site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   34432 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022

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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Russian rockets crossed over the Polish border, killing two farmers.

Polish government official says national security meeting was called due to "emergency situation"

Pentagon is ' aware '

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-11-15-22/index.html

This stirred something in me that is rarely stirred (I was born in Poland). Some sort of patriotic anger. The Poles, along with the former Soviet states and most of Eastern Europe, absolutely loathe the Russians.

I imagine this isn't enough to send in the troops - but I could see myself reading a history book in 30 years about how Poland, and by extension, everyone else, were pulled into the Great Russian War by a bomb and two dead farmers.

Edit: Russia calls it provocation that Poland stated this

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2022/11/16/Russia-says-Polish-statements-of-Russian-missiles-hitting-its-territory-provocation-

Am I the only one genuinely baffled by why it matters whether the missile was Russian or Ukrainian?

Cause and effect. If the Ukrainian missile was fired as a defense mechanism against a Russian attack, then I think it's fair to attribute collateral damage to the initial attack. (Indeed, the whole invasion)

You can stretch the definition of cause and effect arbitrarily far. Anyone can find a justification for why they're the aggrieved party.

"Well we bombed that car full of children because we thought it had a bomb in it and wanted to defend our troops evaccing from Kabul, so it's really the Taliban's fault."

"We incinerated Coventry because the British declared war on us, so it's the British who are at fault."

"We're conducting a Special Military Operation because we're very concerned about Ukrainians mistreating our coethnics, so it's the terrorist Kiev regime at fault."

"We killed those 50-100,000 Poles in Volhynia to preserve the living space of the Ukrainian people, so it's not really our fault..."

Those four examples have something in common which is completely unlike the defense missile example, though. A defense missile is a defense mechanism.

You are using four examples of retaliatory attacks, not defensive maneuvers. I think that is a very crucial difference. Compare the analogy to manslaughter in self defense vs murder. Nearly every nation agrees that it's legal to use lethal force to defend your life, but not to seek out your attacker and kill them in retribution.

But you can still be liable if you return fire against a home invader and hit your neighbor, which is pretty close to this case. ("Your honor, I was trying to shoot his bullets out of the air, it's not my fault I missed and those nuns got in the way")

Well if the Russians deliberately attacked Poland, that would be a game changer.

If Ukraine attempted a false flag (or knew it was an accident and lied) to try to bring the west directly into the war, that would also be a game changer.

If it was an accident that created collateral damage, then no game changer.

I guess the part I'm confused about is how it isn't an obvious foregone conclusion that it was an accident, just based off the complete absence of plausible motive. Why would they deliberately attack two random farmers in the middle of nowhere?

A Ukrainian false flag would make more sense than a deliberate Russian attack, but even so, why would you false flag with something that looks like an obvious accident.

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/poland-president-ukraine-russia-missile?stream=top

Seems like Ukraine was responsible if perhaps not culpable. However, Ukraine demanding Art 5 right away does seem interesting.

US is suggesting that it probably wasn't Russian (https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1592700234295119877) which would presumably mean a Ukrainian miss-fire.

Russian forces are on the opposite side of Ukraine as the Polish border. Right now the front lines are about a thousand kilometers from the nearest point in Poland. If the Russians did this, it wasn't an accident. As I note below, the initial ID of the debris is suggesting that it is a S-300 series, which has a ballistic range of forty kilometers and a max flight range of 200 kilometers. If that ID is valid, it is extremely unlikely that missile came from Russian forces. They'd have had to smuggle a slow, tracked vehicle across five hundred miles of enemy territory just to make it physically possible.

/images/16685987580390282.webp

Another side of the story that might have significance — a Russian missile hit a power plant that was responsible for supplying electricity to the oil pipeline that delivers Russian oil to Hungary, so there was a disruption in the supply.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hungary-mol-says-oil-shipments-druzhba-pipeline-temporarily-suspended-2022-11-15/

Orban called for a security meeting over this. Being friendly to Russia, I doubt he will condemn Russia, but who knows.

What is the evidence it was a Russian missile that hit this power plant?

It's the simplest and most logical explanation. Russians launched almost 100 missiles at power plants and substations across the country, why would Ukrainian purposefully sabotage it? Also it's unlikely that Russians targeted one power plant, but an AA missile fell on another.

