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 -
His point as I understand was, 1) Ukrainians are bitter, because 2) they only fought because (stressed in all caps above) the USA assured them they would get US support and therefore defeat Russia and 3) this has proved a disaster and Ukrainians regret trusting the US and the war deaths could have been largely avoided had they known the all the above - furthermore these war deaths are half a million as Russia claims.
My point is no Ukrainian I know would express those 3, and they're extremely Russian coded. If No_one wishes to correct this misunderstanding I am all ears. Heaven knows it's hard to be clear on this forum, and I'm feeling a bit confused myself.
I worry there's a motte and bailey here - the motte being "Ukrainians would like more support from the USA, and feel that they're hot and cold which isn't helpful to the war effort" and the bailey being "Ukrainians fought the war because the USA promised them the moon and couldn't deliver, and are very bitter, and the deaths could have been avoided without the US meddling".
As far as I can tell, 4 different things are/were going on.
Post-2014, many Atlanticists and Nationalists (Banderists etc.) in Ukraine believed that trying to reach a compromise with the Russians on the status of the Donbass is pointless, because they thought ongoing military assistance from NATO would eventually ensure that, when the political opportunity arises, the swift and victorious conquest of the Donbass and the Crimea by a beefed-up Ukrainian army would become a reality, just like how the Croats united their country during Operations ‘Flash’ and ‘Storm’ in 1995.
Pre-2022, the same group of people and their sympathizers believed that NATO countries would send troops and weapons to aid Ukraine should it be attacked, which in turn would deter the Russians from attacking, as in reality they’re a paper bear.
None of this turned out to be true.
After the Russian blunders in the opening months of the war 2022, plus the successful Ukrainian counterattacks in the Kherson and Kharkov regions, this same group of people were convinced that final victory can be achieved in the summer of 2023 because the demoralized orc hordes will cut and run at the sight of the first German tank, and if not, then it’ll be still possible to recapture the entire post-1954 territory of the Ukraine because the Americans and their NATO allies will provide sufficient supplies and weapons for the job whereas the orcs will run out of missiles/tanks/food/washing machines.
Again, none of this happened either, and at this point seems increasingly out of reach, although this is the only turn of events that would realistically constitute something that can be called a Ukrainian final victory.
With respect to your argument that the Ukrainians would keep fighting even without US/NATO weapons (and supplies plus money), I’d say the lessons of history prove the opposite. Look at Afghanistan, South Vietnam or Georgia for that matter (in 2008). US-aligned regimes don’t keep fighting after military aid is cut or is not forthcoming in the first place – this has been the case so far for sure. But even if you’re right after all, the main question is whether the average soldier is then willing to fight even offensively or only defensively. Because if the latter is the case, victory cannot be achieved. My argument is that to the extent Ukrainian troops keep fighting defensively, they are doing so in the belief that NATO will at least supply enough assistance to prevent the Ukrainian army from collapsing. (Whether the Russians actually want to annex the entire state is also far from clear, on a different note.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link