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 -
Only reason for this is how hard it's been to gather real data from the piles of propaganda that's coming from each side, although Ukrainian side has been more perverse with this. Even well respected sources that should be highly analytical seemed to have drank the koolaid.
For the start of the invasion, I think the reason I got it wrong (I thought that Russia would not invade Ukraine, but would officially take the separatist regions) was because of low number of troops that were prepared for the invasion. The Guardian reported 190k troops, which is comically low for any serious invasion of such a large country like Ukraine. Hell, it may not even be enough to take over a city like Kiev with so few troops given that defenders put up a real fight. Some estimates put the total number of troops fighting for Russia at the very start at approx. 250k, that's including the separatist regions that conducted a pretty harsh mobilization a week prior.
Then, I expected Ukraine to have some success simply because of the manpower advantage, but I had no clue how that success would materialize so I didn't make any predictions on that. Ukraine had roughly 250k active military personnel at the start of the war and a robust reservists and territorial defense systems that could mobilize quickly since they've had 'ATO' (anti terrorist operation) since 2014.
For the counteroffensive, I admit that I got completely psyoped by the pro-Ukraine 'experts' and journos. I bought into the western weapons wunderwaffe thesis and that Russian mobilized troops would not have enough experience to withstand the push of well trained and well equipped Ukrainians. I also thought that Russia blundered by wasting their time with Bakhmut, which I assumed lost them a sizeable chunk of wagner reserves that could've been used for strengthening up defense. I thought that volunteer numbers coming out of Russia were completely made up (part of that is because anecdotal evidence - I have Russian friends that still live in Russia and out of my whole circle not one had a close relative or friend that has been mobilized or has volunteered, the result that most likely occurred because of selection bias), making the frontline understaffed on the Russian side once again. The Russian sources I read supported my thoughts - they were heavy in doom and gloom about how they are outnumbered and outgunned, how the defensive line they are building is nothing but a money laundering grift for the big wigs (which given the track record for Russian big wigs sounds pretty true). I expected a Kherson style pace where there's small progress here and there until Russia has to flee to more advantageous line of defense. And well, that clearly didn't happen.
My current prediction is that there won't be an official ceasefire in 2024 because:
I believe the main goal for Russia is Ukraine not 'joining' NATO. 'Joining' is in quotes because I think even more cooperation between Ukraine and NATO without the former officially joining would be considered a threat. And all the talk from pro-ceasefire Ukrainian side right now is about 'exchanging' the lost land for quick NATO accession. I think Russia would not agree to that, and if I'm right then continuing the fight is considered more beneficial by the Russian regime
If Ukraine gets funding from it's allies for 2024, no ceasefire is also a more beneficial position for Zelensky because the war keeps the public from confronting the government about the undemocratic draconian measures that have been bestowed upon them. There's no data on this, but anecdotal evidence suggests that a lot of men are going to leave the country the moment they have an ability to do so. The current street price for a get-out-of-Ukraine-as-a-healthy-male card is anywhere between $5k to $12k, a sum many cannot afford. Leaving the border closed after the war is over or on hold would not only raise eyebrows in the West for being undemocratic (how significant this is is debatable, but would definitely not score any democracy PR points for Ukraine) but also anger own constituents. EDIT: not to mention the fact that I believe Zelensky has no chance of winning post war elections. All the losses, corruption, and so on will be pinned on him, so unless he pulls a Putin and elects himself in post war elections, keeping the war going and postponing election is the move for him if he wishes to keep his power (and based on his actions he does wish so)
If Ukraine doesn't get funding (my prediction is it will, maybe just enough to keep in the fight), there's no reason for Russia to agree to a ceasefire. Ukraine has nothing without funding from US, I don't believe EU is willing/able to provide enough for the war.
So I think Ukraine will get funded, the fight will continue into 2024 and probably 2025 with very slow net Russian advances. The wildcard event that I think is possible but highly unlikely is regime change in Ukraine to a pro-Russian (it wouldn't be exactly puppet style pro-Russian, it would probably be more like a regime that's more accepting of negotiations on Russian terms, read Arestovych's recent takes) regime. I put odds of this happening at 3-5% and increasing as war drags on
More options
Context Copy link