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 -
How do you know a hero when you see one? Can we predict heroism or cowardice?
Typically I’m more in the “Great Forces of History” camp than the “Great Men of History” camp, more Hobsbawm than Carlysle. Current events might be changing my mind.
The conventional wisdom from Kofman to Ilforte to my Polish cousins seems to be that Putin made a tremendous blunder in invading Ukraine and attempting to implement regime change. That the balance of forces was always against Russia, and that invading only made that apparent. But I’m not sure that follows the available evidence available before the invasion. Putin’s strategy meetings might have amounted to “Lads, it’s Tottenham”; but they were wearing Tottenham jerseys after all.
It seems to me more likely that Putin took a gamble, a good gamble, which had positive expected value, and came up absolutely snake eyes on the heroism of a relative handful of Ukrainians. It’s wildly unfair to blame Putin for not expecting this guy would start acting like a Slavic Churchhill, when one could have expected a performance more akin to Ghani or at best like Tsikhanouskaya. If you really drew an org chart with leadership roles and dates of events, there were maybe 100 Ukrainians, from TDF and police commanders who chose to fight in Kyiv at key moments to key governmental figures without whom the whole Ukrainian resistance project would have collapsed, to a handful of nationalist psychopaths who chose what seemed like certain death over letting down the side.
But let’s focus on the guy at the top: Zelensky. His early life contains few signs of heroism, or even of particular nationalism or patriotism, very little of obvious self-sacrifice and duty. He’s been in the media industry for his entire adult life. Nor in media was he some Mishima-esque hyper-patriot, he voiced Paddington Bear in the dubs and some of his movies were banned in Ukraine under nationalist laws he opposed, not a bloodthirsty nationalist. Obviously I lack the language skills to really delve into his oeuvre or personality, but there’s little there that would predict that when the chips were down he would stay in Kyiv..
I’m having trouble tracking down citations, but I recall pre-war and in the early war the theory that NATO would immediately evacuate Zelensky and enough of his government to form a reasonable government-in-exile for Ukraine, while funding/arming terrorist groups inside Ukraine, gleefully described as “making Ukraine into Russia’s Afghanistan.” Had Zelensky chosen to go along with that plan, I think Kyiv falls by the end of March, even with a higher assessment of Ukrainian skill today than I had then. [It’s in the nature of asymmetric wars
that demonstrative symbolic victories
are critical to maintaining popular support. Fleeing was a choice he very much could have made, that many leaders have made, that some would call not the cowardly choice but the humanitarian choice to spare his people the suffering of war. But he didn’t.
And I’m left asking, can we predict that? How can we predict how leaders will react under pressure? How can we predict how wars and matters of state will conclude if they hinge on these personal decisions of individual, fallible, men?
Maybe we can blame that on systems. Maybe hyper nationalist Ukrainian networks were ready to kill him if he jumped, and the guy was stuck between picking how to die. But that strikes me as a little too pat an explanation, eliminating the individual by inventing a system that we can put our faith in.
Or maybe there’s some psychological profile? Surely the armies of the world have looked into this, studied this? What conclusions have been reached, and how can we apply them?
I think at least Re: Zelensky, there is a plausible, well worn model: Follow the money. Specifically, Zelensky and many of the people that kept Kiev Ukrainian have patrons in Western Europe, patrons whose interests are not served at all (or mostly not) by a government in exile. Since Euromaiden there has been lots of investment in Ukraine. Investments that would be seized and redistributed to Russian oligarchs if Ukraine falls. There are lots of politicians who have a finger in these investments. Some of the legitimate kind, and many of the Paul Manafort/Hunter Biden grifty kind. Sure, being under Putin would be a bit worse for the average Ukrainian, and some people legitimately believe in spreading Democracy, but its much easier to understand if you realize that there are large interests in maintaining a West-friendly kleptocracy, as well as lots of interests in spending lots of money to make things go boom, and Americans and Europeans have no stomach for their own boys doing this at the moment, so Ukrainian boys making Russian boys go boom with Lockheed supplies is great for business.
I don't think that answers the question at all.
Let's accept all your assumptions, I'm still left asking how Victoria Fucking Nuland was sitting in an office in Foggy Bottom and saw the Jewish comedian doing gay Cossack bits on tv and said "That's our guy, he won't let us down. Under pressure he's gonna blossom into a wartime leader." With that talent spotting ability, I hope the Eagles bring her in for the combine!
Saying he's a ride-or-die corrupt criminal is just changing the phrasing of the question.
Both are far too valorizing of Zelensky. He just kept making the choice that was best for him personally. If I do a date-limited search about him you get results like this:
Right Before the Invasion: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/ukraine-russia-zelensky-putin.html
The tenor of all the articles I found is this: Zelensky is inherently an actor, he plays what role he thinks suits him.
Now lets go right after: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/europe/volodymyr-zelensky-profile-cmd-intl
Tenor is: He's picked his role, and that role is hardass.
Now a few months after the invasion: https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-volodymyr-zelensky-ukrainian-president-11646161781
Grizzled face of the Ukrainian resistance.
But what changed about his posture? Nothing ever. He just kept doing what was best for his image, and the press slowly came around to embracing the image that gave him the most prestige and power. The posture has allowed him to crack down on domestic opposition parties, Russian-connected and not. Its gotten his country a military slush fund. What would fleeing have brought him? An end to his political power, an end to his future financial prospects, and embarrassment as Ukrainian militias kept up the fight as he hides in Warsaw.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link