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 -
They might not, but this would be colossally stupid from their part.
Right now Ukraine economy mostly runs on Western money.
It absolutely doesn't. Pausing + removing sanctions means Russia can load up on munitions and material for the next attack, and import all the technologies they need to manufacture drones, rockets, etc. in-house. That's what they are constrained with currently - they have tons of people, and don't mind losing hundreds of thousands of them, but their communications, hi-tech weapons, etc. are seriously lacking - they have to buy drones from fricking Iran, which is not exactly a leading technological powerhouse. If the sanctions are removed, they can have any technology from China, Israel, US, Germany, etc. - and don't be deluded there wouldn't be somebody in the US that is willing to sell them anything for the right price too, after all if there's no sanctions anymore, it's OK. They'd also have full access to oil/gas markets, so money would not be an issue, they could pay very generously for the necessary technologies. No "soft" export limitations would be able to withstand that.
Meanwhile, Ukraine will suffer a huge drop in Western support, because the war is off TV screens, so the budgets for it would dry up, especially on long-term projects like building drone factories or artillery ammunition or HIMARS rockets and anti-ship capabilities (Russia still has a fleet in the Black Sea, and will beef it up seriously once passing Turkey is no longer a problem because the war is over). The popular sentiment would be "the war is over, how great, let's relax and maybe give them some money for repaving the roads and that's it". Nobody would be able to sustain a level of investment even close to what is happening now, it will probably drop even below of what it was in 2014-2022 - the war is over, after all, we need to move on.
Which means, in 4-5 years Russia would be fully restocked and ready for the next phase of war, while Ukraine... well, they would have nice roads which will serve very well for Russian tanks to get where they need to get.
You must be kidding. No serious military aid was given until the start of the 2022 war, even shipment of things like anti-tank weapons, which you can't use until the enemy tanks are already in your face, was hugely controversial. Most of the aid was "helmets and blankets". Heavier and more advanced weapons - which are absolutely a must when fighting an army of Russia size over a 1000km front - were flat out of the question, and Ukraine had no budgets to get them on their own.
I'm unconvinced about either side of this argument (stopping now would make Russia's long-term trajectory look better than Ukraine's; continuing means the conditions will favour Ukraine more and more).
For the former, on one hand I'm not convinced that American support (and really that's the one that matters the most) would dry up so fast, considering the endurance the US has shown in unpopular and not particularly televised campaigns since 1945 (and I think supplying Ukraine is still much cheaper than Afghanistan was, all these years); and Ukraine's main problem right now seems to be that it's "kept on its toes" and can't actually catch a break to accumulate supplies and temporarily swing the balance, whereas being able to save up even from a much slower trickle in peace for a few years (specifically in the domain of air defense, where the problem is not so much the cost as the absolute low amount and production bandwidth) would solve this. On the other, Russia's economic sprezzatura has to crack eventually, and I don't think that nominal sanctions relief (which I doubt would be executed in any more good faith than the grain agreement or Iran's nuclear deal) will be enough to reverse the downwards trend. I would therefore actually expect that in 5 years, a rested, rearmed, hardened and sure-footed Ukraine could roll over a Russia that is possibly torn apart by hyperinflation and internal instability.
For the latter, I think that after Ukraine's resilience surprised most Western commentators in the opening days of the war, everyone has way overcorrected in the other direction and is now assuming that it's silly or likely Russian psyop to insinuate otherwise. I actually think that the mechanisms determining a society's will to fight and die are obscure, and the channels by which we would gauge them are even more encumbered than usual, and it's not at all impossible that Ukraine could one day just suffer from a sudden vibe collapse and fold. The human losses are getting more and more painful, and I hear another mobilisation wave is being prepared; and at the same time the West is playing the dangerous game of snorting its own supply regarding Ukrainian motivations, which may result in a critical misstep if too many people honestly believe that it's safe to remain noncommitmental about EU membership out of internal considerations (say, only promising NATO). From a Russian perspective, holding out for this chance, however slim it may be, seems as reasonable as anything in its current situation.
That was a different US. Right now, the question of support for Ukraine has become intensely tribal, and the red tribe wants nothing to do with it. The blues want to support it, but how long it will last? The example of Afghanistan shows us the 180 degree turn is possible at any second, and when it happens, nobody would try to do a smooth transition - the mode of operation would be "dump and run".
