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 -
As I'm sure many of you are already aware, it's been another insane 48 hours in Ukraine. The "side offensive" in the northeast that accompanied the "main offensive" in Kherson has made astonishing progress, with Ukrainian forces pushing all the way to the Oskil River, with Kupyansk under attack and Izyum and Lyman both threatened. None of this will mean much to most us, I realise, so here's a quick (already outdated) map of the progress.
It's important not to get carried away here; while this is the closest we've come to a true war of movement since April, and there are reports of desertions and surrenders by Russian forces, we're dealing with one front in a war with at least three more (roughly, in the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Donetsk sectors). This will probably not trigger a general collapse of Russian forces. Moreover, it is still possible that Ukrainian forces will find themselves overextended and vulnerable to counterattacks. However, as matters stand, this looks like a decisive operational-level victory for Ukraine.
My main uncertainty in what follows is what Russia's response to this apparent defeat will be, given that the underlying tides seem to favour Ukraine. Mass mobilisation may have helped a few months back, but - in addition to its political difficulties - it's unclear whether this late into the war it will be sufficient to turn the tide. Obviously there's always the option of nuclear escalation, but this would be a colossal gamble for Russia, potentially leaving them diplomatically isolated while providing limited relief on the battlefield. Another possibility would be for Russia explicitly to use the Zaporizhzhia plant as a hostage, but again it's unclear how that would translate into gains on the battlefield. And all the while, Russia's gas blackmail strategy seems to be floundering; not only have European reserves filled at faster than expected rates, European gas futures continued to fall, suggesting optimism about long-term supply issues.
Clearly, the best solution for Russia is the removal of Putin. His successor might still be able to cut a deal with the West that allows them de facto control of Crimea (for example, via a Hong Kong-style lease agreement, accompanied by a clever financial 'reparations package' that involves minimal pain on all sides). That will not begin to ameliorate the damage this idiotic war has caused to Russia and Ukraine, but at this point it is the least bad option. The only question now is how Russia can best ensure a relatively fast recovery from the self-inflicted harm it has created.
There was a breakthrough in Balakliya, although Russian contigents continue fighting within the city.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=n7AlWYKc4Qs
To my understanding this represents an escalation of the war, wherein NATO forces commanded by Nato leadership are directly involved in a major offensive for the first time.
Will be interesting to see how Russia responds.
I do think we are in danger of overestimating the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Yes they have had initial success, but so did the Germans at the Bastogne. I think by the end of the week it will be more clear.
EDIT:
It appears Russian forces withdrew from Kupyansk late last night.
Which NATO forces? What country of origin, which unit?
Among soldiers in the offensive there certainly are some who served in NATO militaries before, but this does not make the offensive force NATO. It’s makes as much sense as saying that it’s the Soviets who invaded Ukraine, because some soldiers in Russian force served in Soviet Union.
I don't think the "NATO forces" (that is, Western ex-military volunteers) are particularly relevant, although people on multiple sides have a weird incentive to claim that they are (for instance, the veterans themselves to talk up the significance of their "experience" and therefore personal value). In fact, I'm unconvinced that for line soldiers many things matter as much as motivation/attitude and basic discipline/impulse control, which are aspects in which I don't see why Ukrainian soldiers now should be inferior to anyone.
On the other hand, Ukraine's equipment is increasingly NATO-provided especially at the low level (I keep hearing that Ukrainian units have a fillhorn of encrypted comms and Starlink terminals while the Russians are often stuck with CB radios donated by some Telegram bloggers if they have anything at all), and I'd wager that their command-and-control stack is advised and supplied with intel by the US at every level. Given the outcome, it seems to be pretty clear to me that the conclusion should be that these things just matter more, as long as neither side outright runs out of motivated soldiers, just as I would expect a professional RTS player with an early midgame starting position to trounce a noob who doesn't know how to
scroll the map viewassign unit groups even if the latter starts with a popcap-sized endgame army.(edit: Update: The speed at which that entire stretch of the Russian front is collapsing is astonishing. Between this and "unconfirmed" (of the type that seems to wind up confirmed a day or two later all the time lately) reports of breaches even all over the Donbass, I now get the sense that this is really the beginning of a potentially very rapid end for Russia. Hope that nobody overplays their hand past the nuclear threshold.)