Do you still think it was Russia?

Yes. Why not? Again — Russia specifically targeted power plants and substation.

If he's not getting Russian oil because the Russians are just knocking out vital infrastructure left right and center, he's got a powerful reason not to be very pro-Russian; rhetoric isn't going to keep Budapest warm.

Many seem to think that it's a specifically Ukrainian S-300 air defence missile. I predict this will just be swept under the rug.

https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1592605529557585922

There was a similar event at the start of the war when a crappy Soviet era drone somehow penetrated NATO air defences and landed in Croatia, though nobody was hurt. Nothing came of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Zagreb_Tu-141_crash

At least for now Poles insist it was a Russian missile. Just came in:

https://www.gov.pl/web/dyplomacja/komunikat-w-zwiazku-z-wezwaniem-ambasadora-federacji-rosyjskiej-do-msz

Polish MFA summoned the Russian ambassador.

They'll too take a huge credibility hit if that's indeed a Ukrainian missile.

Many Ukrainian weapons are Russian-produced, and consumables like missiles aren't always re-marked. Russia produces the S-300 series of anti-air missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system

The S-300 (NATO reporting name SA-10 Grumble) is a series of long range surface-to-air missile systems developed and operated by the former Soviet Union, now fielded by the militaries of Russia and Ukraine as well as several other former Eastern Bloc countries.

We don't yet know for certain what it was, but proving the missile is of Russian manufacture still doesn't prove who fired it. OTOH, if you look at a map of the conflict in Ukraine, you might note how far it all is from Poland. The main front line now running up the Dnieper and Donetsk is roughly a thousand kilometers from the nearest point on the Polish border. The max ballistic range of a S-300 is forty klicks, and if it's the latest and greatest, an air range of 200 klicks. Simply put, if this was a S-300, it's almost certainly Ukrainian or Belarussian. The Russians aren't close enough to Poland.

If it wasn't a repurposed AA missile, but a longer range ballistic missile, it will be clear from the investigation, and if it was fired from Russia, there's no chance it was mistake. You don't miss by a thousand kilometers on accident and hit a non-belligerent country.

It does look like it was most likely a Ukie missile that went astray, but why do you keep telling everyone where the front lines are? Russia has been bombarding targets across Ukraine for over a month now, I don't think anyone thinks this missile was targeted at the front lines and flew right over them, more that it was targeted at a power plant in Western Ukraine.

1: If the missile is as reported, a S-300 AA rocket, it has a maximum flight range of 200km

2: Russian AA has to be behind their front line.

3: The front line is 1,000km minimum from Poland.

4: Ergo, there is no physical way that particular rocket could have made it to Poland from any Russian position. It would have to have been fired within 200km of the Polish border, probably much closer. Which means Ukranian or Belorussian, not Russian.

Think of it this way: if a guy in Chicago gets shot with a 9mm slug from a handgun, it probably wasn't fired from Detroit. We can rule Detroit out as a source of the gunshot, because bullets don't travel that far. We can use the maximum range of the projectile to measure the radius from the impact point where it could have originated, and this can eliminate a lot of potential sources.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they? Likewise, the Russians say it's a provocation of some kind, their favourite word to use this year. Pro-Russian twitter has of course all lined up around it being a Ukrainian missile, as you would expect.

I chose Eliot's post because he's one of the vaguely pro-Ukrainian, semi-'official' commentators on this war. If someone with a bias towards the Ukrainians thinks it was a Ukrainian error, then it holds extra weight as an opinion.

Right. I don't dismiss the possibility of it being an accident involving a Ukrainian AA missile. Yet I think it's prudent to wait for the results of the investigation. I don't think it would be possible to hide the results of it. Of course, if Americans and Poles will come out and say "it was 100% a Russian missile" — Russians will try to discredit this conclusion, but it will be enough for me.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Also I don't really know how much Polish diplomats value their credibility and how competent they are. Ukrainians had several fuckups, like voting against American declaration on human rights situation in Xinjiang, and then backtracking; or voting against Israel in the UN, and then asking Israel for arms; so even being a Ukrainian I can imagine them screwing it up and lying, even though I wouldn't like that to be the case obviously. But I don't know about Poland.

