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 -
To anyone who has discussed the issue with pro-Ukraine people.
Why do people support Ukraine fighting against Russia, with a strange militaristic fervor, instead of supporting surrendering / negotiating peace?
Anglin makes the points that:
-the war is severely impoverishing Europe due to high energy costs
-the war is destroying Ukraine ( population + territory / infrastructures / institutions)
-continuing the war increases the chances of a world war
Is it cheering for the possible destruction of Russia?
Something to do with the current leadership of Russia, anti-LGBTQ, pro-family policies?
Is it about the 1991 borders of Ukraine, issues with post-Soviet Union border disputes?
Notion that 'if we don't stop Putin now he will never stop no matter what'? Is it something about broadly standing up against aggression of one state vs another, supporting the 'underdog'?
The issue with that one which seems to be central to Alexander's March 22 post is that there isn't much that seems capable of stopping Russia.
Sending another 100k Ukrainians to the meatgrinder for that end seems a little bit harsh coming from people with very little skin in the game.
Just signaling what they are told is the correct opinion?
Is it about saving face, sunk cost at this point?
What would be the best case scenario for a Ukraine/State Department victory?
To my understanding, Putin is not the most radical or dangerous politician in Russia, and an implosion into ethnicity-based sub-regions would cause similar problems to the 'Arab Spring'. Chechens for example would not appear very West-friendly once 'liberated' from Russia.
Not only that, but economic crisis in Europe could generate additional security risks.
I don't even really understand the question. People, at least in wester democratic countries, believe that the legitimacy of rule comes from the consent of the governed. This isn't a perfectly consistent belief as few beliefs are shown in a kind of status quo bias that has them opposing forcible annexation but also opposing many secessions. But the underlying belief is quite simple. It is axiomatically evil to use force to make people join compacts that they do not want to join, Russia is doing this with their invasion and allowing Russia to be reward for breaking this rule sets an unacceptable precedent.
You seem to think they should be operating on some crude non-iterative maximization of total utility in the near term like unthinking animals. But they learned from the Nazi days that appeasement doesn't work and expansionist tyrants can only be adequately answered with absolutely no tolerance.
Ukraine has been bombing civilians in the Eastern parts of the country, and is forcing men within its borders to join its armies, it's not exactly a model of 'consent to be governed'.
Here is on the other hand John Bolton bragging about overtaking other countries' governments.
Why do I somehow doubt the people on the side of John Bolton when they tell me that Russia has no good reason to be wary of their next-door neighbor inviting John Bolton and his buddies to build up military installations on their border?
Expansionist tyrants like the ones attacking North Africa, the Middle-East, setting up puppet regimes in South America for decades...?
I find it hard to believe you're arguing in good faith when you so carelessly whistle while ignoring Russian conscription. I guess those Mobiks mean as little to you as they do to Putin eh?
Isn't it worth it to start conscription when the US are attacking you in a proxy war?
My understanding of the Russian situation is that Russians as a people have a very high level of resilience.
Life in Russia generally sucks, it sucking a little bit more than usual is a common, accepted occurrence.
On the other hand the EU are made up of a bunch of individuals looking to increase their own personal comfort and who are really inconvenienced by energy prices going up.
Russia can still cut its fertilizer exports if they decide that they really want to go all out against the rest of the world.
It's possible that Russia will suddenly collapse in a hundred internal revolutions or something, but that does not strike me as a good outcome for somebody that values the overall safety of the world.
If you're stupid, sure.
Setting aside that the US is not attacking Russia in a proxy war, resorting to conscription in the face of a proxy war is missing the point of asymmetry in proxy wars. In strategy terms the worth/cost/value-analysis of a proxy war is not for the proxy to win at any cost, but for the cost of aid given to the proxies to increase the costs incurred by the parties fighting the proxy. Mass conscription is an exceptionally expensive way to fight a conflict, as it generally combines increasing military costs and inflicting political costs and economic opportunity-loss costs of robbing the civilian economy, and often does so for marginal military utility. Directly fighting the proxies is the proxy-fighter win state, and thus the worth/value state to be avoided by the person fighting the proxies.
For a power facing proxy war, value-strategies of worth are cost-mitigation strategies. You either interdict the proxies with cost-efficient interventions, you bypass/ignore the proxies to the best of your ability in order to complete your objective and minimize the wasted time/resources spent dealing with proxies, or you cut losses and no longer engage, withdrawing as needed.
The Russians are unable to interdict western aid to Ukraine, and cannot bypass/ignore the Ukrainians who have received western aid. From the worth/value model, the best worth response remaining is to cut losses, which in the context of Ukraine would mean withdrawing from Ukrainian territory.
