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 -
What is the appropriate level for diplomatic discussion on twitter?
Recently Elon Musk has been heavily criticised for an admittedly naïve proposal for a negotiated peace in the Russian-Ukrainian war. His proposal:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000
Now this isn't how politics actually works, twitter polls are not actually binding instruments of diplomacy. Nor is a UN administered vote terribly helpful given how it'd just turn into a vote-rigging contest between the pro and anti-Russian forces within the UN and the Ukrainian state obviously wouldn't let the territories leave given the amount of blood that's been shed. They've threatened 15 year jail sentences for those who did vote in the most recent Russian referenda. It's also very hard to see why the Ukrainian govt would bind itself to allowing a Russian Crimea water since they dammed it off even before this war.
You can see from the replies that the objections aren't really on the object level, they're more on the 'go fuck yourself', 'educate yourself', 'you're using Putin talking points', 'Crimea is Ukraine'. All of this is essentially the official line of the Ukrainian state, as summarized by their ambassador to Germany: "Fuck off is my very diplomatic reply"
This seems rather ungrateful to me, as well as undiplomatic. As Elon reasonably argues, he has made a significant effort to assist the Ukrainian armed forces with communications via his satellites, paid from out of his own pocket:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577081450263769089
The fundamental power balance in this war is that Russia could obliterate the entirety of Ukraine in under an hour and still have plenty of nukes left to raze Europe and North America if they intervene. There are some people on this site who think that Russian nuclear forces probably don't work and so we can safely discount Russia's 2000 tactical nuclear weapons and 4000 strategic weapons. How they've come to that conclusion is beyond me, given that the technologies involved are fairly simple and old. The same people have been critiquing Russia for fighting a war with 1970s level technology - miniaturized thermonuclear weapons are 1970s technology! Yes, the tritium has a low half-life and needs to be replaced often. Yes, Russia doesn't have the best maintenance standards. But isn't it reasonable for them to prioritize their nuclear forces in terms of maintenance and development? Are we seriously prepared to risk tens if not hundreds of millions of our citizens dying in a full nuclear exchange if we are wrong about their nuclear preparedness? Their conventional tactical ballistic missiles work fine - doesn't it follow that their nuclear missiles work. This is the logic Musk is getting at. The penalty for emboldening dictators is not worse than the penalty for encouraging nuclear war, let alone losing a nuclear war by joining it.
I think this kind of hysterical diplomacy is dangerous and stupid, even from a Ukrainian-focused perspective. Why would you speak so rudely to a notoriously thin-skinned individual (remember when he called that diver 'pedo-guy') who has volunteered their services for your defence? One imagines Musk is seething with rage at his critics. The impression I get from Ukrainian media is that they are bent on getting back every scrap of territory and reparations to boot, won't suffer for anything less. This is the approach that is most likely to end with them getting nuked into submission.
Also, twitter should be for fun, not serious diplomacy.
The fundamental power balance in this world is not "we've got nukes, everyone without must bow before us or we'll nuke them". Because there's more than one nuclear power, and one or more of the others may well decide to respond rather than let that particular situation stand. If Russia nukes Kiev (no one will give a damn how its spelled when it's a crater) and Odessa, they have to seriously consider the possibility that the response will be nukes on Moscow and St. Petersburg. Or maybe just Moscow plus a counterforce strike. Yeah, you can argue until the cows come home about how this is irrational, but if you're Putin, you can't be sure the West won't risk trying to put the mad dog down.
I am once again asking why any Russian leader would believe the Americans might sacrifice Washington and New York for Kiev. If you read the literature the French seriously doubted whether the US would sacrifice New York for Paris during the Cold War, let alone Kiev. That's why they have a nuclear arsenal. Paris >>>>>> Kiev.
Why do you think the US would decide to commit national suicide over Ukraine? It is irrational to make such a bluff. It wouldn't be believed. That's why the US didn't even make it.
If they did, why wouldn't the US say this to the world? If you genuinely think that the US would do this, why wouldn't they say 'if you nuke Kiev we will nuke you'? What kind of madman would decide to sacrifice his country to defend another and not even make a single clear, public warning that he'd do such a thing?
I'll tell you what's actually happening. The US makes vague threats of 'catastrophic consequences' if Russia uses nuclear weapons and says 'oh we told them privately'. That means they're not willing to use nuclear weapons, as is immediately obvious - Ukraine is not under the US nuclear umbrella. You don't put someone under a nuclear umbrella and then not tell anyone about it. That defeats the whole point.
The general consensus seems to be Russia would use tactical nukes on the battlefield which provides the US with non nuclear options like a no fly zone or sinking Russian ships.
Kamil think this scenerio would provide Putin an off-ramp to peace. Putin can not save face and make peace with weak Ukraine but he can back down from American military power.
More options
Context Copy link
Not over Ukraine. Over the idea that nuclear wars are a viable means of obtaining territory. The US absolutely does not want "become part of our empire or we'll nuke you" to become a viable thing, not even if the targets are not US allies.
Because putting the threat out there baldly like that makes it more likely to happen. Why has Russia not directly threatened to nuke Ukraine if they don't surrender? They, too, have not made clear and public warnings.
The "nuclear umbrella" is a threat to use nukes in case of invasion. Use of nukes is an entirely separate proposition.
More options
Context Copy link
Why would any Russian leader base their evaluation of the Americans based on French literature, except to pursue confirmation bias?
Nor has Russia made a claim it would nuke Ukraine.
Working that parallel backwards, because Russia hasn't made the claim, it isn't being believed, and taking a bluff-that-wasn't-made seriously is being dismissed as irrational.
I believe the American opposition party likes to accuse Biden of being senile in his old age. This certainly wasn't helped recently by the probably-not-staged asking why dead former politicians weren't speaking up on a topic, or the various statements on Taiwan, or challenging much younger constituents to push up contests, though whether these are real lapses of the mind or 4D chess usage of strategic ambiguity is for Putin to decide.
So, there's your answer. Old, grandfatherly, possibly senile Biden is Putin's potentially genuine madman in the game of nuclear posturing.
(By contrast, Putin's own history works against him as a madman actor.)
This would be a competent argument if we also applied it to the Russians, who have also not made an explicit nuclear threat, or extended the nuclear umbrella to ward against conventional attacks or Russian defeats on claimed-annexed territory. Which, of course, is consistent with their doctrine, in which nuclear use is for matters of the survival of the state, of which defeat in the annexed territories isn't in a way that nuclear deterrence models works for.
Now, there are reasons for that- reasons equivalent to why the US wouldn't want to make a falsifiable nuclear guarantee that could be tested- but this is an argument of why Russian nuclear ambiguity shouldn't be taken seriously, as opposed to why it should. After all, strategic ambiguity defeats the whole point, and given that the Russians are currently facing multiple front failures in claimed territories but still aren't using- or even explicitly threatening to use- nukes, their nuclear criteria for eastern Ukraine is certainly ambiguous.
If we don't extend the argument to all strategically ambiguous actors, then it becomes an incompetent argument of isolated rigor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link