I think the Poles are hedging their bets. They cleverly said 'it's a Russian-made missile' which it would be even if they fired it since the S-300 is a Soviet-era weapon with some upgrades. The Soviets are basically interchangeable with Russia.

https://www.gov.pl/web/dyplomacja/komunikat-w-zwiazku-z-wezwaniem-ambasadora-federacji-rosyjskiej-do-msz

The reason why this won’t be too escalatory is that this incident is 99% chance accidental and not intentional, whether it’s a Russian missile or an Ukrainian AD failure.

I imagine this isn't enough to send in the troops - but I could see myself reading a history book in 30 years about how Poland, and by extension, everyone else, were pulled into the Great Russian War by a bomb and two dead farmers.

The problem here, I think, is simple to state, but devilishly complicated to solve: is NATO membership worthwhile?

If things did unfold as it seems, then Russia is responsible for a military attack on a NATO country. If it's "accidental," Russia essentially has to sacrifice someone's head on a platter--even though there's no reason to think Putin wouldn't just send some of his own troops to take responsibility, to keep the West guessing. But if there is no reprisal, then Poland, at least, has to be asking, what's the point of belonging to NATO? NATO, the alliance that was specifically created to deter Russian military incursions?

On the other hand, if there is reprisal... maybe WW3? A big NATO fight in Europe basically guarantees an attack-of-opportunity on Taiwan, and god-only-knows where else.

And if this is actually a Ukrainian false flag somehow, like... what a way to gamble. But I suppose a nation faced with a genuinely existential crisis has no reason to not gamble with the fate of the whole world, beyond pure, likely supererogatory altruism.

A year ago I'd probably have said "this is surely an accident and Russia is going to make that very clear very quickly, possibly with generous payments to next-of-kin." Today? I just don't know.

And if this is actually a Ukrainian false flag somehow

This is not the likely venue. Missile guidance systems fail, sometimes operators shoot off rockets based on bad information or misread or unclear radar signatures. Russians are shooting a lot of ballistic missiles at Ukraine, and the S-300 AA rockets can be used to intercept them.

Most likely scenario, it was a high-alert and there were incoming missiles to some Ukrainian positions, the word had gone out, and a battery of Ukrainian AA rockets close to Poland fired (possibly at a false signature, possibly at a real attack), missed, and landed in the wrong country.

Most likely scenario, it was a high-alert and there were incoming missiles to some Ukrainian positions, the word had gone out, and a battery of Ukrainian AA rockets close to Poland fired (possibly at a false signature, possibly at a real attack), missed, and landed in the wrong country.

Looks like you called it.

Lol, it's not often my guesses are that precisely fulfilled!

The problem here, I think, is simple to state, but devilishly complicated to solve: is NATO membership worthwhile?

What do you think the Polish view on the value of NATO is?

If things did unfold as it seems, then Russia is responsible for a military attack on a NATO country. If it's "accidental," Russia essentially has to sacrifice someone's head on a platter--even though there's no reason to think Putin wouldn't just send some of his own troops to take responsibility, to keep the West guessing. But if there is no reprisal, then Poland, at least, has to be asking, what's the point of belonging to NATO? NATO, the alliance that was specifically created to deter Russian military incursions?

The point of NATO is not to deter Russian military incursions. The point of NATO is that if the Russian military invades, the other members and the Americans destroy Russian battalions in such numbers that they will be removed and the member government restored. It is fundamentally not a deterence-only alliance, but an alliance for what happens after deterence fails.

This is a point where technical language can get conflated by casual use. A missile strike, even if true, wouldn't be an incursion. Nor does reprisal require military action unacceptable to the members of the alliance, ie disproportionate in scale. The value of a military alliance is not solely in deterrence. Etc.

On the other hand, if there is reprisal... maybe WW3?

Against what army where with what allies to justify the name?

Russia notably had 80% of its military forces in Ukraine before it was bringing the post-WW2 tanks out of storage, and was unable to supply invasion lines very far in a country that it shared rail gauge with. This is as a rail-dependent logistical system.

Meanwhile, the CSTO in the last few months ago wouldn't get involved in a minor border war between its own members. If not them, who is supposed to be allying with Russia to give a truly global scale of conflict? The Chinese?