They don't have any supplies to accumulate, their own production facility is tiny and can't be upgraded to the necessary level for a long time, at least not without a massive Western investment. Ukrainians spent a lot of time in the last decades selling off their stockpile and production capacities - including to Russia, btw - because they didn't believe Russia would dare to launch the full invasion. Getting their own capacities to the level they could do more that temporarily hold off the Russians would take many years. The years which Russia wouldn't be sitting and waiting.
Why? No it hasn't. Russians have certain problems with both selling the hydrocarbons and obtaining the technologies, which limit their capacities somewhat, but not ruinously so. They still largely have enough weapons to essentially grind the situation to an expensive stalemate, and they can keep on keeping on like that for a very long while. Yes, the life of an ordinary citizen of Russia under such regime would be somewhat shitty, but the life of an ordinary citizen of Russia has been somewhat shitty for centuries, it's absolutely nothing new. Economically, Russia is not close to breaking and the current level of sanctions won't break it, at least not for a very long time. They can muddle through just enough to get to the point where the West gets tired and removes the sanctions, or at least weakens the support of Ukraine, at which time they'll resupply everything they need to grab a bit more territory and repeat. They are banking on Western attention span being short and resolve being weaker with time and expense, and I can't honestly say that it's a completely baseless assumption.
If you expect that you are horrendously deluded. Nobody is "rolling over" anybody there, not with Ukrainian capacities. They are smart and brave people, but in this war God is on the side of big battalions. They just don't have the capacity to roll anything, without substantial air force, naval capabilities, far strike capabilities and with numerical and resource disadvantage. They are much better warriors than Russians, but it's just not enough. The absolute best Ukraine can hope for is slowly (and very, very expensively) pushing Russians back to pre-2014 borders, and that would cost a lot and require a lot more Western help that is being given now. If Russia is given time to resupply and rearm and upgrade their technological level and turn all the occupied territories into a massive fortification, the best Ukrainians can hope is when the Russians attack the next time (and it will be them attacking, Ukrainians would never dare to break the peace and risk jeopardizing the Western support) it won't cost them more than a couple of minor cities until the Russians are ground to a stop again. Then there would be the next time, and the next time after that, until the West would reasonably decide that since 40% of Ukraine territory is occupied by Russia anyway, and in the current form it's not economically viable, it's better to broker a permanent solution where Ukraine becomes Russia's bitch protectorate and the war finally stops. And all the armchair strategists would lament that we should have done it decades before and saved all the effort and trillions spent.
That is true, Ukrainians proved to be much more capable warriors than the West expected. That's the reason why Ukraine still exists as a nation. But it's not enough. Long war is a question of resources, and Ukrainian's own resources are small compared to Russia. If the West is not willing to commit enough resources to overcome that disadvantage, the Ukrainians will lose. And if Russia is able to resupply and refit their resources, then the disadvantage will only become more pronounced. Heroism can only take you so far.
The presumable problem there was always deployment of US personnel, not equipment and costs. Are there examples of the US suddenly abandoning an important geopolitical project that can be sustained with inanimate resources alone?
They do, though, from the West. Figures from around June place total US military aid alone at around $50 billion since the start of the war, which is in the ballpark of Germany's annual military budget (80 billions or so), with the latter presumably mostly paying for Germany's much more expensive human element. (Ukrainian military still gets paid Ukrainian wages and benefits!) This is not even including the other Western backers; Germany gives its own military support at about $20 billion, and I'm struggling to find a good cumulative figure. With the tone you are taking, it's hard for me to interpret your non-mention of it as being anything other than phatic speech to cheer on the Ukrainians.
(For full disclosure, I went to look for figures and found that the number of tanks Ukraine was given so far was much lower than I had thought. I figure I've multiple-counted single batches as they were talked up before actually being delivered.)
It seems that Ukraine is already close to successfully denying the northwestern chunk of the Black Sea to Russian surface ships, and yesterday they successfully struck an airport in Pskov like 600~800km away from the Ukrainian border with drones (800km if we don't assume they risked flying through Belarus).
I remember the exact same line being used in the context of the pipeline attack last year, perhaps even by you, to argue that it could not possibly have been the Ukrainians. Now most Western newspapers are freely carrying reports that it seems to have been the Ukrainians. Do you see any sign that Western support is in jeopardy because of it?
Ukraine can do whatever it wants. To the extent this is possible, Western end-user media will bury any reports on it (such as when they firebombed a university in Donetsk a month ago); if this is impossible, they will claim that the Russians did it themselves no matter how absurd (as with the pipeline and the repeated cases of anti-personnel mines being fired into Donbass cities last year); if this too fails, they can concede that Ukraine did it and still people will nod sagely and be like "well, they are being invaded by an overwhelming power that does not adhere to any principles after all" (as with the pipeline now). Claims to the contrary, that there is any threat to Western support from actions that Ukraine takes against Russia, should be furnished with evidence.
