site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29679 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 2023

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But the deaths suffered by Ukrainian conscripts (and yes Russian conscripts too) are very real. We are trading the deaths of real people for theoretical future benefits. And we are destroying an entire country in the process. Why not go to the bargaining table and end this cruel and pointless war?

Because Putin has shown 0 interest in meaingfully negotiating, his minimum position is "I win, you lose" and this is obviously unacceptable to Ukraine/'the west'. Putin has shown again and again and again that any compromise will be taken as a sign of weakness that emboldens him to push further. If you wish to minimise human suffering, focus on winning the war and defeating Russia to the point where it stops launching such stupid and wasteful wars in the first place.

I have to ask, at this point, why does the West still support Ukraine?

Because 'the west' broadly empathises with the desire of Ukrainians to not be Russians, I certainly know that I'd be fighting and dying if I was in their shoes and would appreciate all the help that I could be given. While there are certainly those who are seeking to control this war for more cynical ends (looking at you, idiots in the US state department) they are by far and away in the minority, popular support for Ukraine in the west is driven much more by sympathy for the plight of their fellow Europeans, resisting aggression and a desire to reassert the taboo against major wars in Europe. Russia and its foreign cheerleaders have taken great pains to try and depict this war as one between NATO and Russia, with the Ukrainians cast as pawns in the greater struggle, but this is a complete misreading of the situation designed to flatter the egos of the Russian people and portray the west as villains. The reality is that if the Ukrainians didn't want to fight, they wouldn't fight and certainly they would not fight with the tenacity and resourcefulness that they've shown.

It's hard to get good numbers as both Russia and Ukraine lie about everything. But it feels that Ukraine is exhausted and will soon lose this war. My heuristic for this is reading between the lines of the news.

"My source? It was revealed to me in a dream."

The narratives around this war have been as changeable as a wind sock, turning to match each gust of changing fortune. I wouldn't bother trying to guess how this will all end, nobody can tell from where we are now.

When Putin defeated Chechnya, what happened to the Chechens? Were they ethnically displaced? No. Well, were they culturally Russified? Not really. But surely they lost the ability to adjudicate their own matters in their own republic? Nope, they enforce an Islamic dress code and still kill gays…

It’s western propaganda that Russia wouldn’t negotiate with Ukraine, or that Ukrainian culture would be damaged by Russia. There’s no evidence for it. There’s plenty evidence of the exact opposite.

Chechens are a Muslim hill tribe with a culture and language alien to that of Orthodox Russians, not fellow East Slavs and members of the triune All-Russian nation. There is no room in that conception for a Ukrainian nation whose destiny is different from that of Russia and there never has been. If Putin got his wish they could keep their folk songs (except the ones about fighting Russians, perhaps) and quaint clothing and go on speaking their peasant dialect regional language at home if they so desired, but that would be the extent of their autonomy.

Note that the “destiny” of a people who declare sovereignty has never been important for Ukraine or her oligarchs, as they waged war against the ethnically and linguistically Russian inhabitants of eastern Ukrainian when they declared themselves sovereign (after a Western-influenced unconstitutional coup). This despite it having widespread support from the people, as shown by third party polling. Before and after Ukraine literally shelled a region with cluster munitions for declaring sovereignty, they waged cultural genocide against indigenous Russian speakers by making it illegal for shopkeepers to speak Russian or for newspapers to be published in Russian without publishing in Ukrainian first.

Note that the “destiny” of a people who declare sovereignty has never been important for Ukraine or her oligarchs, as they waged war against the ethnically and linguistically Russian inhabitants of eastern Ukrainian when they declared themselves sovereign

Some time ago I read a book about the early days of 2014 war by a Russian militant which made it quite clear, to me, that this narrative (or that Ukraine literally shelled a region with cluster munitions for declaring sovereignty") is bunkum.

What happened was that, in the post-Crimea high, a small group of Russian radical imperialist nationalists conducted a filibuster operation that, due to the general weakness of the post-Kuchma/Yanukovich Ukrainian state and army, managed to turn a heretofore-fairly-weak anti-Maidan operation that had aimed for federalization into a secessionist enterprise, this reaction then being furthered by the ongoing warfare. What is unclear is how much support from official Russia they had, but at least some sectors of the regime seem to have offered them backing.

