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 -
Something I never understood is why Russia hasn’t taken any nuclear action. Last year there seemed to be very serious concerns that Russia would do something nuclear and now they don’t even seem to threatening nearly as much or as loudly. What happened? I was strongly expecting them to preform a nuclear test or some other demonstration, I’m delighted that they didn’t, but find it hugely suspicious that this issue just seemed to evaporate over night.
Those (extremally specific!) fears were deeply unserious, form unserious people.
Russia has a doctrine that describes their planned use of nukes, with redlines at various stages which the special operation has not come close to reaching.
So, we are still in the general miasma of horrifying near apocalypse instead of at risk of any specific apocalypse.
More options
Context Copy link
The most relevant reason is that most 'serious concerns' about Russian nuclear use are Westerner media projections, not Russian claims or actual threats. Russia does have a nuclear use doctrine, and 'use in case of battlefield setbacks' isn't a part of it. Russian nuclear doctrine is far more of 'deterrence or survival of state' thresholds, which last year's defeats were nowhere close to.
Now, Russia has regularly tried to stoke / exploit such fears for diplomatic / negotiation leverage, and that was probably a consideration in the annexation announcement late last year, but in the Putin era Russia doesn't make nuclear threats or nuclear bluffs, it simply publicizes some nuclear alert level or nuclear-capable missile (ie, a missile) and let's the west project whatever it will. This sort of bluff-that-isn't-made is entirely dependent on the audience caring, however, and if they don't, then escalating threats- even a demonstration test- just underscores that your bluff has been called and you are not, in fact, nuking the other party.
At which point, escalating threats diminishes your position, and credibility. No one would be surprised if Russia could detonate a nuclear weapon on its own territory. They've had the ability to do that for generations. Nuking yourself instead of the enemy after they go 'we're not afraid of you' doesn't make them afraid of you.
Now, there are other aspects as well, such as 'why not do a demonstration test in Ukraine?' Aside from the above, foreign pressures applied as well. In so much that it would be an escalation, it's not an escalation any of Russia's key foreign partners is interested in supporting. The likes of China and India are already generally relating 'support' to 'not joining on the European sanctions', but they also have their own very real nuclear proliferation concerns in their neighborhood. If Russia WERE to attempt nuclear blackmail, actually succeeding would be very bad for the strategic interests of most of their partners- China could see Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan go nuclear within a year, India has always had Pakistan and it's regional proliferation risks, and even actual-supporter Iran could see Saudi go nuclear. No one for whom nuclear proliferation is a regional concern wants Russia to facilitate it.
There's also a less academic, but also less provable, third option, which was that the Americans and British threatened a conventional intervention in Ukraine if Russia used nukes in Ukraine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link