A big NATO fight in Europe basically guarantees an attack-of-opportunity on Taiwan, and god-only-knows where else.

How does a NATO land war in Europe give the Chinese an opportunity they didn't already have to launch an amphibious invasion they're not prepared contested by the Pacific and Middle Eastern carrier groups that don't really have a role in a NATO-Russia conflict?

The US Army doesn't exactly have a key role in a Taiwan conflict, and the European navies even less so.

A year ago I'd probably have said "this is surely an accident and Russia is going to make that very clear very quickly, possibly with generous payments to next-of-kin." Today? I just don't know.

That's never been the Russian way under Putin. Malaysian Airlines Flight 12 is probably the best example here.

Meanwhile, the CSTO in the last few months ago wouldn't get involved in a minor border war between its own members.

The Azeri's left the CSTO in 1999 so it was more a war between a CSTO member, internal dissidents and a former member. CSTO has been inconsistent in dealing with internal incidents, ignoring Kyrgyzstan but intervening in Kazakhstan but the Nagorno-Karabakh wars notionally should have been treated as a proper conflict for them to resolve unlike how NATO would sit out Greece and Turkey starting a conflict.

But if there is no reprisal, then Poland, at least, has to be asking, what's the point of belonging to NATO? NATO, the alliance that was specifically created to deter Russian military incursions?

But... Russia has not taken hostile military action against Poland. The missile, if it even was theirs, was clearly aimed at the Ukraine. Two farmers died. Nobody gives a shit.

I care at a radical level

Most Poles will feel at least past the level of ' giving a shit ' and that will have meaning if they want it to.

will poles care once we find out it's a ukrainian AD missile?

Yes? We'll just hate Russia even more. What kind of question is this?

I've seen a lot of weird comments now that we know what happened that the Poles should somehow be upset at Ukraine.

I say take Kaliningrad.

I say take Kaliningrad.

I sincerely hope that people that say things like this are gonna be the first ones to sign up for occupying the trenches. Unlikely though

Nato isn't an automatic doomsday device that gets triggered by anything that could resemble an attack. Actual people have to say: yes, let's go to war over this. And two dead will never be enough. They shot down a plane full of dutchmen to no response.

But that happened over non-NATO territory; if killing NATO member states' citizens wherever qualified, we'd have had constant wars due to random deaths of tourists and the like.

Also, the Dutch are still working on the case, and I think they'll get their due eventually (some speculate that the continued survival, despite his criticisms, of Girkin/Strelkov is because Putin wants to buy some reprieve with surrendering him to the Dutch or Hague as the true instigator of the war and also the commander directly responsible for the MH17 incident). There has been substantial, multinational economic response as well.

Arent a few farmers dying extremely weird? What’s the possibility that the missile falls on a farm exactly where the handful of people are at that moment.

According to German news, it was two, so likely a married couple, which means their house got hit (edit: or tractor apparently), so not particularly strange from that aspect.

An extremely unlucky coincidence is more probable than intentional Russian strike, or Ukrainian provocation though. Putin is a trickster, and a manipulator, yes, but he won't get anything by striking Poland, the only far-fetched explanation (that it's an "off-ramp" that would allow him to justify withdrawal from Ukraine) I think we can dismiss. Also some pro-Russians push the version that it's an attempt of Ukraine to draw NATO into the war — I too find not credible. Mostly because American GEOINT and MASINT is quite advanced, and with American help Poles won't have trouble to piece together what exactly happened.

I think we should look at the event holding this thought — that in a day, or two, or maybe a week NATO will know precisely what happened — whether it was a Russian missile, or a Ukrainian AA missile, or maybe both (e.g. if Ukrainian missile intercepted a Russian missile, and they both fell on those poor farmers). And I think Russian, Polish, Ukrainian and American authorities understand this. Kuleba already said that it wasn't a Ukrainian missile

https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1592633235754057728?cxt=HHwWgIDQqazflZosAAAA

if he lied, or even was misinformed, Ukrainian credibility will take a hit. At the same time, Russians are no strangers to lying (think of their behavior during MH17 events), so they'll say "it wasn't us" either way.