This despite it having widespread support from the people, as shown by third party polling.

While there probably was real support for secession in Crimea, I don't think that applies to Donetsk. Of course situation might have been different in the pre-2022 years in the then-Russian-controlled area due to people moving to/from the area for ideological reasons, but I'm not aware of any polls in the Donetsk/Luhansk areas giving any credence to widespread separatist support, apart from the obviously farcical status referendums of 2014 and 2022.

they waged cultural genocide against indigenous Russian speakers by making it illegal for shopkeepers to speak Russian or for newspapers to be published in Russian without publishing in Ukrainian first.

Considering how widely Russian is still spoken in Ukraine, and particularly before 2022, this is not a particularly efficient genocide. Ukraine does privilege Ukrainian to Russian, currently, but that's not genocide, cultural or otherwise.

(Also, below, you state "Ukrainian culture does not exist as separate from the history of Russians, though. That’s why it is nearly identical to Russian culture, religion, and language" - well, if that would be the case, why would Russians consider it such an onerous requirement to speak Ukrainian, identify with Ukrainian culture, join the OCU instead of UOC (MP) etc?)

Which do you think would be easier, incidentally - being an Ukrainian-only speaking in the areas of Ukraine currently occupied by Russia, or being a Russian-only speaker in Ukraine?

imperialist nationalists

What? That's like being libertarian socialists.

The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology polled Donbas residents in 2014. The findings are tilted pro-Kyiv in two ways: it’s literally the results from an institution in Kyiv shortly after a coup, but more importantly Kyiv was mentioned whenever the polling was done — those who are wary of Kyiv or anti-Kyiv are obviously going to be less likely to answer an institute from Kyiv. If you look at page 35 Figure 1, 31% want either succession or joining with Russia, an additional 23% wanted to be made an autonomous republic within Ukraine, and 35% want to remain in Ukraine without autonomy. Of that last 35%, only 9% wanted the status quo, whereas 26% wanted expanded powers.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2454203

If the results are this pro-autonomy despite the bias in favor of Kyiv, it’s reasonable to assume that the actual figures are more pro-autonomy. Sadly, there’s no way to get that figure.

cluster munitions

NYT say they have, as do HRW. You think it’s bunk because of an obscure book written by an obscure Russian, probably from an obscure passage you haven’t linked.

Yes, that poll shows a clear majority for staying within Ukraine (with autonomy or expanded powers, or without), which is completely different from separation and/or joining Russia.

NYT say they have, as do HRW. You think it’s bunk because of an obscure book written by an obscure Russian, probably from an obscure passage you haven’t linked.

To make it clear, I wasn't talking about cluster munitions, but about the idea that Ukraine just attacked innocent Donbass people for "wanting sovereignty", a term that means very little in itself. Ukraine defended itself by force of arms against armed filibusterers and (later) local separatists who wanted to violently enact separation and annexation to Russia (declared to be the aim by DPR/LPR from the start), ie. something that had just repeated in Crimea previously. Any other country would have done the same, according to capabilities.

If you want to read the book ("obscure", sure, but would one expect a pro-separatist Russian manifesto to be a NYT bestseller in any case?), it's here.

The poll is an extreme upper ceiling on support for remaining in Ukraine, which is sufficient to prove to even the most skeptical of skeptics that there is huge public support for independence / annexation among Donbas residents. Reminder by the way that Euromaidan was an armed, illegal ousting of a constitutionally-elected president.

That argument is, to put it mildly, a huge reach. Unless there's clear evidence to assume otherwise, one can't just take a poll and then assume that it must represent the "extreme upper ceiling".

Chechnya

note that Chechens fought wars with Russia and won the first one. If they would just surrender they would be unlikely to get so extensive autonomy.

It’s western propaganda that Russia wouldn’t negotiate with Ukraine, or that Ukrainian culture would be damaged by Russia.

