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 -
I don't believe for a second that this was an inevitable war forced on a reluctant Putin. He had choices at every point - the most important of course being the choice to invade Ukraine, which he could have simply not done. Now, he may have decided that war was the best path forward for his interests - and maybe that was even a rational decision based on the information he had at the time. He certainly wouldn't have been alone in thinking that Ukraine would not be able to put up much of a fight. But I highly suspect that if he had known the path that the future would take, he would have chosen differently.
His hands were not tied. He made a decision - and it was the wrong decision.
Yes. I'm also extremely confident he no longer has popular support in Ukraine.
nor was the kiev coup (the second one in 2 decades) against a legitimately elected president some sort of inevitable action
framing these sorts of things as if the US & satrapies' behavior is some sort of natural, inevitable event and the only agent here was Putin is disingenuous
no, I doubt he would have made a different decision at least on the general question of whether a direct physical confrontation with Ukraine was necessary or not
how would you know? political opposition is banned in Ukraine and mild criticisms of the war effort at the very least earn people a visit from the secret police and a humiliating beatdown which is filmed and posted to the internet
I have made no such claim or implication and it is disingenuous of you to say that I have. My view is that there are a lot of people with meaningful agency. Putin, Obama, Biden, Yanukovych, Zelensky, and many, many more people all have made many different decisions that have all combined to lead us where we are now.
I am not arguing that Putin is the only person in this situation with agency. I am arguing that he is a person with agency - and in particular, it was his decision to begin this war.
It's my assessment that Putin is currently extremely unpopular among Ukrainians, and that Yanukovych is perceived as being aligned with Putin. Do you think I'm wrong?
when anyone in this discussion talks about the behavior of not-russians, you turn the convo back to the russians and insist on discussing the agency of the russians and what they didn't "have to do,"
perhaps this pattern of framing was unintentionally, but what it does is remove context of actions of any party in the conflict
no, Putin isn't the only actor who caused the war anymore than a person who is badgered and bullied and eventually fights back is the person who "decided" to start a fight
Ukraine didn't have to bomb ethnic russians for 8 years killing 15,000 of them, Ukraine didn't have to ignore the minsk agreement or the minsk II accords
Ukraine was in a civil war with a large part of "Ukrainians," wanting to be inducted into the Russian Federation, so no Putin isn't currently "extremely unpopular" among "Ukrainians" and he wasn't "extremely unpopular" in 2014 when the western-caused violent coup happened which caused the civil war to begin with
this is another example of your framing, unintentional or not
I struggle to believe you can say this with a straight face.
I struggle to believe you don't think putin is popular in the breakaway regions which are full of ethnic russian "Ukrainians"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People keep raising Ukrainian bombings of their own "ethnic russian" regions as something that's supposed to be analogous to "bullying Putin", when there is no evidence Putin cares any about "ethnic russians".
he talks about them repeatedly, he sent them help, he's given them dozens of billions in aid and cheap gas among other things, and he launched a war ahead of a planned Ukrainian offensive on their territory
that's evidence
you can claim the above actions have ulterior motives, but you cannot claim the above isn't evidence
I can very much claim the above isn't evidence of his motivation being "ethnic Russians" because he doesn't do all that for the ethnic Russians who don't live on the territories he wants to grab.
There are lots of ethnic Russians in Russia who are far better off due to pensions, jobs, crime, state assistance, and most other objective metrics due specifically to Putin. You can claim whatever you like and yet ethnic Russians are far better off in Russia now than when Putin took power.
edit: I didn't claim Ukrainians "bullied" Putin through their treatment of ethnic Russian Ukrainians, it's simply an analogy to demonstrate why I think it's dishonest to simply assert putin "caused" the war. He did and the bullied kid "caused" the fight by not bowing down and submitting to be abused, but then again so what?
so claim putin doesn't care about ethnic russians because evidence of him caring about ethnic russians is explained through ulterior motives you have divined, but yet claiming there is "no evidence" is simply wrong
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How do you choose to interpret the Minsk Accords? If the west is unwilling to respect your security concerns. The problem I see in your logic is that it fails to take the Russia side of the equation seriously. This is why I ask you the same question the pro-western side can’t answer either. Given the events leading up to the crisis, if you were Putin, what would you have done?