EDIT: Remember the Ukrainian airplane that Iran shot down (what an irony)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752

Americans leaked that it was Iranian AA the next day, on Jan 9th. And they were monitoring Iranian airspace in the aftermath of Soleimani just as they monitor Ukrainian airspace now.

if he lied, or even was misinformed, Ukrainian credibility will take a hit.

The one thing I have found consistently weird about the entire Western perception of this conflict is the universal mass-amnesia of the fact that Ukranian and Russian are birds of a feather. I personally tune out everything that comes from the mouth of a slavic leader as an obvious fabrication, and wait for the independent corroboration of events.

I don't think it's fair. When an American politician lies, Americans blame him personally (or maybe his party, like "GOP always lie"). On the other hand, when someone not from the US lies, the blame is put on culture like in your case "post-Soviet leaders always lie, it's because the culture of mistrust yada-yada". I guess it's sort of outgroup homogeneity?

Are you sure on your probabilities? If they are actual farmers the farm even a small size would be like 10 acres. Maybe 5 humans on a family farm? Your talking about 1/1000+ probability that a missile hitting the farm would kill someone.

Now if a missile fell in a suburban housing project maybe you have a 20% chance it’s close enough to kill someone. But on a working farm?

I think it's probable that it might be more complicated than just "a missile fell on a tractor", but rather it was due to some false positive of a guidance system. Still it doesn't mean that it was intentional. Kinda similar to my theory of COVID-19 — it might be a lab leak, but not an intentional release in order to [decimate Chinese/Americans/old people/enter your reasoning here].

Well I also thought maybe Poland added some flair to the missile. But yes on a big farm it seems improbably a missile just happened to hit the tractor humans were in.

Not only that, if you look at the photos it looks like the missile directly hit a tractor.

No one knows what it was programmed to do exactly but here's a good example scenario:

The missile should fly 400km Westward, but a sensor malfunctioned and miscounted its distance. Once that sensor thought it had been 400km, it turned on the visual targeting system. Normally, this would look for a building of a certain shape - but in the middle of a field, it found no buildings. It went to secondary targets, tanks and so on. It found a tractor and went for it.

Is that how missiles work though? That sounds way smarter than I assume missiles are.

Here's the wiki on the s-300, which is likely what this was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system

It seems like there is a base station with a radar on it that it uses for target acquisition, not on the missile itself.

That’s true for acquisition, but if you look at Specifications for the table of weapons launched, the more recent ones have their own radar.

Looks like these are radar-guided, so it probably homed on the radar reflection of the tractor.

But if there is no reprisal, then Poland, at least, has to be asking, what's the point of belonging to NATO? NATO, the alliance that was specifically created to deter Russian military incursions?

While there are gradations, it's pretty easy to see how there's value in having an ally that will provide overwhelming force against an invasion but doesn't have your back when it's a couple dead farmers.

All the NATO treaty requires is that members take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Which, in this case, is probably nothing.

Which, in this case, is probably nothing.

Why? Do you know something nobody else knows? (I mean, you may be right, but it's not at all obvious to me how you got to this conclusion.)

No, I know exactly what everyone knows. This event does virtually nothing to compromise the security of the North Atlantic area, and hence virtual nothing need be done to restore the security thereof.

It might also be Ukrainian accident, not necessarily a false flag: there have been plenty of documented cases where Ukrainian air defense misses the target and hits something on the ground, this kind of stuff is bound to happen. In those cases, Ukraine typically claimed that it was Russian rocket (because why not), but if this was the case here, Poland would actually prefer Ukraine to come out and say that this was their air defense rocket. This way, NATO doesn’t need to intervene, so that it’s not risking credibility loss.

Yesterday there have been talks between Foreign Intelligence Service head Naryshkin and CIA's Burns in Ankara.

But the US official, who spoke to the Reuters news agency on the condition of anonymity, said: “[Burns] is not conducting negotiations of any kind. He is not discussing settlement of the war in Ukraine.”

“He is conveying a message on the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia and the risks of escalation to strategic stability,” the official said.

Today Russia kills (allegedly; confirmations and details pending – maybe it's another AA intercept gone wrong or whatever; though frankly wouldn't change in terms of culpability) some farmers in Poland, finally making progress towards *CredibleDefense's Article 5 memes.