Putin personally wrote how Ukrainian culture does not exist as separate thing from Russian one (and how in general Ukraine does not exist as a separate thing)

Ukrainian culture does not exist as separate from the history of Russians, though. That’s why it is nearly identical to Russian culture, religion, and language.

Ukraine does have a lot of different culture and memes, far more libertarian while Russia has been authoritarian. Kamil did a few threads on how they have different poets/writers.

So you are claiming that "It’s western propaganda that Russia wouldn’t negotiate with Ukraine, or that Ukrainian culture would be damaged by Russia" because existence of Russian culture and language is dubious and there is nothing to damage?

I guess his point is more that if average Ukraine supporter from West hears a Slav shouting "Putin, go fuck yourself" they would not be able to tell if it's shouted in Russian or Ukrainian. When Afghans fought against Soviets, they thought (more or less correctly) that Soviets are going to make women wear miniskirts, ban Islam, make population eat pork and drink alcohol. If Russians captures Ukraine, are they going to replace Ukrainian Borscht with Russian Borscht? What's the difference?

If Third Reich occupies you country and makes you switch to German language, then your accent reveals non-German origin. But for Russians, Ukrainian accents are indistinguishable from accent spoken by Russians in Voronezh or Krasnodar.

Zelensky-produced TV series "Svaty" ("The in-laws") is purposefully staged to do not show if it setting is Russia or Ukraine. A easy thing to do, I occasionally found this reading Wikipedia.

for Russians, Ukrainian accents are indistinguishable from accent spoken by Russians in Voronezh or Krasnodar.

Somehow I doubt said accent is going to be called "Krasnodarsky" and not "Khokhlyatsky".

Shokan'ye and the soft "g" are quirks consistently associated with Ukraine in my memory.

I guess his point is more that if average Ukraine supporter from West hears a Slav shouting "Putin, go fuck yourself" they would not be able to tell if it's shouted in Russian or Ukrainian.

By that logic China and Japan have a single culture as I am unable to distinguish their languages. And I expect that it true for typical person from USA, Europe or Africa.

I think average person can pick difference between Chinese and Japanese overall sound picture by listening random speeches in each language for a minute

If you can't tell apart Japanese and Chinese that's because you never put any effort into it, they are very distinct. "Putin go fuck yourself" is nearly identical sound-per-sound in Ukrainian and Russian.

"Just bow before the golden statue, you don't have to mean it."

On the first level, it's always rational to give in to threats of force when you are uncertain that you can resist, and never more so than when all you have to do is give up some wispy theoretical thing like "sovereignty". Just calculate the probability weighted present value of future benefits and select the decision branch that maximizes it, right?

But game theory is baked into human nature: tit for tat is optimal in some games, but we go even further to ensure deterrence. Break into my house and I'll shoot you; invade some Roman lands and they'll destroy Carthage; blow up a battleship in harbor and America will bend every resource to your complete submission or annihilation.

In repeated games, vengeance is rational, and resistance in the face of impossible odds is logical.

It’s western propaganda that Russia wouldn’t negotiate with Ukraine,

The Western position has never been that Russia wouldn't negotiated with Ukraine. The Western propaganda has been that the Russian negotiating position with Ukraine has never been sincere or particularly serious, given that even pre-war Russian positions amounted to a capitulation of the sovereign ability of Ukraine to run its own foreign policy.

Note that being propaganda does not mean one cannot derive from the truth, which in this case can be compared to various Russia negotiating positions related to Ukraine.

or that Ukrainian culture would be damaged by Russia. There’s no evidence for it. There’s plenty evidence of the exact opposite.

This is, of course, why the Russian pre-war narratives centered around the falseness of Ukrainian identity vis-a-vis their membership as part of the Russian culture, the inadverdently released pre-written victory propaganda celebrated the re-consolidation of the Ukrainian territory into the Russian cultural sphere, the first winter of the war attempted to trigger a mass diaspora and broad depopulation of Ukraine's main remaining population centers via the attempt to target the essential civilian electrical grid, and why occupation-administration's education system is set up to re-educate Ukrainian children into Russians... or at least the youth who weren't kidnapped and scattered across the Russian adoption system without records for future tracking or recovery.