More options
Context Copy link
No. What I said makes more sense. Nato has been funding this war from the beginning. The CIA worked with Nato to establish Ukraine's independence in the first place.
But there are British and American boots on the ground, likely using mercenaries as a thin veneer of plausible deniability.
Let me know if this is better suited for the suggestions thread, but as it stands Skylab's comment is at 20 downvotes. Is Skylab not contributing to the conversation? Not enough evidence of claims? Is TheMotte.org userbase already eagerly using downvoting as a disagree button?
Not that this necessarily applies here, but I always thought of a solution where mods could booby-trap unpopular but constructive comments - high-signal rule-conforming comments, and automatically warn or even temporarily remove voting privileges from users who downvote the tripwired comment to 'train' them. I probably would've already tripped this trap a couple times by now, fwiw. This might lead to accusations of mod-favoritism.
I'm a downvoter in this case; not sure if my motivations are generalizable but here we go.
Why downvote this particular comment?
Why downvote any comments?
Comments like this reduce the value of the thread for me; stopping to consider whether it made any sense broke the flow and ultimately I discarded the claims without learning anything. A downvote is a cheap way of giving feedback (to a well intentioned writer at least) that they should consider trying a bit harder.
Readers are going to have varying levels of knowledge on a given topic, and varying levels of patience for reading (and evaluating) rebuttals. A big negative score will at least signal that a claim is controversial.
More options
Context Copy link
I would bolt from this place if any traps were set. That's a level of official hostility that I don't want to contend with.
More options
Context Copy link
Downvotes don't matter in the slightest here. They don't even reduce visibility. Caring too much about score is more of a problem than people just arbitrarily downvoting stuff and not following "reddiquette" (which has been a joke since the very start).
More options
Context Copy link
It's ridiculous to expect users not to use it as a disagree button, and downvotes come from the ether anyway. It's bad form to complain about them in any circumstance.
That said, I've never seen any opinion, no matter how absurd, receive downvotes that was even-keeled, explained coherently, and delivered with some sort of assurance that rebuttals would be taken in good faith. And anything with 2+ good links will be net positive as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, that’s what I said: there are former NATO soldiers in the offensive. No, this does not make them NATO forces. Similarly, NATO has been funding Ukraine, sure, but it does not make NATO forces Ukrainian forces, any more than “moderate” Syrian rebels were actually US forces.
Let me be quite clear what I would accept as “NATO forces” participating in offensive: a unit of active duty soldiers from the same NATO army, which was put together by said NATO army and sent to join AFU. Volunteer veterans slapdashed together into a unit upon arrival by the AFU military leadership does not count as NATO force.
This is important distinction, and I hope you are not purposefully trying to confuse people.
There is a plausible middle ground on this definition: something like the Flying Tigers, who were recruited from US forces to fly against Japan for the Republic of China Air Force as effectively (well-paid) mercenaries under the command of retired Army officer Claire Chennault. I have never found any evidence they were acknowledged to exist prior to the US entry into WWII (although their first combat missions only occurred some days later), but they were discharged and their travel papers declared them as mechanics or instructors. After US entry into the war, they were absorbed into the USAAF under the same commander. It would be difficult for me to describe them as anything other than "American forces, if covert."
Of course, I've seen no evidence that such an arrangement is happening today, and it seems that like the Soviet "instructors" and "test pilots" in Korea and Vietnam, it would probably be difficult to hide today.
The more probably middle ground is somebody like Blackwater expanding to a force over thousands and deploying. It's accepted to train troops, it's accepted to offer material aid, and it's legal but frowned upon for third nation citizens to join the army, but when you combine all three at once I think we'd see difficulty not seeing that as escalating.
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