I am not sure if those events are connected, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were. Anyway, expecting retaliations in the form of, oh I dunno, cancellation of my residence permit. Probably, hopefully, not explicit WWIII yet.

Condolences about the dead civilians, if this is confirmed. While this war as a whole is grossly irrational on Russian part, attacking Poland certainly sends it to another level of idiocy.

Incidentally, just the other day I saw a burly Polish man just randomly fuming in public before Turks about how much he hates Russians (Germans too) and Russian language, to the point he wouldn't talk to his (Ukrainian I guess?) GF in Russian, despite that being the only language they both know well, their English being broken (Polish and Ukrainian are highly mutually intelligible though). Guess he wanted to provoke someone. The degree of loathing was just incredible and on par with Azeri-Armenian tension. Poles sure are patriotic and raring to go.

What's with the extreme Polish seething relative to other post-Soviet states? The most irrationally hateful anti-Russian posters I see online are Polish. Many Eastern European countries suffered under the Soviets, but AFAIK there wasn't anything uniquely awful about Poland's experience? Perhaps "Russian Oppression" has just become central in their national historical narrative in a way that it has not in other Eastern European countries? Like slavery for Black Americans, the Japanese occupation for Korea, the "Century of Humiliation" for China, etc.

AFAIK there wasn't anything uniquely awful about Poland's experience?

Other than Russia teaming up with Nazi Germany to invade, occupy and partition them during the Big One? Poles probably don't view Russia as their "ally" against German aggression, the way US/France/Britain do, but part of the Axis. Plus, Poland is the direct geopolitical fence for Russia, and geography is important.

Poland thinks they could have been like Russia, but better and without despotic Asiatic excesses.

Napoleon was in Moscow for a month, Poles occupied Moscow for 2 years!

Baltic states are similar in seething.

Poles can make their own case just fine. But just for the record, the Soviet arc was only the last stretch of long Polish-Russian relations that... didn't go in their favor; other peoples on the outskirts of the Empire, like Finns, did not suffer as much, or for as long, did not resist as hard, did not get suppressed so brutally.

The most salient fact is that Poles exist at all. It's not clear when this tendency began to develop, probably can be traced to the emergence of szlachta class. But one could say Poles have survived as a people on the merit of their unusual reserves of spite and ability to produce national champions greatly devoted to resisting conquerors – Russian and Germanic empires were very eager to assimilate them, and had been making progress in this direction. They have also produced a strong and somewhat retconned self-concept («The Christ of Europe» idea, J. Conrad's self-serving bullshit about impeccable Western-European and not-Slavic creds of Poles one can see in his correspondence, unbelievably good lyrical narrative exemplified in Konrad Wallenrod, and the history of resurgence of national sentiment even among assimilated Poles after its release)...

Anyway, the fact that Poland could mostly reassemble herself, after so many false starts and upsets, on the basis of Nationalism and Catholicism, is an atypical historical turn and a testament to the strength of Polish national identity.

I would add, though I cannot search for sources right now, that there's a meme in Russian culture that's been around for some low number of centuries at least, where Russians consider other slavs as "lesser slavs" and themselves as "higher slavs." It shows itself in a disdain for other slavic cultures as less sophisticated, and in elevating the Russian culture/science/history as the pinnacle of slavic culture.

(Big, unverified historical arc warning) Every time Russia annexed a place like Poland, whether it was during the Partitions or in the aftermath of WW2, it basically treated Poland like place from which to extract resources and human labor and nothing more.

I think the situation surrounding this meme is particularly poignant because Poland as well as many other Eastern European states lean strongly toward European culture. Not slavishly though--there is both a respect and awe of Western Europe, but it's mixed with (growing) respect and awe for slavic culture and a slight, often humorous dig at Western European culture as being "fancy." Kind of a "together, but separate" kind of deal.

Edit:

Also, over the past decade, for reasons I cannot untangle, Poland has been heavily revisiting it's 20th century history. Speeches are made, monuments built, streets renamed for WW2 or anti-communist heroes. Seriously, comparing Poland of the 00's to Poland of '22, there's monument upon monument dedicated to WW2 or people murdered by the communist regime. Big or small, prominently placed in the capitol or secluded on a forest side road, the country is awash with monuments remembering historical suffering. I suspect this country-sized load of historical anger is now finding an outlet.