I don’t think the war is actually winnable in any near future. And this brings up a lot of potential problems.

First of all, we’re draining resources fighting this war by proxy. Not just the weapons, but fuel, and aid. We don’t have infinite oil reserves to keep Russian oil off the market for the next ten years. Russian and Ukrainian grain was very important to stabilize grain prices globally, that’s not happening because Russia is embargoed and Ukraine is too busy fighting to plant. We can probably do it for a couple of years, but once we get to the place of fighting by proxy for ten years, these kinds of problems are going to get worse.

Second, it’s a distraction from other problems. China wants Taiwan. And if we’re distracted by Ukraine, taking Taiwan becomes much easier. I don’t see us trying to have a two front proxy war with both China and Russia. We don’t have the weapons or materials to support both.

Third, I don’t think we can keep interest on the home front for continuing to support Ukraine with billions a year.

I don’t think the war is actually winnable in any near future. And this brings up a lot of potential problems.

First of all, we’re draining resources fighting this war by proxy. Not just the weapons, but fuel, and aid. We don’t have infinite oil reserves to keep Russian oil off the market for the next ten years.

Good news- the Western oil sanctions are not intended to keep Russian oil off the global market, nor do they.

Rather, the Western oil sanctions are intended to undercut Russian profit margins, which is why Russia spent much of the last year functionally subsidizing lower energy prices by selling greater volumes at the lower prices.

Russian and Ukrainian grain was very important to stabilize grain prices globally, that’s not happening because Russia is embargoed

Russia's gain (and fertilizer) is not embargoed on the global market.

and Ukraine is too busy fighting to plant. We can probably do it for a couple of years, but once we get to the place of fighting by proxy for ten years, these kinds of problems are going to get worse.

Good if bitter news on this- the global food situation will get better, not worse, as the Ukrainian war goes on, as global producers have more time to adopt to alternative fertilizer sources, which was the most significant loss. The supply chain loss has already occured in irreversible fashions do the destruction of relevant parts of the Ukrainian fertilizer industry that were located in the industrial east in the opening phases. The fertilizer-chain disruption costs are already built in, and would not revert even if the war ended before the next planting season.

Add to it the loss of the Pakistani rice crops in Asia from last year's flooding, and the food-supply disruption has already occured, while the rebalancing is already starting and will increase over time.

Second, it’s a distraction from other problems. China wants Taiwan. And if we’re distracted by Ukraine, taking Taiwan becomes much easier. I don’t see us trying to have a two front proxy war with both China and Russia. We don’t have the weapons or materials to support both.

Good news again- the weapons and material from any potential Ukraine patron are fundamentally different from those that might be used to support Taiwan, by virtue that Ukraine is a conventional ground war and Taiwan is a naval war.

If China is in range of the sort of ground combat systems being provided to Ukraine, it has already achieved the localized naval superiority to manage a landing of its invasion force, and thus has the naval capacity to keep the arms shipments of land-systems from reaching Taiwan to affect the conflict.

Third, I don’t think we can keep interest on the home front for continuing to support Ukraine with billions a year.

Compared to routine expenditures by the west without political pushback, public disinterest is a reason why Ukrainian aid will continue, not a reason it will falter.

If you wish to minimise human suffering, focus on winning the war and defeating Russia to the point where it stops launching such stupid and wasteful wars in the first place.

We, the West, cannot win this war and should not try. It simply is not going to happen. All this rhetoric has done and all it can do is make an angrier, more threatening Russia with a bigger chunk of a more devastated Ukraine.

Firstly, the Russians will scale up their war effort symmetrically with our commitment to Ukraine. This is what they did in the past, mobilizing more troops back in September 2022. If we send more weapons, they'll increase their mobilization. The weapons we've sent have already exhausted much of our stockpiles, as has been admitted by many of our senior leaders.

“We built up this mountain of steel for the counteroffensive. We can’t do that again,” one former US official explained. “It doesn’t exist.”