The average lifespan, suicide, and emmigration statistics indicate otherwise.
Not really relevant, since it's as credible and helpful to the Russians as saying they could nuke random countries. Less credible, actually, since famine is a self-resolving problem that, while terrible, is rarely state destroying, and wouldn't be benefiting Russia much in the interim.
Accepting the gains of a nuclear armed power conducting a war of territorial conquest against one of the few countries in the world to have actually given up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees by said power is considerably worse. Libya was bad enough, but Gaddafi didn't actually have nukes, just the program. In Ukraine, Russia created direct nuclear proliferation justification for any power with either territorial designs or fear of territorial designs from nuclear weapons, and only a comprehensive Russian defeat will demonstrate on a world-level that both sides of the paradigm (that nuclear weapons enable territorial conquest / that nuclear weapons are required to resist conquest by larger powers) are false. Minimizing / delaying proliferation requires that both aggressors and defenders not feel that nukes are decisive/critical enablers.
A Russian collapse is bad from a nuclear proliferation perspective in the sense of nuclear terrorism from loose nukes, and some countries aquiring a nuclear deterrent without the production capability. A Russian victory is terrible from a nuclear proliferation perspective in the sense of mass production capability proliferation corresponding with territorial wars of conquest, which will also provide loose nuke risk.
While the preferable option is a comprehensive Russian defeat without a crack-up, there are bad problems and there are worse problems.
Withdrawing from Ukraine would mean that Russia is essentially allowing NATO to forever expand and threaten its borders, and also that genociding Russian minorities on Russia's borders is not a big deal.
That's not cutting losses.
Sounds like head cannon from the same people that came up with WMD in Iraq for what? To a lot of countries the problem of nuclear proliferation is probably not whether or not it's happening but who is holding the nukes above their head.
Western intelligence unilaterally deciding that such or such 'aggression' is worth 'sanctioning' or not a given country does not make it an absolute moral rule.
Go tell the Donbass civilans they gotta keep taking the bombs because otherwise nuclear proliferation bad.
Russia has neither the authority to allow or not allow other countries to have their own relations. Russia does, however, have a nuclear deterrent if faced with invasion.
The Russian minorities on Russia's borders are not being genocided.
Per the standing international law defining genocide, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide-
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Russian state's claims of genocide of Russian ethnic groups tends to rely on language policies, such as whether Russian is taught in schools or as a language of governance. Language policies of these sort do not constitute genocide. While the Russian intervention in the Donbas has been used to claim the Ukrainians are targeting the citizens there, this has not been reflected in areas under Ukrainian control, indicating a lack of deliberate targetting.
By contrast, the Russian policies in Ukraine, ranging from filtration camps, torture centers, artillery campaigns on civilian infrastructure, targeting of essential power infrastructure during the winter, and the population relocations of Ukrainian civilians into Russia would qualify.
Accepting an undesirable state is precisely what cutting losses entails. Even if what you claimed were all true, it would still be a lower cost than suffering the Ukraine disaster AND having all of the other items still occur.
Your hearing and/or memory is off.
You framed in a global perspective, you get a global perspective response. The regional/local perspective will, of course, be based on observation of what other nuclear users are able to get away with in the multi-polar order that Russia pre-emptively claimed success in creating.
The Donbass civilians are being bombed because of a multi-year Russian intervention in the Donbass following the failed NovaRussia campaign intended to spark an anti-maiden counter-uprising, not because nuclear proliferation is bad. The Russians turning the Donbass into a warzone was a policy choice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This.
If, as OP proposes, US currently changes course by 180 degrees and abandons Ukraine (similar shifts happened previously, many such cases), Central and Eastern European countries (and others) will know they can rely only on themselves.
If you want world with Finnish, Swedish, Polish, Czech, Romanian, Turkish etc.. nuclear weapons on hair trigger, this is the way you would get it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's one way of describing Russia launching an invasion of a neighbor, and the US selling them guns to shoot back.
Perhaps Putin could have avoided this "attack" by cunningly not sending his army into someone else's country.
They sold them the Patriot missile system, and F-16s allegedly on the way.
More options
Context Copy link
So if Saddam Hussein is gassing civilians and the US invades to protect the civilians, then it's alright if Russia starts supplying weapons to Saddam?
You could decline this a hundred times really.
Ukraine was gassing civilians now?
IIRC, there was one amusing point in the Minsk negotiations where Russia was demanding the Ukrainians pay for the gas bills of the separatist states. So there was that point where they were NOT gassing.
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
More options
Context Copy link