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 -
Please expand on those real and serious reasons. If Russian aggression is to be limited to Ukraine, why attempt to stir unrest in Moldova? (Why leave Moldova out of your bet?) Why do senior Russian officials admit an intention to "denazify and demilitarize" Poland? Was it because Ukraine was leaning towards joining Nato? If so, the same calculus must surely apply to Finland, too: "Finland’s accession to Nato would have serious military and political repercussions.".
I won't take your bet, but that's only because the Russian armed forces have broken themselves against the Ukranians and are rapidly losing the strength necessary to pursue a campaign in the Baltics. I propose the following alternative conditional bet: If Russia takes Kyiv in the next three months, then Russia will invade another of its neighbors before 2033.
Russia believed that a Ukraine controlled by the US/NATO would be used to host nuclear missile interdiction systems which would give US officials the false belief that they could launch a nuclear first strike against Russia and avoid retaliation. The US has consistently violated their informal agreement to not expand NATO closer to Russia and interfered with the government of the Ukraine back in 2014. Crimea was an immensely, strategically important port for Russia that they could not afford to let fall into US hands. The Russian-speaking minorities in the Donbass being mistreated are a real reason but not a particularly serious one (lmao at the idea of the Russian government being a charitable, humanitarian body). Russia made it abundantly, overwhelming clear that they considered the expansion of NATO to their doorstep an existential threat - and they have acted in ways consistent with that belief.
If you don't think any of these reasons are real or serious, consider what would happen if these things took place on the US' doorstep: China starts making noise about the necessity of exporting communism around the world, freeing people from capitalist exploitation, and then their ambassador to Mexico provide support to a bunch of people protesting in Mexico city, taking photos and handing out food. A phonecall leaks out where the Chinese ambassador to Mexico says "Fuck the US" and then picks out their preferred candidate for President - who then actually gets the top job. Chinese military forces start showing up in Mexico to provide training and equipment, and there's talk about setting up anti missile systems in the area to protect against US aggression. Spots in Mexico with lots of english-speaking ethnic Americans (I don't think these actually exist but just imagine they do and the US cares about them) start getting shelled with artillery and discriminated against. Then, a major US military base/naval facility is told that they're no longer welcome in Mexico and the land they're built on will be repossessed. Afterwards, Mexico announces that they're going to join the SCO and start hosting Chinese military forces and equipment in large numbers right on US border.
Can you honestly claim with a straight face that this would not produce an apoplectic fit of rage from the US government? The actions which prompted the Cuban missile crisis are chump change compared to what the US has done in the Ukraine.
Unless you have a stronger source for those claims than "US intelligence" I'm going to just dismiss them as the same kind of fiction as the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and sponsored 9/11, Iraqi soldiers removed babies from incubators in Kuwait, the NSA did not monitor domestic American phonecalls, Russia had compromising material on Trump, Crossfire-Hurricane didn't happen, Trump is about to be arrested, the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, etc etc. Evidence-free assertions from US intelligence like that are demonstrably less reliable and more consistently wrong than Paul the Octopus' predictions of football results.
If you're taking Kadyrov's comments like that seriously then you would have had to take Wesley Clark's comments about invading Iran, Syria etc seriously as well (to say nothing of the crap that comes out of John Bolton). High-ranking military officials often make toothless threats like that for a variety of reasons.
From the article:
This isn't a threat to invade. This is a threat of economic sanctions and militarisation of the border - "corresponding symmetrical responses on our side" would only include invasion if Finland had also announced their plans to invade Russia... but I don't think that actually happened.
Because Jiro did not mention it. If he had said "Poland, the Baltics and Moldova are members of NATO and Russia has reason to invade them." I would have included it in the bet.
Your bet lasts for far more time and fails to include a provision about retaliation. I also have no desire to put some monero into escrow for an entire decade. I disagree with your thoughts on the Russian armed forces and their relative strength - but if you come up with a more reasonable wager I'll still take it.
I am pretty sure that USA invaded Syria, is there right now and bombed target in Iran recently. See https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/missile-attack-targets-us-base-east-syria-security-source-media-2023-03-24/
So yes, I treat it seriously that Russian leadership wants to attack Poland and they are not doing solely because that is infeasible, but would be happy to rerun 1939 and murder/rape/loot/conquer.
I think I missed USA bases on Russia-Ukraine border.
There was no such thing, and given that Russia happily violated formal agreements they would have no reason to complain.
You missed part that shelling targeted invading army.
I was referring to the "seven countries in seven years" comment. It didn't happen.
That's what Ukraine joining NATO would effectively entail.
Wrong. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today
Can you please provide a source for the claim that Russia sent an invading army into Ukraine in 2014?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
‘Russia invading its neighbors’ is not exactly going out on a limb, but it seems to focus on picking off former parts of the Russian empire which are squalid and poor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link