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 -
It's only a war of unprovoked aggression if you subscribe the current year narrative.
If you subscribe to the narrative that is current in ~2008 it looks more inevitable, given western politics, than unprovoked.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
If I say I will bomb your house if you post on the motte one more time, then you post and I follow through by bombing your house, wouldn’t it be fair to call my action “unprovoked aggression”? But hey, I warned you your motte posting was a red line and you did it! You brought this on yourself! As I see it, whether or not this is “unprovoked” hinges entirely on whether the demands/desires/red lines are reasonable or not, and I’m not passing judgment on that, just pointing out that it doesn’t matter what Russia said in 2008 unless it was reasonable
The house metaphor doesn't really work well for the situation because neither Ukraine nor Russia are atomic entities; if you really wanted to explain the situation through it, you would also have to add convoluted details such as that you have locked a cousin of mine into a long-term rental contract in your house and be harassing/threatening him all the time, and also have dug up the electric cable that goes to my house and was buried under your yard and be siphoning electricity from it at my expense (Ukraine's persistent stealing of gas from the westward pipelines that were passing through its territory). If in that case you then said that you are going to invite your ex-con gun nut dealer friend (the US) who has previously threatened to murder me to stay with you so I stop bothering you about the cousin and electricity, and I said I'll blow up your house if you do that, and then you did that and I followed through, would that still be quite "unprovoked"?
I mean, your metaphor is more than fair to the Kremlin perspective, but it still has Russia in the wrong. Even if I have your cousin in a long-term rental contract, and I harass him, and I siphon your electricity, and I'm about to invite my ex-con gun nut friend, you are still not justified in blowing up my house. Especially not if you are going to do it with me still inside it. If you decided to do so, it wouldn't be unprovoked in the strict sense, but you would still be acting wildly out of proportion to the actual offense.
While scary, the metaphorical neighborhood spat is not a situation that justifies violent self-defense. On the other hand, if I see you entering my property with the bomb on you back, I'm quite justified to shoot you in defense (at least according to Rittenhouse morals). And if I shoot you from inside the house as you bring your bomb with intent to blow both house and me to smithereens, it's a clear-cut case of self defense.
Instead, you could maybe spend a small percentage of the money you would spend on the bomb and use it to get your cousin out of the situation. You can also negotiate with all your other friendly neighbors for your electric cable, they all liked you and would be happy to host it (before you did the bomb plan, now they don't trust you for obvious reasons). The ex-con gun nut you can't stop, but he's already hanging out at all your other neighbors anyway. And he might actually be quite friendly once you get to know him. (Also maybe you guys could re-negotiate the deal you used to have* about not having the worst kinds of intermediate-range guns laying around?)
*until you broke it.
But it's all just metaphors.
I don't think the entire "house" class of metaphors really lends itself well to describing the situation at hand in a natural way, because the "cousin" was really subjected to rather more than mere harassment. What would you model this as? Torture? A "pizzagate" scenario? Having some fingers chopped off because "your house, your rules"?
That aside, I don't think it's particularly under dispute that the decision to invade was out of proportion to what Ukraine did before it. It's just that the back-and-forth preceding it was not exactly proportional either. How do you determine which party is in the right (if you have to, as the Western public does, side with one of them at all) in an escalatory spiral? Do you look at higher derivatives of response intensity?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Reasonableness seems hard to come by presently.
It seems reasonable to me as intra-Ukraine conflict / civil war is anticipated with Russian intervention as a consequence of NATO expansion in 2008.
Another poster down thread makes a better analogy of Texas secession and alliance with China.
What if Texas kicks your butt? Spheres of influence are backed by power. Russia is not a peer to the US like China is, not even a peer to the EU. If the US claim to a sphere of influence that far from home doesn't resonate with you, europe has that claim by proximity and power.
As to predictable consequences, maidan started when yanukovich turned away from a EU treaty. Russia shouldn't have messed with the EU's interests in the region if they can’t back it with a functioning military, diplomatic influence and economic resilience. With the weaknesses now laid bare, they never should have pretended to a sphere of influence in the first place.
Yes the totally organic Maidan coup. Since then there's been no corruption and only democracy®.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/four-years-of-ukraine-and-the-myths-of-maidan/
Where did you get that idea? Not organic, it's all us, ukrainians have no agency, democracy is a charade, and sovereign states are not bound by morals. Didn't want a coup, shouldn't have torpedoed our trade agreement, action-reaction. Great game stuff. We out-coup'd them, out-fought them, so it's our colony, end of story.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
NATO did not expand and respected the rules of the game. Civilian Ukraine willingly wanted economic ties with the west. For the simple reason that we see now that Russia is not an economic development asset.
Except when the democratically elected leader of Ukraine wanted more time, a totally organic revolution not a western influenced coup, deposed the elected leader and formed a new government.
Agree an organic coup occurred in Ukraine so what’s your point. Ukranians have a right to self determination it’s not Natos fault the Russian backed leader was so incompetent it got couped. Maybe back better governments if you wanted Ukraine to be your ally.
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
"NATO enlargement,
particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic"
issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also
underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia."
Sheesh. 2008.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link