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 -
Considering how much of current American culture war debates revolve around national identity, sovereignty, and international influence, it makes me wonder: are conflicts like Russia’s move into Ukraine and China’s posture towards Taiwan fundamentally rooted in the same security dilemma, rather than pure expansionism?
I’ve been thinking about the deeper drivers behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s stance on Taiwan.
For Russia, Ukraine joining NATO would have meant that a major military alliance would sit directly on its border, severely shrinking Russia’s strategic buffer zone. Similarly, for China, the growing U.S. military presence around Taiwan raises a direct security concern.
Since U.S.-China relations have deteriorated, there has been increasing discussion about the possibility of the U.S. deploying missiles or even establishing a permanent military presence in Taiwan. Given Taiwan’s geographic position, major Chinese cities like Fuzhou, Xiamen, and even Shanghai would fall within the range of intermediate-range missiles.
This makes the Taiwan issue not purely about nationalism or ideology, but also about very tangible security calculations.
In 2024, U.S. defense reports indicated a rising focus on “hardening Taiwan” against potential Chinese action（https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/19/2003375866/-1/-1/1/2024-NDS.PDF”
China has repeatedly emphasized that foreign military deployments in Taiwan would cross a “red line”（https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-us-should-stop-official-exchanges-with-taiwan-2024-03-05/）
Russia is sitting on the world's second most largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and they remain a pretty significant deterrent against any nation state which might consider an invasion.
Sure, there is only 400km or so separating Ukraine from Moscow (which is the kind of strategic depth most countries could only dream they had), but they can fortify that at their leisure. Historic precedent is also rather in their favor.
For China, there is no significant military threat from Taiwan. The PRC doing an amphibious assault on Taiwan is plausible, Taiwan being the staging ground for an US-led amphibious assault on mainland China is utterly ridiculous. D-Day succeeded because the Allies were able to field three ground troops for every German. No plausible attacker of China is going to have that kind of advantage.
The three countries least likely to be successfully conquered in the world, by my reckoning, are the US, China and Russia. All three have large standing armies which will enjoy a significant home advantage in any war, and all three have enough nukes to go out with a bang.
Nor is there much political will from anyone to pay the blood price required to conquer them. The Nazis were great at convincing the other superpowers that they were a disease which needed to be burned out to the root. While there certainly is much mutual dislike between the US and the other two, there is just not that deep belief that spending the lives of a generation on defeating the other side is anything remotely assembling a good trade. Russia might care a lot about NATO, but (especially pre-2022, and especially European) NATO countries did not care a lot about either NATO or Russia. If anything, NATO resembled the Wall in ASOIAF -- a militant order whose purpose was widely believed obsolete, an anachronism, a relic.
If the fear of conquest is not the reason for the animosity towards Ukraine and Taiwan, then what is?
I think that there are two reasons. One is cultural dominance. Both China and Russia are somewhat totalitarian. Both would like to claim the set bonuses which come from controlling virtually all people of a certain culture (sans some inevitable diaspora). I will not delve in the question if Russian and Ukrainian are two cultures or two branches of one culture, but simply note that they seem mutually understandable to a degree that Russian and Polish are not, for example. Without Taiwan, the CCP would have control over most of the Chinese cultural output. Sure, some expats would still to run counter-newspapers from the US, but these might lack the critical mass to keep a flame alive which might at some point ignite mass protests within China (not that I am holding my breath, there). Taiwan is the living proof that Chinese culture without communism is viable, and as such is likely seen as a much greater threat than South Korea or Japan.
The other reason, especially for Russia, is force projection. Crimea with its ice-free harbors is not crucial for Russia the country, but it is crucial for Russia the superpower (or major regional power, if you prefer).
I'm pretty sure the (published) warhead counts actually have Russia with slightly more than the US, largely because of odd treaty wordings on specific delivery mechanisms.
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link