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 -
There is already a thread on this, but I wanted to continue the discussion regarding the Lex/Zelenskyy interview. The other thread is mainly focused on Lex's language choice, and Lex's skills as an interviewer. I'm not very interested in this whole debate - it is pointless internet drama, and a modern form of celebrity worship. It's very disappointing that most people's takeaway "yay Lex" or "boo Lex" and not anything even slightly relevant to the actual war that is taking place.
My takeaway from the interview was that I think much less of Zelenskyy. This was his chance to explain the war from Ukraine's perspective, and the best he could come up with was a braindead "Putin = Hitler" take. People who rely on the "X = Hitler" argument are currently on a losing streak, and I am now more convinced than ever that Zelenskyy will continue that losing streak. I completely agree with Lex that if Zelenskyy believes that Putin is some mutant combination of Hitler and Stalin, yet somehow worse than both, compromise is not on the table. Zelenskyy dies or is forced into exile, or Putin dies or is forced into exile. In spite of biased media coverage in the West that only highlights Ukraine's successes and Russian setbacks, it's pretty clear at this point that if the status quo continues, Ukraine will lose a war of attrition first.
Zelenskyy could have tried to explain why Putin's narrative on the 2014 coup, or the ensuing War in Donbas, is incorrect. Instead, in 3 hours I don't remember him discussing Donbas even once. Maybe this is partially on Lex for not driving home the specifics. While Zelenskyy did not have time to address the core premise of the entire war, he did have time to engage in some psychotic rambling about how Putin would conquer all of Europe.
Maybe Zelenskyy is actually more reasonable in his private views, and he is simply running an outdated propaganda playbook that would have worked in the 1940's, or even the 2000's. But in today's age of high information availability, more subtlety is required. Even if you can convince the average person with a braindead argument like "Putin = Hitler", there will always be a subset of more intelligent people who demand a real argument. Since the more intelligent people tend to have out-sized influence, if you fail to offer them anything, they will not truly support you, or may even undermine you. If you are an intelligent person who doesn't really know much about the war, Zelenskyy offered nothing of substance. "Putin = Hitler" is not substance.
Maybe one possibility is that the two sides of the war are actually:
If these are the options, I'm afraid I have no choice but to take Russia's side. The coup and the War in Donbas, at minimum, happened and were upsetting to Russia, and it is not even remotely outside of the historical norm for such situations to eventually escalate into a full-blown war. On the other hand, 2 is a merely deflection of 1 - not a real argument, just a poor attempt at psychologizing why Putin's motivations aren't his stated motivations, which at least described by Putin are quite logical, but actually just that he is secretly Hitler for some reason. If there is an alternative version of 2, that actually addresses 1, I am certainly open to it.
This has been my experience with trying to talk to Ukraine supporters so far. It's basically how Zelenskyy talked to Lex as well. They do not seem to be able to form a coherent argument; instead they simply attempt to mock anybody who wants to hear someone address Russia's arguments directly from a pro-Ukraine perspective. Trying to shame people into supporting Ukraine, without actually addressing Russia's rationale for invading, is not going to work.
I believe that the reason Ukraine supporters refuse to address the history of the war is that the entire situation becomes more complex in a way that is unhelpful to their cause. Under certain ethical frames, even under Putin's assertions, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is still unquestionably wrong. However, to even make this observation, you admit that there is a question of ethical frame and values. Under some frames, Putin has some reasonable argument, assuming the facts are true. Some commentary has compared him to a "20th century statesman" in how he thinks about things. However, then you have a more difficult task of either refuting the facts or challenging the moral frame. Better then, to simply say "Putin = Hitler, anyone who doesn't agree with my ethical frame is a pyscho maniac murder," and avoid the conversation altogether. I understand this rationale, but I think it is the wrong approach for 2025, and it is certainly not any basis for negotiating an end to the war.
Trump wants to make peace, but it certainly appears that Zelenskyy is not open to it. He did talk about security guarantees - I think this is reasonable, depending on the specifics of the guarantees. Maybe even NATO membership. But he has to let go of the idea that he will get all of the land back. There is no universe in which the Putin regime stays and power and this happens, unless Ukraine achieves some military miracle. At an absolute minimum, the eastern Donbas is gone.
Where does this leave Trump? Obviously he is going to threaten Zelenskyy in various ways, such as threatening to completely ban the export of weapons to Ukraine, sanctions on Ukraine, sanctions on anyone who continues to support Ukraine until Zelenskyy is willing to come to the negotiating table, etc.. This is my prediction for how the war ends: Trump threatens Zelenskyy, Zelenskyy eventually gives in and negotiates, Russia gets some of the land, and Ukraine gets security guarantees backed by the US. The devil will be in the details, of course.
I am not, I am merely a casually observer who spends too much time online, and I am happy to hear your takes on XYZ. I'm not pro-Russia, I am just anti-terrible discourse, and the pro-Ukrainian discourse that I have observed has been horrendously poor. Disappointingly, Zelenskyy continued this. On the other hand, Putin's speeches were highly intellectual and several levels above any speech I have ever heard a Western leader give in terms of sophistication. I am also secure enough in myself that "well if you think that, it proves you're retarded" will not change my view. In the modern information environment, this argument is in fact less effective than ever.
If I can show you examples of Ukraine supporters who can form a coherent argument, who don’t rely on shame or vibes, is there any chance you’ll be convinced?