Interesting that you seem to suggest coups can be justified in light of this logic. It wouldn’t surprise me why the west would believe it. That’s the inherent nature of political hypocrisy and duplicity. But it’s also good to know that disputing democratic elections is now in vogue if the vote goes the wrong way. The US proved that when it disputed the results of the people in Donetsk and Luhansk.
If Russia would invade and conquer Spain they would complain about security concerns posed by Portugal.
Russia's problem is that they want to be treated as superpower. They are not. That is why West refused to treat their demands seriously (and they demanded for example demilitarization of Poland and similar nonstarters).
Try to unfuck Russia. Starting from stealing less.
Definitely avoid speedrunning population collapse in Ukraine and Russia by increasing scope of ongoing war.
Yes, for example I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, also when they were elected as long as there is plausible less murderous alternative. (note: not claiming that this specific one was genocidal, just giving a clear example where it would be blatantly correct if alternatives were exhausted)
I am not treating democracy procedures as the highest virtue. Note that in this specific cases current ruler had no support from population. Whether Maidan was a coup or not is an interesting question BTW.
If the Warsaw Pact incorporated Mexico and Canada, the US would complain about being surrounded by an encroaching military alliance.
No. No, they really don’t.
What do you think the Minsk Accords were? This is about right up there with thinking if Putin just spent a little more money on domestic social programs, NATO wouldn’t try to expand into Ukraine.
And what’s your empirical evidence for this?
To which part it refers? That Russia wants to be treated as superpower? That they are not one? That they demanded removal of all NATO military from Poland (which includes Polish military)?
For what? For that I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, if alternatives failed?
And? Not sure whether you prefer realpolitik or some naively idealistic answer but neither works out well for Russia.
Yes.
Yes.
Then you should have no problem with the way they’ve responded, given that the US is unlikely to behave any differently in comparable circumstances.
I think that for empirical evidence whether I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, if alternatives failed - then comment here suffices:
I am fine with it
Which of two? First seems obvious, second is also obvious given that they are unable to win war against Ukraine supplied a bit by NATO countries and run into series of hilarious failures.
USA would likely respond differently, and in fact as far as Canada goes they already proactively responded differently by ensuring that Canada and USA cooperates and Canada benefits from powerful USA rather than being endangered. (not sure about Mexico)
not sure why you think that I would be fine with USA responding in such way, or even in a noticeably less evil and murderous one. I am not some cultist treating all USA actions as fine (and yes, I know about United Fruit Company and Abu Ghraib).
So I’ll ask for a third time. What is your evidence that Vladimir Putin is a genocidal maniac?
Based on what?
How so? “Please Mr. Putin, will you remove your presence from our borders?” Seems to me to be the kind of think you’re suggesting. Doesn’t seem to be the kind of thing that happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thankfully we had a cabinet that didn’t lead with the premise that Khrushchev was a genocidal leader.
But you sure seem to think it’s the exception and not the rule.
Him directly causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people may give a hint. His propaganda claiming Ukraine is a "fake" nation and truly belongs to Russia may give another. But for some Putinverstehers nothing would be enough - they have Russian propaganda bookmarked to justify anything.
More options
Context Copy link
I am not claiming that Putin is a genocidal maniac, and their action while evil and qualifying as war crimes are not Third Reich levels. Though we had terror bombing, kidnappings, rape/looting as accepted (though not sure how high) and so on. But I am aware that all that is relatively normal in war and their main evil was starting war.
Based on their inability to understand that they are not entitled to USSR territory and that their security concerns are not trumping everyones elses security concerns.
I am not 100% naive idealist, that would not work :)
No, likely also war but with less bombing of civilian targets and less hilarious incompetence. Very likely ending with lower civilian death count and lower destruction. And lesser oppression during occupation.
