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.
There's a ton of inappropriate glib simplification on all sides of this debate, and it makes me appreciate the indecisiveness of large bureaucracies.
Ukrainians are of course correct in accusing Musk of getting his takes from Russian propaganda he absorbed passively on Twitter and 5 mins (realistically 20 secs) skimming Wiki page about Crimea. History aside, there are many good reasons not to legitimize annexations. Worse than that, he apparently shares the popular contrarian American (and mainstream Russian) delusion that Ukrainians have no agency, being instead mere pawns of the West. Yet they have their own politics, and it is not politically possible for them to roll over. If Western aid is cut, they won't just fold and go «home» (for some of those currently engaged in combat – where exactly would that be, in Ukraine or in neo-Russia?) – they will fight bitterly. Considering the current state of the frontline, it is not even certain they will lose if abandoned; but they surely won't forgive the betrayal. Not a big deal, the Hegemon's citizen could reason – except Ukrainians are a media Power on their own merits, too.
I'm very disappointed with this event. Where's that tweet-checking lawyer when you need him? After Tesla AI day Musk just had to sit tight and not burn the remains of his clout. At the zenith of his reality distortion powers he got dragged through pig shit over calling a scuba diver a pedo. Now imagine what he'll get for advocating an outcome that's considered a prerequisite to a genocide, after making millions of enemies among those who would be its victims. I am serious: he should worry more about this than about Putin's nukes. (Ukrainians take this stuff very personally – after all, they've killed their own negotiator who argued for peace; occasionally, in Ukraine annoying people just happen to get killed and it's not investigated it in depth; Ukrainians in the interwebs reason collectively and very simply that one less cunt is, in principle, a net improvement. Weird murders in Ukraine tend to evoke «huh» and shrugs). Seeing as this move was personally costly and politically unrealistic, why did he post? Stupidity. Probably leftists are correct too: you don't need to be all-around brilliant to be savvy at business.
On the other hand: all those takes about «if Putin gets what he wants Venezuela/Chad/Poland goes nuclear» are shallow. I don't believe this should be views through the lens of game theory 101 and precedent logic. Americans may be living by precedent, but almost everyone else is consequentialist and decides on a case by case basis, wondering who's the 800 pound gorilla in the room and whether you've got an anti-gorilla rifle at the ready. Russia is a special case in that it can do irreversible damage to any other country including the US, and then some; for a little while longer at least, given that American defenses and capabilities for disarming strike improve with every Starship iteration and ABM test. (Now, can it? Are Vlad's nuclear cajones that he's pushing in our faces less shriveled up than his conventional army and state capacity? There's no guarantee of this, and the prior isn't great after all that we've seen; but all I've heard from people suggests that strategic nuclear forces have been maintained at the expense of all other military branches even through the leanest years...) China is barely getting there, and will get there regardless (if it doesn't implode from zero-covid nonsense or bank runs or some locusts or an unusually strong wind first).
Others... can be brought to heel by conventional means. Most «hostile» nations, should they begin a nuclear program, can be toppled in a week with sanctions, cyber-attacks (note how they aren't used on Russia despite its pathetic tech stack and fragile logistics; thanks guys), bunker busters and one-two CSGs and after this war I suppose they'll expect much greater NATO readiness to do that. Allied nations, especially NATO members, can be trivially placated by nuclear sharing (which is also cheaper and Taiwan/SK/Japan will soon request it anyway). Non-proliferation for small guys is already a strong principle, and the example of DPRK, pathetic yet sovereign, in contrast with Libya and Iraq and Serbia, says enough to any wannabe czar about the utility of nukes. This is at most a change in degree, not in kind.
And now let's get back to the bureaucracy. The real question is not whether to abandon Ukraine but rather whether to ramp up support. Americans have been playing this well, in my opinion – probably CIA psychological profiles have proved useful for a change. Military aid to Ukraine has been growing gradually, in line with erosion of Russian capabilities, and maintaining some token respect for Russian self-defense posture; the archetypal example is hesitation with providing ATACMS. But we've moved from defensive stuff like MANPADs to tanks and (Soviet) aviation, meeting no serious response; Russian border regions are already attacked too. It seems that the idea is to boil Putin by degrees, desensitizing him to lesser and lesser control, to «new normal»; he's presumed to be a practitioner of the Madman Doctrine who has a non-zero but decreasing commitment to the bit. Suppose the US does not fold completely in response to the «Kherson is Russia actually» take, but also does not escalate, and even makes some non-committal noise about the need for negotiations and non-intervention; on the other hand, it's communicated that territories not controlled by Russia are solidly Ukrainian and will be defended at all costs. Ukrainians indignantly dismiss this appeasement. Russian army proceeds to get mauled by weapons of the sort that get provided currently, and retreats. Maybe a tactical nuclear strike or two is delivered for intimidation; it doesn't work, sanctions increase and the game goes on. At some later point Putin is boiled enough that he accepts the loss of control of those territories, his propagandists peddle some cope; Russia turns into an Oprichnina hermit kingdom that's bleeding people and suffocating under sanctions; Ukrainians quietly get their ATACMS and maybe modern NATO aviation (if needed) and make the continued military presence in Crimea unsustainable; assassinations of Crimean officials begin, like in the newborn «People's Republics»; the peninsula is dropped from the programming, most civilians evacuating inland. In a few months/years an older and feebler Putin dies/drops out the window and the state unravels like that guy in The Nightmare Before Christmas, only with blood.
Sounds plausible to me, and I guess that's what the plan is.
In conclusion, I'd have voted «no» in Musk's poll, mostly because it's so stupid.
Also, I have bet money on Russia delivering a nuclear strike on Ukrainian soil within 6 months (admittedly got baited into it, but still, I give it 40% probability). Like they say, чему быть, тому не миновать.
(Sorry if that was disorganized.)
If the taboo is broken, I don’t think most non-nuclear western nations will be satisfied with an american standing between them and the button anymore. As the nuclear doctrines tell us, when the survival of the state is at stake, you don’t want to rely on the goodwill of a foreigner, you’re not borrowing a toothbrush here. It was quite generous and trusting of them to abstain so far. They’ll all nuclearize together, like a big happy family, along with large neutrals, and the americans can’t sanction them all.
Who knows, it may even be less dangerous than the alliance configuration, MAD works, right? We'll have even more mad peace! And if not, that way we’ll only lose chunks of humanity two nations at the time instead of two continents.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link