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 -
Also, Russia got substantially weaker and Europe got reminder how cooperation with Russia ends.
This is not going to happen.
Ukrainians are not going to counterinvade actual Russia.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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