I am claiming that I would prefer to be invaded by USA than Russia, but even more prefer to be not invaded in the first place. And no, I will not buy this books.
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
More options
Context Copy link
Ukraine isn't Spain and wanting your security concerns to be respected w/re to a country which is on your border and <300mi from your capital isn't demanding someone pretend you're a superpower, but pretend you're a country with any sovereignty whatsoever, something which is clearly a bridge too far for the US and its satrapies.
there is no serious argument that Russia, or any country, doesn't have legitimate security concerns in what happens in the country directly on its border and arguing a country claiming such is akin to demanding the world treat them as a superpower is nonsense
are you under the impression that Russia is not far more unfucked now under Putin than before he came to power?
Russia swallowing up over 10,000,000 ethnic russians seems to be a good strategy to stave off population collapse
What pro-russian or at least neutral, non-Western sources of information do you use to form your opinion about this topic?
That exact same argument would apply to Ukraine. Are they justified in treating every dead Russian as a slight reduction to “security concerns?” Maybe they should have invaded first.
Russia isn’t playing at being a superpower because they have security interests. Everyone has those. They’re playing it because they’re acting on them in a way that normal powers either can’t or won’t.
sure, now what? would Ukraine be playing at superpower? no
no, russia isn't playing at being a superpower because they're engaged in a conflict on their border <300mi from their capital in a region full of ethnic Russians
normal powers engaging in wars similar to the Russian/Ukraine war is not only one of "normal powers," but is seen all throughout history; it only seems reasonable to try to label this as something "normal powers" don't do because you've only known a world with an ascendant global hegemon, but this isn't the normal state of world conflict, and trying to label any country which doesn't immediately fall into line w/re a conflict on its border within a few hundred miles to its capital full of people who are co-ethnics with that country as one "pretending to be a superpower" is ridiculous
or is Azerbaijan pretending to be a Superpower because it invades Armenia and steals their land? also no
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It so happens that Poland also borders Ukraine and in its vital security interests is reducing Russian influence there. And yes, this directly conflicts with Russian interests. You cannot satisfy both. To say nothing about Ukrainian security concerns which are far more serious than Russian one, given that Ukraine invading Russia was absurdity and Russia continues invasions and threats of invasions.
Demanding that only Russian security concerns should be treated seriously is absurd. Maybe it should be treated more seriously from realpolitik perspective if they would actually be superpower.
And it so happens that basically everyone in that region except Russia has security concerns in direction almost exactly opposite from Russia. For obvious reasons.
But security concerns people somehow only mention Russian security concerns.
I was claiming that Russian demands are not satisfiable, after getting what they demanded they would be more powerful and escalate demands. So blocking and neutering them was a good step, if cooperation was not viable.
You seems to be confused about relation between USA and Poland. It does not mirror USSR and PRL.
I am claiming that trying to fix Russia would be far more worth it than vastly increasing scale of a war. And that Putin has not really focused on unfucking Russia and its systematic problems.
Large part of improvements were due to horribly bad start and high oil/gas prices.
No one, not even Russia, is demanding only Russian security concerns be addressed. Two countries can have security concerns in the same area and can have goals which are mutually exclusive and yet that doesn't mean either side's "concerns" or interests are illegitimate. Your comment was an attempt to frame Russia's repeated warnings and security concerns as not just counter to Poland or whatever else, but illegitimate and to be ignored.
Russia has a long history of abiding by its agreements and its demands are entirely reasonable. I cannot say the same for the US or its satrapies. This situation is not one of an expansive Russia, but one of an expansive US repeatedly encroaching on Russian regional interests over the last 30 years, including entering fake agreements (Minsk Accords) which it never even intended abiding by and instead using it to buy time to build a military. Claiming that Russian demands are "not satisfiable" given nearly 100 years of satisfactory agreements with Russia which have been tossed recently specifically because of US violation and encroachment is plainly ridiculous.
pretty much any communication, speech, or press release by Putin or the Russian government mentions other's security concerns; this is a flatly ridiculous claim to the point where it makes me think you are not engaging in good faith or don't have a clue what you're talking about
What pro-russian or at least neutral, non-Western sources of information do you use to form your opinion about this topic?
even a passing understanding of the situation in Russia before Putin and after Putin, even during wartime, proves this to be a ridiculous belief and claim
Since when? With whom? Definitely not for 100 years in Russia-Ukraine relations or Russia-Poland relations.
