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.
I think the only thing which saves Ukraine as a generally independent political entity is a comprehensive treaty between the US and Russia dealing with all sorts of issues from trade, weapons cooperation/limitations, finance exchanges, territorial disagreements (and ones which will develop in the near future), technology exchange, and a long list of other things Putin has wanted for decades and has been unable to get thus far. In that discussion, Ukraine isn't even in the top 5 things which Russia wants. In that list, the US would be able to get some concessions in the Ukraine conflict which doesn't result in rump-state Ukraine with a puppet government.
Since the only thing I've heard so far from Trump&Co and the idiots briefing him on this conflict, is some goofball ceasefire with Euro troops enforcing a demilitarized zoned and/or NATO membership delay, we're not even in the zipcode of an agreement Russia would find palatable.
If the only topic is Ukraine, Russia will not agree to anything less than international recognition of the full territory of all oblasts it has already inducted into the Russian Federation, constitutionally guaranteed neutrality and disarmament with inspections, constitutional protections for Russian speakers, constitutional protections for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, some sort of "de-Nazification" program, and a removal of all or nearly all sanctions against Russia with some sort of guarantee going forward they won't be put back in place the moment it's convenient.
Otherwise, there isn't a strong enough reason for Russia to stop this war. They are clearly winning now and disarming Ukraine by destroying their armies (not to mention draining the armories and treasuries of Europe) on the battlefield and an alarming % of the able-bodied male population between the ages of 21-60. Their military is larger, better armed, and more capable now than they were 3 years ago. Russia has already spent the political and social capital to mobilize men and industry to seriously fight this conflict.
I've found this topic to be difficult to discuss on this forum because of the chasm between how I and others view the reality of this war on the ground. For, e.g., I would estimate there are over 600,000 Ukrainians killed with the total number of dead and seriously wounded to be over 1,000,000 men.
We're unlikely to come to a consensus on this forum, there is simply too much fog of war over the conflict.
However, I would suggest that those Ukrainian casualty figures are far too high - they're the Russian figures and don't seem to be that credible versus observations. For example, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of extended periods where Ukraine is at a higher casualty ratio on the front. Firstly, the ratios of verified destroyed equipment mean that is pretty unlikely. Secondly, from internal Russian comments/leaks such as when Prigozhin went mask off about the Donbass front it seems certain they're taking heavier losses vs the Ukrainians in the key sectors, although they had more meat to spare. Lastly, casualties like that for Ukraine would lead to events we have not yet seen. For example, Russia lacking manpower early on led to the rout at Izium when Ukraine found gaps in the line, and nothing like that has happened in the reverse. While we have uncertainty over the exact figures, we can see their shadows at least, and that can bound the range.
I would also guess Russian casualty clearing is abysmal - there's no similar footage of Ukrainians killing themselves when wounded vs the abundance on the Russian/NK side, so the ratio of dead per casualty taken for Russia must be pretty horrific.
Overall we'll have to see. Ukraine may see collapse this year, but Ukraine is not yet fighting like an army defeated, and Russia's materiel/economic losses might compound first slowly then all at once - big classes of military equipment are functionally archeotech for their defence sector and their stocks aren't infinite. Like Wellington said: "Hard pounding this, gentlemen, we'll see who pounds like longest".
Holy shit, this is a thing? Are the Russians/North Koreans killing themselves to avoid capture, or something?
Yes, there's not the same database of these videos vs say tank kills, but there's at least 70-100 videos of Russians either killing themselves or asking their buddies to kill them (as of a count done in late 2024 ish - I'm going from other forum discussions here) - and that's just where a Ukrainian spotter drone happened to be watching. I'm not sure if I can link them on this forum for obvious reasons - each one has a person dying, often via holding a grenade to their face or chest, but you can find them.
Allegedly some North Koreans killed themselves rather than be captured, but most of these videos are where someone has taken a shrapnel wound and decides to kill themselves. The crazy thing is how fast they make that choice, this isn't people who expect any degree of medical care or support in being evacuated. It really seems like that at least for some Russian units on some sectors if you're badly wounded you're a dead man, and they know it, meaning that their casualty ratios must be WW1 tier for killed vs wounded, or worse.
Obviously we can't know the exact figures, but there hasn't been anything comparable released for the Ukrainian side reported or shown. Russian drone operations are more rudimentary than Ukraine's, so maybe they're just not getting the footage or sharing it, but there does seem to be a serious difference between the two sides in this regard, partly due to NATO support both in and out of country for the wounded. It's certainly telling that when Russian TV showed what they alleged was a Ukrainian killing their buddy they had to use footage of a Russian shooting their friend with the watermarks taken off (https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-killing-soldier-drone-video/33041837.html), they didn't seem to have better footage to show.
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