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.
Is it really brain dead though? Zelenskyy is to all apperances correct that Putin's position in 2024 is analogous to Hitler's in 1938, complete with appeals to anschlaus and rightful dominion over all
GermanRussian Speaking peoples. Durring the lead up to and early stages of Russian pundits were talking openly about eliminating Ukrainian as a spoken language to dissuade any future notions of independence. Given the above I think it is reasonable for the Ukrainians to view this war as an existential one.As @The_Golem101 observes, Putin has already made and broken treaty commitments within the context of this conflict so some sort of guarantee from the US and/or EU to ensure that Putin doesn't just come back in a year after his forces have had an opportunity to rearm and regroup is going to be the bare minimum for any agreement.
I think it is a completely unreasonable position to say that if there is a border war between a larger state and smaller state, and the area under question contains people who have historical connections to the larger state, then the leader of the larger state = Hitler. This must have happened a million times across history, and almost every time the leader was somebody other than Hitler.
Russia tried for much more, it's only a boarder war because Russia's military sucks.
During the American Civil War, there were a number of European military observers who came, looked around, looked at the horrific loss of bloodshed and things like elaborate trench fortifications, and came to a conclusion: the Yanks didn't know how to fight. They went home satisfied with themselves and unprepared for 1914 because they did not realize they were witnessing a revolution in military affairs, as the lethality of fires increased without a corresponding revolution in maneuver.
A lot of Ukrainians and Russians are dying and since where I am we get the privilege of sitting this round out, I really, really hope that we're able to take away something from it besides "Russia's military sucks" this time.
"Drones suck."
I've made the point more at length before, but I view the advent of drones, as demonstrated in the Ukraine War, as both a military revolution and a revolution in military affairs. It's changed the nature of the civil-populace's relationship with war, as drones have been a democratization of airpower that almost anyone can both contribute to (via the affordability / ease of maintenance) or participate in (ease of piloting / utility).
This wouldn't have mattered as much as it has if the Russians didn't suck- there were severe and fundamental mistakes in the Russian strategy from planning assumptions to allocations of manpower- but the technological innovation of drones is the hard lesson learned.
I agree about drones.
I also agree that the Russians made very severe mistakes going in (contra some people, I tend to believe that after several years of war the Russian and Ukrainian armies are now arguably the most capable ground forces in the world man for man, simply because exposure to peer conflict tends to result in the swift development of military skill – even if it is not true, I think it is good to behave as if it were rather than making the opposite mistake I detail above. I do not believe this applies to their air or especially their naval arms, although I think the Russians in particular have learned a lot from the air war, a lot of it was lessons the US has known for twenty-forty years.)
I would add to this – personally – mines, mines mines. Not as big a revolution as drones, obviously, but it seems fairly likely to me, in hindsight, that NATO planners were unprepared for the volume of mines the Russians were prepared to field.
That would be an argument that assumes effective Darwinian processes. It really doesn't work that way in a force-generation contest like Ukraine.
While the Russian staff officer level is able to adjust and improve at a planning level, the quality of ground forces has degraded on both equipment and personnel quality levels. It started with the short-signed seed-corn strategy in 2022 when the Russians canibalized its training corps for front line forces for conscription, and the consumption of 'quality' with low-quality replacements has only increased. Russia continued to commit and recommit forces until their functional dissolution and necessary reconstitution.
Rather than build up combat-tested elite veterans, Russia has mostly expended its elites and replaced them with less and less capable replacements who are less trained, less equiped, and more prone to drugs and ill-discipline. The most capable elements of the ground forces are those that aren't exposed to fires, namely the EW, drone, and missile corps.
The war I am most familiar with is probably the American Civil War, which was at least in part a force-generation contest. The Union followed a similarly stupid pattern of force generation – unlike the South, which backfilled depleted units with fresh troops, the Union raised entire new fresh inexperienced companies and sent them into battle. You speak with a level of sophistication about such things that indicates to me that I do not need to explain why this is a terrible idea.
Nevertheless, I think it would be a mistake, based on anything I've read, to presume the U.S. Army was less competent or equally competent in 1864 compared to 1860. In fact, my impression is that they were considerably improved by the end of the war.
This doesn't get into the other elements you mention (EW, drone, missiles) where testing their technology against frontline NATO assets is only going to enhance their capabilities.
Now, it's possible that experiences from the American Civil War don't cross-apply here, and that I'm the proverbial drunk searching for his keys under a streetlight. But I suspect they hold at least partially.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link