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/09/21/western-help-for-ukraine-is-likely-to-diminish-next-year

https://www.the-express.com/news/us-news/121416/us-warning-ukraine-war-funding-weapons-supplies-dwindle-nato

So we cannot even send aid without seriously weakening readiness. Western military '''industry''' is very slow to produce new weapons and it seems that Russian military industry produces more than all of us combined in certain key areas. Artillery is the king of battle and the Russians have a lot more of it:

They've got superiority in shells: https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ammunition-manufacturing-ukraine-west-officials-2023-9

They've got superiority in drones: https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/11/30/ukraine-produces-50000-fpv-drones-per-month-russia-300000/

They've had superiority in aviation through the whole war, the Ukrainian air force is reduced to flinging a trickle of standoff missiles from inside SAM cover. It's hard to see what a few F-16s can do to change this situation, seeing how many SAMs the Russians have, along with their many air superiority fighters.

Secondly, Ukrainian manpower is rapidly being depleted. They're drafting women now (only with a medical background to start with), along with the old and infirm men. Even if the Arsenal of Democracy actually worked properly, there is not a sufficient number of fit Ukrainians left to use the weapons we give them to take any significant ground, let alone their 2022 borders, let alone 2014 borders. Encouraging their best units to attack into deep defensive belts against an enemy with air superiority and more artillery probably had something to do with this. Russia started off with more manpower and retains this advantage. How can Ukraine possibly win the war if their counteroffensive got nowhere, now that their manpower is reduced and aid is running out?

Thirdly, Ukraine is not a strategically vital front to us and the Russians know this. They enjoy escalation dominance and if they were losing they could deploy nuclear weapons and compel the Ukrainians to back down. Ukraine is vital to Russia, it's the Black Sea, contains many of their coethnics, it's a country they fought immensely hard to retake back in WW2 and their direct neighbour. Britain, France and especially the US are far from Ukraine, it simply does not matter in the same way as it does for Russia. There's no scenario where they can credibly threaten nuclear weapons to counter Russia. Poland does care deeply but has little power. The knowledge that they know it's more important to them is a great source of Russian strength, since they know they just have to wait for us to give up.

The front with China is far more important to the West holistically and deserves a higher priority. Taiwan is strategically vital in terms of bases, semiconductors, leverage over East Asia. Spending more effort in Ukraine distracts us from the real issues. The nightmare scenario is depleting reserves in Ukraine, losing there and then losing in Asia as well.

The reality is that if the Ukrainians didn't want to fight, they wouldn't fight and certainly they would not fight with the tenacity and resourcefulness that they've shown.

True, they've certainly fought hard. But victory in this kind of war, where both sides are determined, goes to the side with more men and munitions. I also note that there aren't nearly so many videos of Russians being dragged out of their homes by draft officers.

We, the West, cannot win this war and should not try. It simply is not going to happen. All this rhetoric has done and all it can do is make an angrier, more threatening Russia

Also, Russia got substantially weaker and Europe got reminder how cooperation with Russia ends.

They enjoy escalation dominance and if they were losing they could deploy nuclear weapons and compel the Ukrainians to back down.

This is not going to happen.

Ukrainians are not going to counterinvade actual Russia.

Russia got substantially weaker

The Russian military was weaker at the start of the war than now, there was a lot of confusion, inexperience and ineptitude. It was also smaller and less experienced, with less military-industrial production capacity.

Furthermore, we've drained reserves of munitions that will take years to refill. So has Russia. But China hasn't lost anything.

Europe got reminder how cooperation with Russia ends

If the narrative is 'don't cooperate with Russia (where cooperation is trading with them) or US vassals like Ukraine will blow up your energy infrastructure' then this is not an especially convincing anti-Russian argument. Germany is also in a recession driven in large by higher energy costs.

Ukrainians are not going to counterinvade actual Russia.

