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".
I think this comment demonstrates the chasm between what I view as reality on the ground in Ukraine and what seems to be the common understanding on this forum ( at least among the people who want to talk about this conflict ). A country straining for men due to suffered casualties would do things like engage in the 25th? round of mobilization, they would have vans going around kidnapping able-bodied men and sending them to the front with little training, they would trick ambulance drivers to respond to a call and give them draft summonses, they would be emptying admin and specialists to sending them to the infantry, they would be getting what appear to be the bottom-of-the-barrel old men, there would be vast expansions of cemeteries, and tearful testimony of women about how their towns and villages are now empty of men, etc. And that's exactly the sort of things we see in Ukraine.
Ukraine is fighting like a desperate army trying to impress the next meeting at Ramstein to get more money and weapons to feed into the gaping corrupt maw that is the AFU and Ukraine generally. The multiple failed offensives and the suicidal Kursk operation for nothing are what defeated, desperate armies do when they're trying to change the outcome of a war with big, aggressive moves.
It strains credulity for me to believe Russia is losing the casualty battle when they have air superiority and vast firepower advantages. It strains credulity for me to believe Russia has lost 4x the total amount of men in Ukraine in the February invasion, and yet this is regularly claimed even by major media orgs.
When I ask for sources of "confirmed kills," I get links to clowns like Oryx or the Institute for the Study of War. When I ask for proof of North Koreans in Ukraine, I get nothing resembling good evidence this army exists let alone the detailed speculations about them starving and freezing to death. When some "proof" gets posted with a ID docs from Tuva, a region of Russia, and when it's pointed out the default response is "they're fake docs but they're totally North Koreans," it gets to the point of absurdity. Maybe this corps of North Koreans will manage to disappear before there is any proof they ever existed in the first place, which will of course be used as evidence of staggering casualties.
Evidence for Ukraine having staggering casualties is all over the place. By December, Ukraine has over 600k dead and I think that's a low estimate and I would guess Russia has about 100,000 dead similar to the Mediazona confirmed estimate.
Or perhaps the Russian soldiers have seen the many Ukrainian torture/snuff films they've posted to the internet for nearly 3 years? This sort of comment really brings into focus just how large the chasm is between how we view reality in this conflict.
And yes, there are drone videos of Ukrainians killing themselves when wounded, being tossed off of moving vehicles, being shot by fellow soldiers, and all sorts of other things. No, I'm not going to find some and link them. Frankly, this claim is ridiculous.
I would be surprised if the casualty clearing rate was even close to equal for injured soldiers on the front-line. I would be confident stating Russians are vastly more likely to be treated and survive severe injuries than Ukrainians on the front line. That being said, I'm sure there are Russian soldiers killing themselves when seriously injured, this has been true for all of history.
Other than "we'll just have to wait and see," I agree with pretty much nothing in your comment. And I doubt any productive discussion can be had which is why I typically do not respond to your sorts of comments. It would take a level of effort I have no interest in putting forth and I have no interest in looking at yet another dozen links to some NAFO brosint derp who has long since burned all credibility.
Thank you for your answer, like you say, we shall see in time once the fog of war lifts. It's certainly interesting how different two different views can be, even with the same events being played out in front of them.
I know this is close to the end of the thread's life, but could I ask why you find the Russian statements and figures to be trustworthy (for example, that they're achieving a 6 to 1 death ratio), while the others are clowns? Why not distrust them as well, if you have serious concerns over the accuracy in information in the war in other cases? What is it about the Russian information that makes it more trustworthy than other sources?
I don't find the Russian statements and figures to be trustworthy and I didn't rely on them in my estimates. I look at cemetery expansions, ragtag half-empty battalions being scraped together for this operation or that operation, interviews with Ukrainians who say how many men from their town/village are missing or dead, etc. If I relied on Russian statements, why would I accept Mediazona's confirmed dead estimate as opposed to just taking the Russian numbers?
The people I listed are clowns who make amateur mistakes which they've posted to the internet for years (or at least until Oryx shut down), don't correct themselves, and never learn. I started off the conflict having lots of faith in ISW because of their reporting on the Syrian conflict, but they burned through that good faith long ago. I'm sure I could list many others.
Not believing Ukraine doesn't mean I believe Russia's claims. Thinking Ukraine is lying by an order of magnitude about their casualties doesn't mean I believe Russia's claims. I honestly don't know Russia's casualty claims off the top of my head. From what I've seen in the past, they regularly double count equipment losses.
But your Ukrainian deaths are the Russian ministry figure? No one else is close to that - surely ending up at Russia's figure is just trusting them with extra steps as a result given there's no other source?
Mediazona's (that you trust?) confirmed dead estimates are something like 60k for Ukraine and 120-160k for Russia as of Jan 1st 2025, why do you believe their Russian dead but then think they've lowballed the Ukrainians by nearly an order of magnitude? Sure you can claim they're an underestimate and you've added your own research, but aren't all these other organizations doing actual research too? Could that flip a 2:1 ratio in favor of Ukraine to a 1:5 in favor of Russia? Wouldn't you have to bump Russian dead estimates up too anyway on the same logic?
no
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