Correct, but that will be drying up as soon as we achieve "agreement". The war is over, why waste money anymore?
The correct figure of the aid actually delivered (not promised, not allocated, not potentially available if the President wants to, but actually sent) is a little below $20 billion. The economic assistance about the same. The total figure (military and economic aid) is about $38 billion. To compare, US spent in Afghanistan about $110bn (only military expenses, not counting humanitarian/economic aid) Source: https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/factcheck-washington-post-false-claims-about-size-of-us-aid-to-ukraine/
These figures, however, are hot-war figures. Once the shooting stops, sustaining this level of investment will be politically impossible. That's my whole point - the situation now is radically different from the one that would be when the "peace" is achieved.
Germany is not really a good benchmark, even they agree now their military is hilariously underfunded and is not capable of any serious task. They were mostly relying on US coming in if any shit is going to go down, and that's why Trump was screaming at them to shape up (to which they reacted with derisive laughter).
Ukrainians are pretty good at pulling of spectacular one-off strikes where Russians don't expect them. It's a great thing, awesome for morale, and keeps Russians on their toes. But it doesn't win a war. It doesn't even win a battle. While Ukrainians successfully neutralized the threat of naval invasion on the south, the sea blockade and the constant bombardment from sea-based missile carriers still continues, and Ukrainians can do nothing about it. If Russia is allowed to upgrade their Black Sea fleet (which is largely blocked by Turkey not letting them pass into the Black Sea in war time), the threat of the invasion from the sea will be restored, and given time, the Russians will find a solution for Ukrainian sea drones too. Again, the current situation will change once the sanctions and the wartime impediments will be removed. And the sporadic harassment of Russian airports, while great at embarrassing them, does little to decrease their strike capability, which they regularly exercise against Ukrainian (mostly civilian) targets, and which are limited only by available rockets/drones - again, this capacity will be hugely increased once the sanctions are off.
I can write a report claiming it was Martians. The factual basis would be about as strong. By the grace of Almighty, we still manage to maintain some freedom of speech in the West, but that also means anybody can "freely" publish anything in the papers. If we talk about Pravda, if something is printed there, you can be sure even if it's a lie, it's an officially approved and vetted lie. In the Western newspapers, it only means somebody thought it will bring clicks. And so it would.
Do I need to explain the difference between a strike at enemy's vital economic asset at wartime and initiating warfare after a ceasefire agreement, in peacetime?
Not if we achieve "peace in our time". In the middle of the war, it's one thing, peacetime is quite another.
Spare me the histrionics. Donetsk is a war zone city, and that building is no different from any other building, thousands of which were destroyed (by both sides, but mostly by Russians). The fact that an organization calling itself "university" (no idea what kind of education it can do in the middle of the war zone, probably none) owns the building means absolutely nothing. And if your best complaint about Ukrainian atrocities is that they set on fire a roof on a building that required three (!!!) ladders to extinguish, no damage, no casualties, then I say Ukraine is doing an unexplainably bad job at striking back, they should have much more impact on Russians than that.
Again, strike at enemy's economic capacity is a long-existing principle of war, and Russia did that - and much more, as they had striken at purely civilian infrastructure like electrical grid in the middle of the winter, clearly to maximize impact on civilian population, not just blew up a pipeline in the middle of the ocean. Trying to present this clearly legitimate act - which, I emphasize again, not proven at all, but legitimate even if we assume for a second it was Ukrainians - as some kind of outrageous atrocity only emphasizes the dearth of any other examples. If you had anything else but the pipeline and a wooden roof on fire, you'd mention it - but you mention these ones, so I assume that's the best you have. And man, is it weak sauce.
You can evidence it amply from the speeches of red tribe politicians. Carlson is now in all out PR war against Ukraine. He was also the one who tried to force (and still is trying) the idiotic biolab conspiracy. There are many others that are on the crusade against Ukraine on the red side. On the blue side, it's all pro-Ukraine now, but it will change in a moment once they'd have "peace in our time" signed.
Here I was, nearly spitting out my drink, all ready to quote your point about free speech and bringing clicks (which in fact I disagree with) back at you, but it turns out you just mistyped "billion".
Sorry, of course it's "billion". That's why I gave the link - in case I mistype something (which happens), you can always go to the source and see. I fixed it.
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