justifications continue to matter because object-level things happened, and the object-level claims of these things is being used to perpetuate massive amounts of human suffering that is scaling into the tens millions in the current war.
A war which which was started by Vladimir Putin in 2023 on the pretext of protecting separatist republics.
Separatist republics which only still existed because Putin ordered conventional military interventions to to preserve them for the sake of the Minsk negotiations to codify Russian influence Ukraine.
The Minsk strategem being necessary because Russia defanged all pro-Russian political parties for electoral influence by taking the most pro-Russian regions out of the Ukrainian electorate.
The Pro-russian regions being taken out of the Ukrainian election because Putin ordered the 2014 military intervention to sustain the failed NovaRussia campaign.
The NovaRussian campaign failing because Putin thought he could spark a massive pro-Russian popular rebellion against post-Maidan Kyiv.
Putin thinking NovaRussia would work because of the Crimean success.
The success in Crimea being ordered by Putin to secure the Crimea port from a post-Maidan government hypothetically changing its mind on a then-uncontroversial presence.
The post-Maidan government existing because the Ukrainian oligarchy wasn't willing to shoot the Maidan protestors at Putin's behest.
The Maidan protesting starting because Putin made a very transparent bribe/pressure campaign to have Ukraine join the Eurasian Union.
The bribe to join the Eurasian Union coming because Putin didn't want Ukraine having the already agreed, and politically popular, Association Agreement with the European Union.
For the better part of the last decade, at nearly every stage in the Ukraine crisis, Putin has had agency on how to proceed, and keeps fucking it up, and it's object-level incompetence to confuse the series of events with some sort of Ukrainian revolutionary civil war, which Putin just so happens to be supporting the losing faction in, which is losing due to Western support for the other. Yanukovych did not lose against some sort of American-funded military force.
Yanukovych did not fleet the country because the protestors started to overwhelm the government by illegitimate violence, or any sort of violence. Yanukovych fled the country because he tried to conduct a lethal crackdown at Russian pressure without the necessary support of the Ukrainian oligarchy, and the Oligarchy refused to go along with it.
Yanukovych was firing senior military officers for unreliability, only to have others resign rather than participate in a crackdown, paralyzing the military support. His personally appointed leader of city administration, who had been willing enough to contest the squares, refused to go along with a lethal-force decree. And this was after members of his party were jumping ship, after he had already made significant concessions to protest groups to bring in opposition politicians into the government and dismantle his own core cabinet, before the 20FEB lethal force decree.
And this is all in the capital city itself, where the political strength of a national government is normally strongest. In other parts of the country, various institutions- and thus their associated oligarchs- were already sympathetic or siding with the protestors outright.
Yanukovych was not couped or ousted by revolutionaries. He was a politically weak leader in a national oligarchy who didn't have the backing of the oligarchy to conduct a purge of the citizenry at the behest of a foreign power. He tried, he failed, he fled, but it wasn't the revolution or foreigners who did him in, it was his own power base abandoning him.
Some relevant links from the time. Yes, they are English speaking media sources, and western. Feel free to dispute object-level claims central the points being made.
https://time.com/8802/ukraine-kiev-russia-yanukovych-putin/
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/unsolved-maidan-massacre-casts-shadow-over-ukraine/
https://www.theguardian.com/wo
I stand by not wanting to relitigate the issue. This is not only because I don't think any opinions will be shifted, but also because I don't have time (for very pragmatic real life reasons involving an upcoming conference deadline), especially if you are going to argue by way of walls of text full of tangential points bordering on a Gish gallop, rather than a targeted refutation of the points you claim to refute.
I didn't think it's unconventional to assign continuous identity to governments based on consensual transition between key personnel.
That also seems like a tortured qualification of the definition, which the first dictionary entry I can find simply gives as "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed." As I see it, if obstructive action leads to a transition in government that was not approved within the framework of that government's own declared principles, this is a revolution. The Ukrainians themselves also call it a revolution.
The rest of your post seems to simply be telling a story trying to illustrate how crooked Yanukovych was and how virtuous the protesters were, along with apparent attempts ("That negotiation period towards a unity government was the context of the leaked US diplomat phone call that is regularly raised as proof of a US coup") to substitute my claim with a stronger and therefore easier to refute one. Virtuousness does not make a revolution less of one, and you are not addressing the part where the government that emerged from this revolution then used military force to assert its power over a set of people who never in any meaningful way consented to being ruled over by this new government and were actively resisting it, unless you want to postulate some clause in the Ukrainian constitution that said that as an alternative to elections you can also have revolutions if enough people near the capital (and perhaps in Washington) think that the elected government is sufficiently evil.
I think the Atlantic Council as a source is only distinguished from RT by having better writers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You forgot to mention the Krim annexation and the culpability of the bumbling European leaders who, in my opinion, have been absolutely embarassed by Putin, Zelensky, and their American "allies".
Fascinating, could you expand on this?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link