I’m open to arguments that Maidan was going to happen regardless of western involvement. I think the evidence points to the west being heavily involved, but I can have epistemic humility here.
But how can you argue that it wasn’t deposing a man who won a fair election, and that his supporters, who happen to be geographically concentrated, are right to be angry to the point of secession?
Speaking of Maidan, can anyone who knows Ukrainian peruse the court document from this article and check if it's accurate? The author claims that many of the protestors shot during Maidan were shot by far-right pro-Maidan groups, not the special police (Berkut), and that this has been confirmed by a recent trial verdict.
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/buried-trial-verdict-confirms-false-flag-maidan-massacre-in-ukraine-2024
The document in question: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/114304164
And some sections translated with google:
https://www.academia.edu/109357708/Maidan_Massacre_Trial_Verdict_Selected_Excerpts_Confirming_False_Flag_Massacre_English_Google_Translation_
Video from a BBC reporter at the scene where he claims to have seen shooting from the Hotel Ukrainia: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zQhuD4F1yJ0
I'll pass on a million words of Ukrainian legalese and government reporting, but I can speak a bit to Ivan Katchanovski.
Ivan Katchanovski as an author probably isn't your best bet for an objective take, since he's made his theory his career niche and he gets signal boosted as part of the general propaganda wars, partly because he deliberately conflates various elements to make a more reaching case than he has. (For example- the court found that sniper shots came from Hotel Ukraina- it did not identify by who, or how many people were victims of them. In absence of identification, the perpetrator's affiliation is assigned.)
Katchanovski's core claim is that only the Maidan groups could have operated from the Hotel Ukraina because it was used by the protestors, and thus the sniper reports as a whole were a Euromaidan false flag. This... really isn't a strong link, since there was no sort of real access control / accountability in Hotel Ukraina or the Euromaidan protest zones, where if you weren't clearly government you could generally move around. You need active control and screening to credibly argue that no one trying to do a false flag could walk in, go upstairs, and take shots before leaving in the confusion of people hearing shots and thinking they might be under attack, particularly since security services can penetrate protest movements as much as any other sort of agency.
(To be explicitly clear on alternative narratives: the dispute isn't that shots came from Hotel Ukraina, but one framing is that the police never opened fire unprovoked but were merely defending themselves from far-right Euromaidan provacateurs, and another is that Ukrainian attempted a false-flag provocation to justify / prompt a Ukrainian state crackdown. Part of the basis of the later theory is that it was a tactic used by Russia elsewhere, such as in Syria at the start of the syrian civil war, and Russian advisors were present with Ukrainian security services at the time (though the Ukrainian govt. position is that the actors were Ukrainian).)
You could argue the plausibility of either chain of events, but Katchanovski dismisses that with language asserting solid control, while using insinuating language to maximize culpability to Euromaidan ('many' Euromaidan shot by far-right snipers... but no proprotional allocation or acknoweldgement of state snipers) and minimize actions by the Yanukovich government ('no massacre order given'- itself a twist of phrase to obscure the lethal force authorization that Yanukovich's government announced, which of course was not a literal order to conduct a massacre). Katchanovski is fond of these sort of semantic framings, such as calling the Russian-instigated separatists a civil war. Katchanovski tries to play to his western audience, but he's not exactly subtle with his attempts to lead the audience.
Multi-lingual word games aren't fun, and the unsatisfying answer is that in the time between Maidan and the reorganization of the internal security services, there was evidence of substantial evidence destruction (such as destruction of weapons believed used in the shootings) and key witnesses- including the internal security service leader- defected to Russia and thus were not available for Ivan's investigation to, well, investigate. Some security service people who were later recognized as being of interest were even turned over in Russian prisoner swaps.
What made the post-Maidan investigation worse/more embarassing for the post-Maidan government is that the post-Maidan government did not actually have firm control of the government aparatus for some time, and even then Ukrainian institutions- including the judiciary- were notoriously corrupt. Pro-Russian corruption was notably present even years after the revolution- such as the significant successes in the Russian invasion itself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
By noting that the secessionists were an astroturfed special operation, as demonstrated by the systemic lack of support where Russian green men were not on the ground to carry initial efforts and the Russian state relations (and even more controlled replacements) of separatist 'leaders,' and that the deposed man who won a fair election was also a man fled before he could be tried for actions that would merit deposition in civilized countries, including- but not limited to- attempting a purge of his own unity government by unilateral lethal force that made Soviet-era politicians blanche.
The NovaRussia campaign was Putin's attempt to instigate a popular uprising that he thought would sweep the country after Putin's attempt to instigate a purge of the opposition that had already been invited into a unity government backfired when he tried to treat an oligarchy as a party-dictatorship. The reason why the Russian military had to repeatedly intervene to prop up the popular revolution was because it was neither popular or a revolution.
By the same token, I don't think that the Kievan government would've spent February of 2022 distribing rifles and ammunition to anyone who asked if they expected those weapons to be turned against them.
More options
Context Copy link
As far as I know, the war in Donbass began as the result of actions by individual Russians like Strelkov who crossed the border into Ukraine without their government's knowledge or sanction (though these individuals did believe they were instigating a popular uprising that would sweep the country), and only once their filibuster campaign was on the verge of collapse did Putin finally intervene to save them.
That's another version of events that would work against the 'eastern Ukrainians were just so upset with Euromaidan they decided to secede,' I suppose.
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
More options
Context Copy link