The Russians define Crimea as actual Russia. Crimea is officially a Ukrainian war goal. I agree that the Ukrainians aren't going to threaten Crimea but theoretically if the Ukrainians were winning, they would be invading actual Russia insofar as it would plausibly trigger nuclear use. It's a conditional claim that makes Ukrainian victory a serious problem.

See the Rand Report where they agree, listing this as a major concern, more important than Ukraine getting more of its land back: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html

The Russians also defined the newly captured territories as actual Russia. I somehow doubt reclaiming them would trigger nuclear use. The definition of "sovereign totally Russian historical territory" has depreciated as of late.

Note that the response to strikes at actual, 1991 borders Russian territory was not "nuke them".

OK, so the Russians pulled out of Kherson after defining it as legally Russia. They intended to come back and secure the territory because their army was not decisively defeated, they chose to withdraw because holding a beachhead across a river is hard (as Ukraine is now experiencing with its Dnieper adventure). Furthermore, Kherson is not as 'actual Russia' as Crimea is. Crimea is not as 'actual Russia' as St Petersburg but it's very important to the Kremlin.

Ukraine also managed to break some windows in Moscow, a raid at Belgorod and they blew up some airbases. Sure, none of that deserves nuclear counterattack.

But say that the counteroffensive had performed as promised, an armoured thrust securing Tokmak and Melitopol, land bridge to Crimea cut off, armour racing through rear areas, encirclements, supplies cut off by HIMARS, all of the OSINT predictions actually coming true... Say the Russian army was reeling and lacked confidence in defending Crimea. Then there is a decent chance that they'd drop the hammer because what else is left but defeat, collapse and a trip to the Hague?

It is reasonable to assume that collapse -> losing Crimea and a trip to Hague. However, I don't see how purely losing Crimea is supposed to bring Kremlin to Hague. Last time I checked, Kremlin is in Moscow.

However, I don't see how purely losing Crimea is supposed to bring Kremlin to Hague.

Losing this war means downfall for Putin and co, that's what I was trying to get at. Or there's a high enough risk that they'll act as though their lives are on the line.

Then there is a decent chance that they'd drop the hammer because what else is left but defeat, collapse and a trip to the Hague?

brutal internal oppression and throwing out of window anyone who points out that war was Putin's fault seems much better than pulling out nukes

And at least nukes are not the only option left.

Which probability of nukes flying would you consider acceptable risk for banishing Russian armies (and by that point, armed population) from Crimea? Some can say if nukes start flying, it's not theirs fault, but Russia and they were always right in pointing that Crimea is not Russia. But it's not answer. Putin's regime is not going to survive fall for Crimea, that's for sure.

Putin has shown again and again and again that any compromise will be taken as a sign of weakness that emboldens him to push further. If you wish to minimise human suffering, focus on winning the war and defeating Russia to the point where it stops launching such stupid and wasteful wars in the first place.

I'm generally a fan of not paying the Danegeld. But there are limits.

Both sides in WWI were surely using this logic. "The surest path to end this war and save lives is a swift victory over the bloodthirsty Kaiser / imperialists".

Putin has had his nose bloodied. Badly. And what other Russian-speaking areas are left to take? Meanwhile, tens of thousands are dying each month. In my mind, these very real deaths outweigh any theoretical strategic considerations. This is not an absolute principle, but real-politik that involves actual casualty numbers (high) and actual risk of future Putin action (in my opinion overstated).

Anyone who believes in the absolute principle ends up in the WWI scenario where "beating the enemy" is the only thing that matters while millions die.

Because Putin has shown 0 interest in meaingfully negotiating, his minimum position is "I win, you lose" and this is obviously unacceptable to Ukraine/'the west'. Putin has shown again and again and again that any compromise will be taken as a sign of weakness that emboldens him to push further.

His own point of view is more like the "gun rights pie". From his perspective, he's already compromising by not demanding the whole pie, all the way to the old Iron Curtain.

The west not splintering russia into half a dozen different countries of roughly equal size at the collapse of the USSR was a big mistake. In our world Russia was clearly the main successor state of the USSR, instead it should have been splintered to the point where no single new polity could make this claim, killing the soviet ravanchist dream once and for all.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats