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 problem is Russia has never offered Ukraine an acceptable peace deal with security guarantees they will not reinvade at a later date. I wouldn’t have a problem with Luhansk, Donestk and Crimea going to the Russians with necessary security guarantees that Russia can’t try to conquoer the rest of Ukraine later. That offer has not been made.
More broadly as others have mentioned peace in Ukraine has to fit inside broader global security guarantees. US security umbrella globally needs to be binding. If the US gives into nuclear blackmail today then tomorrow we have 5x the number of nuclear armed countries. Taiwan, S Korea, Japan within 2 years. Saudis not long after. If the Saudis are nuclear then Iran becomes nuclear. Potentially Finland and perhaps some of the Baltic states jointly develop. Poland definitely goes nuclear.
Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and play the nuclear threat game because the alternative risks is higher.
You would basically be looking at any country feeling pressure from China/Russia considering their nuclear options if they no longer trust American guarantees.
Well of course the offer hasn't been made - because Russian needs Donetsk and Luhansk like they need a hole in the head. These regions never been that great, but now they're thoroughly ruined and would require billions to bring to even semblance of normal life. And there's not much anything useful to Russia there. The whole point of holding them has been to gain a beachhead for the ultimate move - subjugating and "reuniting" Ukraine with Russia. That was always a part of the plan. Crimea may be different as there's certain mythical status in the culture to owning Crimea, but nobody really wants the NRs that bad. It's just part of the ongoing conquest. There's no point of offering security guarantees for keeping the NRs because neither Russia ever intended to stop at them nor Ukraine ever will believe they intended so. If Ukrainians were desperate and on their last leg, they could accept a temporary piece to gain a respite - but that's what we had since 2014 essentially. There's no reason for Ukraine to end up in that situation again, especially now that they have the initiative and are liberating their territories, and there's no reason to assume Russia is capable of giving any "security guarantees" or is willing to do so. And how such guarantees would be enforced anyway - if Russia reneges, then what?
Security guarantee = unofficial NATO. F-18’s, HiMars, etc. $100 billion in a Ukraine owned NATO equipment.
Ukraine is getting it now, why do they need to give anything to Russia for that?
Is it in the west interest that they take it by force? Leads to some potential outcomes.
Putin goes nuclear in desperation. Doubtful but who knows.
Russia is defeated on the battlefield.
What happens the day after in these events? Does Putin get hanged by his own people? Does Russia just limp along after with less energy revenue as a client state of China until their population implodes. Does Russia disintegrate into 20 countries? Or turn into a repeat of the 1990’s but much weaker now.
I have no clue. It’s Littlefingers chaos is a ladder analogy. Maybe it’s a better world or maybe it’s a worse world.
Russia as a slowly imploding country that exports a lot commodities is a world we know.
There’s an ideal world where Putin is replaced by a new west friendly guy but do we get that world?
Most likely. Or until Putin dies and they get lucky to have somebody more sane next to the throne, which will give them another couple of decades of partial recovery, after which we're likely back to sq. 1
Not very likely, for now - the only areas with strong nationalist movements are in Caucasus, and I get distinct impression they are getting enough money and freedom from Moscow to not really want to do it on their own, on the condition that those who do think of doing it on their own are promptly murdered. As long as Moscow has any money, it'd work. And the priority of this deal is pretty high - from what I heard, on prisoners' exchanges any members of Kadyrov's forces get the highest priority, for example. The other regions just don't have any basis to separate. Maybe they'd grow it eventually, but that takes decades.
That's essentially the "lucky" branch of the first option.
I don't think there are any "west friendly" guys left anywhere near power in Russia, Putin made sure of it. And even if this guy existed, he's somehow has to take power and deal with the opposition. Even if they somehow magically had the means and the forces to do it (from where?) it'd be basically a civil war, but I don't think there are any movement to pull it off at all. Pro-western liberals in Russia are largely either in jail or in exile now, and their support on the ground is minuscule. Nobody likes to be drafted and sent to die in Ukraine, but from that to a strong capable movement is a huge distance, and pro-western forces were quite impotent at their best times, now they are virtually non-existent as a political movement outside twitter.
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
Assuming there was anyone in the State Department who wanted it to happen, could the Americans prompt Russia, off the record, to offer such a guarantee to the Ukrainians and split up Ukraine, without appearing to have given in to nuclear blackmail?
If Ukrainians would believe any "offer" from Russia of that nature, they'd be idiots. I don't think they are.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe recognizing 2014 lines early in the war with hard security guarantees.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link