You seems to continue being confused. Poland is not satrapy of USA, has distinct priorities, relations, situation, pathologies, peculiarities and context.
To repeat: Poland is not satrapy of USA. Even Belarus is not really a satrapy of Russia.
This continued assertion makes me think you are not engaging in good faith or don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Not at all, its attempts to recolonize Poland (see say https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guarantees-says-western-response-not-encouraging-2021-12-17/ - not a great source but as starter example may be fitting) are not reasonable at all and they can fuck off. There is a reason why Poland send hundreds of tanks into Ukraine within first months of war. And I really like irony of tanks made on order of USSR blocking now Russian imperial ambitions and killing Russian soldiers.
I was referring to commentary on internet that keep to referring how we should care about Russian security concerns - and very often not mentioning security concerns of others. I admit that official Russian communication tends to be more subtle.
not only is having "distinct priorities, relations, situation, pathologies, peculiarities and context" not mutually exclusive with being a satrapy, it was a major driver of debacle to Persians trying to control their explicit satrapies in history from which the word comes from
Poland is a satrapy of the United States, likely one of its most ardent ones in Europe besides the yapping lunatics that are the Baltic states.
for the last 100 years with the US, Europe, China, Japan, OPEC, most countries in the world, in agreements on missiles, nuclear weapons, bioweapons, trade, exchange, and a wide variety of other agreements including in these exact conflict with France and Germany which have already admitted to using this agreements specifically for duplicitous reasons
to be honest, based on your comments here and to others in thread I do not think this will be an interesting and worthwhile discussion
good luck
just to take some examples....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Secret_protocol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Neutrality_Pact#Soviet_denunciation
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/07/23/mysteries-of-the-soviet-biological-weapons-program/
I could go further but I will go to sleep now. But
is deeply hilarious claim and blatant lie. Especially when covering last 100 years and covering Europe - what includes Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania and Moldova. And so on. Are you REALLY going to claim that Russia was abiding by its agreements with them for last 100 years? And its demands are entirely reasonable?
Are you now going to claim that mass murder and large scale deportations were entirely reasonable or deny USSR-led mass murder and deportations? Or stop responding? I am kind of curious. Any of this variants is going to be hilarious.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As Putin, I would understand that the west has no interest in respecting any particular commitment towards me and has a long term interest in weakening me and my regime. I would see it as a priority to maintain and build as much strength as possible to deter and combat attacks both overt and covert.
I don't know for sure what I would have done in Putin's shoes because I don't know what information he had in front of him. But as a matter of personality I tend to see war as a last resort and to be relatively risk-averse, so it's quite likely I would not have invaded. I would weight the downside risk of an outcome like the one that has occurred - or others that would be very different but also negative - more heavily than he did.
Not at all what I said - we could argue about whether or not Euromaidan was justified but that's not the point I was making. I was saying that Putin installing him as leader of Ukraine now would go against the will of Ukrainians now. Whether or not they wanted him to be PM back in 2014 has nothing to do with that.
The first half of this seems very much at odds with how I read your last post. The last part about Euromaidan I don’t see what relevance there is in the way you’re responding to it.
Take this as an indication you are reading me wrong then. I am being entirely consistent.
Here, let me explain. I began by saying that my belief was that Putin had intended to install Yanukovych as a friendly leader.
You responded by asking if I knew that Yanukovych was the "democratically elected" leader before the "western backed coup" - with those quoted phrases clearly being chosen to imply that Yanukovych was removed from power against the will of the Ukrainian people and that if Putin were to re-install Yanukovych he would simply be rectifying a wrong.
I countered by asserting that regardless of whether or not Yanukovych had popular support in the past he clearly doesn't now.
That's the relevance.
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