It's interesting, you know – how short Russian memories are in comparison. That Pan-Slavic project is utterly forgotten, literally nobody gives a shit about affirming superiority and patronage over Slavic «brothers». In the last century, there's a meme used to delegitimize Ukrainian/Belorussian independence, following from the earlier «Great Russians» vs «Little Russians» distinction (though this refers more to relative sizes of groups than to anything else). Anyway, I don't think it applies to Poles.

They are disliked and mocked for a) being highly interpersonally hostile, impulsive, provocative and pugilistic in the manner exemplified by soccer fans; b) being sore losers of history who have never made peace with losing their own Empire and chance at exterminating Orthodox Eastern Slavs (like we're ones to talk, yes), retconners of history, and leaders of the «butthurt belt» (accused of being «American lapdogs» etc.) and c) being absurdly, to a comical degree, haughty, racist and assuming some aristocratic posture vis a vis Russians (spamming psia krew!, an insult aimed at lower classes in the highly stratified premodern Poland), despite the aforementioned lower-class aggression and comparably humble historical background (that is, peasantry and serfdom) for the majority of the population. One can say Russians are bitter that they don't get to LARP as nobles, having embraced their lowly descent under communism, but a round-headed red-faced plumber from UK does, and shits on Russia unconditionally, including on aspects vastly beyond his cultural milieu.

Cue generic insults and pompously citing old poetry.

An average Russian is entirely ignorant of events like the Massacre of Praga, to say nothing of more mundane aspects of history and economy, and has doubts whether Katyn was truly a Soviet doing («but anyway, those stuck-up officers deserved it!»).

Nevertheless it seems to be recognized that much of the semi-deified Russian cultural elite had Polish descent, and that Poles have great culture, on par with Russian one, in ways Russians themselves prioritize. We can't very well deny liking Lem or Korczak or admiring Sienkiewicz in the more sophisticated circles or Sapkowski in simpler ones. There's the perception, correct one I believe, that Poles will not reciprocate and will pooh-pooh our own greats.

Ultimately I think Russians do not feel connection to the broad Slavic identity, being more interested in GeoPoLitIcAl relations, do not conceive of Slavs as something coherent enough to summarily look down on or up to, do not seek validation of that ethnic club and especially do not think about Poles in the context of Slavs in general. Poles are just Poles.

(...) but a round-headed red-faced plumber from UK does, and shits on Russia unconditionally, including on aspects vastly beyond his cultural milieu.

That is spot on and comically true. Thanks for the laugh, fine way to start the day.

It's amazing how much of that comes through even in The Brothers Karamazow, specifically the scene with Mitka, Grushenka, and the two Pans, where the elder Pan finally retreats, but not without one last show noble dignity. (Also, constantly calling everyone pan. Jesus Christ, that's tragicomic given how this remains a cultural taboo to this day).

This might be a reasonable place to start. Other tidbits might include stuff like the Soviets intentionally maximizing Polish casualties during their "liberation" during WWII, through stuff like intentionally slow-rolling offensives to give Nazis additional time to purge the locals, and malicious complience with allied demands to provide aid, for example dropping sacks of grain to polish holdouts fighting the nazis, sans parachutes. No links, just stuff I remember reading about in various histories of WWII and the cold war.

The sum, as I understand it, is that the Soviets and the Poles never liked each other much, and the Soviets went out of their way to inflict egregious harm against the poles when they had the chance.

One example of the WWII shenanigans you allude to is Warsaw Uprising in 1944. It was timed by Polish underground resistance to coincide with Soviet advance, and initially achieved success in wrestling control from Germans. However, when the Soviets arrived to Warsaw, instead of joining the ongoing combat operations, they just camped on the other bank of the river, allowing Nazis to regroup and reinforce, and ultimately defeat the uprising. Red Army just stood by and watched how Nazis crushed the resistance military, and murdered something between 100-200 000 civilians in mass executions.

Perhaps "Russian Oppression" has just become central in their national historical narrative in a way that it has not in other Eastern European countries?

Have you been paying attention to Eastern Europe? At all?

While Western Europe's smaller states tore each other to part in the early modern period, Eastern Europe saw itself consolidate into several larger realms. While the various people of Eastern Europe were ruled over by the Russians, Turks, and Austrian Germans, Western Europe saw the development of the nation-state, of nationalism, and of the national boundaries you see today. Through consolidating our nations here in Western Europe while the Eastern Europeans still had to deal with various empires, we ended up settling border disputes one by one, war after bloody war, with that mostly having come to an end after Germany reunified itself. Tellingly, the part of Western Europe that does still have a violent border dispute in living memory, Northern Ireland, is itself in one of its younger nations. The Irish just haven't had the time to figure that out as long as the rest of us did.

None of this applies to Eastern Europe. The Poles and Lithuanians look at the commonwealth they used to have before cursing Stalin's name, if they aren't brawling over just what should be whose instead. Hungary has people bitching about Slovaks 'having no culture' and clearly just being Hungarians in all but name and being rightfully theirs, if they aren't going on about Transylvania and Szekelyföld instead. Yugoslavia, Moldova, the other Baltics, and even such forgotten peoples as the Rusyn: they have not had as long to practice their nationalism, at all, and are in effect playing catch-up with the rest of the continent where that is concerned.

tl;dr: Poles are European as much as anyone else here is. Nothing weird to be seen here.

Have you been paying attention to Eastern Europe? At all?

Did you read my comment? At all? Climb down off the righteous indignation. I asked:

What's with the extreme Polish seething relative to other post-Soviet states?

Key point being "relative to other post-Soviet states." Many Eastern European countries have unresolved border disputes. So what? That doesn't explain at all why I have observed Polish posters writing way more genocidal, warmongering stuff towards Russians compared to other former Eastern bloc nations.

There's a shitload of Poles compared to most other Eastern European nations, they have beef with the Russians in a way Croats or Hungarians don't, and they - the ones in Germany, the UK, and other nations especially - tend to pop up in places other Russophobic randos also don't.

I think that's a reasonable explanation. Thank you.

Many Eastern European countries suffered under the Soviets, but AFAIK there wasn't anything uniquely awful about Poland's experience?

I think it was? The difference with e.g. Ukraine is that Ukrainians were somewhat successfully assimilated, unlike Poland which was a distinct entity even under Russian thumb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_Poland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_People%27s_Republic

So on one hand Poles were oppressed by Russians, on the other — they kept their cultural identity and historical memory (that incudes Russian abuses) intact.

Also Estonians, or Lithuanians, or Finns are just less numerous, so you see them less.

While this war as a whole is grossly irrational on Russian part, attacking Poland certainly sends it to another level of idiocy.

it's irrational from the point of view of an ever expanding Military coalition. From the point of view of the besieged country it was simply inevitable.

I think it is unlikely this leads to an invocation of Article 5. As far as I know its only invocation was by the United States in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, and that was an intentional terror attack that killed 3k people. I think it is pretty unlikely to be invoked here both because of the scale of the harm (two people dead) and also the potential downsides (nuclear exchange). On the other hand I think it's hard to let this pass without any kind of retribution, though what that retribution would be is not clear to me, and likely depends on circumstances not yet known.

Even the invocation of Article 5 doesn't mean that NATO bombers and tanks get immediately on the way to Moscow, or even to Lviv.

Yup. Article 5 is thought of as the war clause, in large part because it was created with an unambiguous war in mind, but it doesn't actually require a war in response.

From the text, the agreement is that the members, if one of them is attacked,

will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force

Armed force is an option, but not a requirement. 'Such action as it deems necessary' could include moving active air defense units to the border, or the movement of NATO forces, or a massive influx of military aid.

It's basically a politics/negotiation game between the members, which is part of the organizing principle of consultation. 'Individually and in concert' is the lee-way for the Americans/smaller groups to be able to act within the alliance without any one party sabotaging like in a unanimous consensus requirement, but a party invoking the articles can also have their concerns addressed in various ways, subject to the context and consultations. It's not a guarantee you'll get what you want (see, Turkey and Greece), but in this context the flexibility is precisely what doesn't necessitate NATO bombers and tanks moving on Moscow.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats