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 -
The Iran deal, the US expanding right into Eastern Europe after Russia pulled back and the long list of self proclaimed US exceptionalism gives the rest of the world strong reasons not to trust the US.
Fact check. All those people just wanted to get rich and we never invaded any of those countries.
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-polandmalaysia-model
Honestly thought about doing a top-level posts. Polands economical miracle sums up this entire war. Russia offered their colonial possessions nothing and once every 50 years a famine. The West offered wealth. Maybe if Russia didn’t want colonies and offered economic development all these Slovak countries would want to be friends with them.
Mershemere meet Poland. Maybe he could study their economy and realize why no one wants to be friends with Russia.
The Russians built Ukraine's heavy industry in the Soviet period, it was a key industrial region of the USSR. It had a lot of power infrastructure, which is ironically making it harder for the Russians to destroy it, now that consumption is much less. Post breakup, Russia paid off all of Ukraine's share of Soviet debt and supplied cheap gas. The attached article makes the case that Russia supplying gas at below market rates limited Ukrainian economic modernization and encouraged corruption. Nevertheless, that could be said about all economic aid.
'Russia offered their colonial possessions nothing' is false. They made a generous offer in 2013, promising to bail out the indebted Ukrainian economy with bond purchases and lower gas prices. They were consistently supplying below market price gas back in the 2000s and 1990s, keeping Ukraine from complete economic collapse.
The reason Ukraine didn't want to be friends with Russia is not because Russia was not willing to provide but because US-based, US-aligned NGOs like the Endowment for Democracy and Open Society Foundation were paying billions to politically influence the country directly, manipulating media, education and governance.
Isn’t Ukraine under Russia control at 1/3 the income of Poland joining the EU and at a slower growth pace? Like look at the data. And besides the fact Russia literally starved Ukraine.
The whole western whore analogy your trying to make makes no sense. Does Japan not have their own culture?
Ukraine under direct Russian control was doing fairly well. Their income only recovered to 1991 levels in 2006. Have a look at Russia. Would oh-so-corrupt and incompetent Russian governance really have hurt Ukraine that much?
Look at this data: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=UA-RU
It was a mistake to break up the Soviet Union completely, these countries were not supposed to be separate. Their economies were interlinked, there was no sound political basis for self-government in most of them. Ukraine inherited huge heavy industry that it didn't need, without the domestic energy to use it properly. I reckon that if you told Ukrainians in 1991 'if you elect for independence and freedom from hated Russia your economy will crater, won't even recover for 16 years, your country will depopulate, get brain-drained and go from rough parity with Russia to half their income' they would've thought again about independence.
And now they're looking at hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded because... why? So they can aspire towards reaching the level of income Russia already has in 15 or 20 years, provided they get EU membership at some later date? The above graph doesn't even count the war damage, which is going to be severe.
Well they do but it was heavily manipulated by the US who rewrote their constitution. You know how they have this weird censorship of genitals in Japanese pornography? Like tiny lines that don't cover anything, even though the actual content can be rather more perverse than showing a penis. That's because of the tortured interplay between the US officially enforcing freedom of speech and pre-existing Japanese obscenity laws. Or to put it another way, can you spot any differences in Japanese culture between 1944 and 1954?
Yeah, yeah. Median monthly salary in Russia is around 400-500 USD
https://tass.com/economy/1301957
Just a little lower in Ukraine. Somehow this huge GDP and revenues from exporting raw materials didn't translate in passable living standards for people outside of several large cities.
According to World Population Review, Russia's median income is $5500 to Ukraine's $4400, which is a fairly substantial difference.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country
Consider also that if it weren't for Russian aid and debt relief, Ukraine's situation pre-2014 would've been much worse. Cheap energy is good - nobody is saying that the fad of refusing to buy Russian gas imports is a great opportunity for Germany since they'll be able to 'reform their economy'.
Adjust it for the cost of living which will make the difference negligible (of course, the war made everything costlier, but Russia can make drop a few nukes on Ukraine to make life there completely miserable).
Russian "aid" enriched Ukrainian oligarchs, barely anything of it dripped down to the general population, and reliance on Russian gas made investment in domestic production unprofitable. People talking about Russia relieving Soviet debt apparently forget the fact that Russia got most of Soviet assets, but also a lot of countries had debts before Soviet Union — now they had to repay Russia.
It's already in PPP terms, cost of living is adjusted for.
During the early 2000s, Ukraine was using its large Soviet-era metallurgical industry, powered by cheap Russian gas, to export steel and grow fairly quickly. Workers do work in steel mills, there are benefits for the stability of the currency. That Ukrainian oligarchs were enriched during this process does not mean Russia/Soviets was evil for providing all these steel mills and cheap energy to run them.
That doesn't make any sense. What are you talking about, tsarist-era debt? Was Ukraine accruing much debt during its brief existence post-WW1? If Russia gets 75% of Soviet assets and Ukraine 15% but Russia pays all of Ukraine's share of Soviet debt, it follows that Ukraine comes out ahead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So why didn’t Russia maintain Ukraine then? USSR failed. Stick to reality. If you lose you lose. They lost and turning to genocide should not be an option when you lose economically.
More options
Context Copy link
This still isn't quite the same thing as having no cultural agency. The Kerberos Saga is just one of what are certainly multiple internal assessments of WWII, the occupation, and their impact on Japan.
At no point did I say that Japan had no cultural agency. Where are people getting this idea from? However, Japan's culture was heavily manipulated and affected by the US. I don't know how anyone can argue with this, nor do I really think Japan has any relevance to my main point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ah, one of the most persistent tropes of Russian propaganda. "Stupid Ukrainians/Lithuanians/Estonians! We, Russians (or rather American engineers whom we invited), uplifted you, built your industries, infrastructure, and that's how you repaid us! Just look at those stoopid Finns who rejected our generous attempt to conquer them and build industries for them, and now all those northern ooga-boogas live in squalor"
When globohomo pays "billions" to supposedly brainwash Ukrainian population — it's bad. When Russians do it, corrupt politicians and put their agents everywhere (most of ministers, head of SBU etc. under Yanukovich were literally Russian citizens even before Maidan) — it's good. Got you.
Please don't. Allow Ukraine to reform its economy and reorient toward other markets who don't try to ensure political compliance through economic means (enriching oligarchs of both countries in the process).
Well it's a persistent trope because it's literally true! The Russians did provide below-market rate gas and they did pay off Ukraine's share of Soviet debt. You can't deny that.
They admitted it themselves. Victoria Newland said the US invested $5 billion in Ukrainian democracy and civil society since 1991. If you want a citation, it was a remark at the US-Ukraine Conference, National press club, December 13, 2013. You're surely aware of the phone call where she literally discusses who will be minister in the new government. Clearly this investment was very effective, it obviously achieves better and cheaper results than Russia providing actual economic assistance in terms of acquiring influence.
Firstly, I have no power to decide these issues. Secondly, if Ukraine wants to reform their economy that's their business - but receiving cheap energy is a boon not a curse. No Briton bemoans the copious reserves of coal they were bequeathed. Saudi Arabia is not weakened by its oil wealth. Sound management can prevent dutch disease and similar effects. Thirdly, how is 'promoting civil society and a good form of government' with billions of dollars not acquiring political compliance through economic means? The money still filters back through to those in high places - Hunter Biden didn't earn his sinecure from Burisma with his petrochemical knowledge.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All that shines isn't gold.
Would you be upset if Andrew Tate invited your sister to join him in his mansion and become rich by showing off her body?
Would you slap your sister if she told you she was considering it, because you don't treat her right and she needs some of that self-care mmmh mmmh?
No, because slapping is a poor way to persuade people.
Also, if that would happen then thing went horrifying wrong before and I prefer actions taking far earlier.
It works in Afghanistan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are making a big assumption that the west doesn’t treat people well.
But sure she can stay with him if she’s not a prostitute and she flirts with rich guys looking for a wife.
Oblivion awaits the childless, godless West.
Absolutely haram.
Let’s stick within real arguments here instead of if you disagree with me your sisters a prostitute. I think that’s a reasonable standard
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm trying and I can't understand what you're all arguing about? There are three actors in this game. It is true that Poland joined NATO, as the prospect of access to the closed EU market and subsidies from Germany, France and the UK is very tasty. It is true that the US is interested in expanding its sphere of influence. And it is true that for Russia, the expansion of NATO and the EU is a loss of market access and unacceptable security threats.
That is, Poland has reasons to join NATO/EU, the US has reasons to increase its influence, Russia has reasons to perceive expansion as aggression.
All of these things can be true at the same time. Right?
I reject this part.
Though it would be accurate to treat it as a threat on Russian imperialism and pre-empting USSR 2.0. That is exactly why Poland and other joined NATO and Ukraine wanted to join.
Russia is not entitled to having an imperial sphere of influence.
First, the presence of nuclear weapons does not guarantee security in the medium term. Especially when your opponent has much more financial and human resources. Secondly, the loss of buffer states creates huge opportunities for proxy wars. Starting from attempts to arm the non-systemic opposition, ending with the Ichkerian separatists.
Isn't that enough reason?
It seems to me that starting proxy war against NATO is a poor way to avoid proxy wars against NATO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ukraine was never a military threat to a nuclear armed country so security is false but loss of culture/economic control is true.
And there is the fourth actor Ukraine whose opinions should matter the most.
There seems to be discussed the expansion of NATO in general. In the case of Ukraine, I would replace Poland with Ukraine and not much would change. (Although the armed coup and the right of the population to self-determination make this case more difficult).
And the threat to Russia is not Ukraine, it is the United States and NATO, of course.
NATO is not militarily invading a nuclear armed power. Not worth it. Russia would be ignored like N Korea.
How do you have such confidence, and how do you have confidence that at some time the US will not invade North Korea?
Anything is possible of course. But why would we want every major city in the world vaporized?
I wrote about it in the thread above.
An invasion either requires an improved missile defense system to reliably intercept intercontinental missiles, or can be carried out using a proxy.
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
this sounds a bit funny for Pole given that we are word-class at complaining and doomposting :)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Damn, how many invasions did I miss?
In all seriousness, the US (or more broadly speaking, the west in general, don't know why you're leaving western europe out here) didn't "expand into eastern europe", it was invited in, largely because eastern europe was sick of Russia and what Russia had to offer.
Just because a country is invited doesn't mean they have to. The Soviets didn't base nukes on Cuba. If Mexico invited China to join a military alliance they wouldn't be allowed to do so.
Those deals didn't specify that they had to implement mass immigration, a George Soros social policy and end up getting sanctioned by the EU for not doing things that were never in the deal. Furthermore, the either you are with us or you are against us policy of the US gives countries the option of either submitting and becoming vassal states or being more or less blockaded. Countries that want independence from the US either have nukes or are under constant threat or pressure from the US.
And? Note that some fairly minor countries like Poland decided that they prefer to not get it and are not "more or less blockaded" by USA.
UK Brexited over immigration among over things and I do not remember it being "more or less blockaded" by USA.
How that connects to "the US expanding right into Eastern Europe"? Unless you have overly rose image of USA competence and argues that EU is its puppet without any power.
More options
Context Copy link
I fail to see what this has to do with the US, you're describing largely internal European matters here.
Oh don't be so dramatic, if you believe that all the nations aligned with the US/West are vassal states then you have an unusually broad definition of vassal state to be sure.
The point you seem to be flailing towards here, is that choosing to trade/align with someone opens you up to being influenced and I don't think that this was something missed by the leaders of the various nations that have chosen to flee "Russias orbit" in the post cold war era. They chose to align themselves with the west in general (and the US in particular) because they believe that it is a better deal than what they experienced with the Russians and I cannot blame them.
If the Russians (or anyone else for that matter) wishes to seriously challenge US hegemony, they could start by offering a better, credible alternative. The fact that so much of eastern europe is willing to fight, bleed and die in order to remain part of "Globohomo" should probably be a wake up call that Russia is pushing a seriously bad product.
And I suspect that the best thing that homolobby can do for itself in Ukraine is to play on repeat Putin complaining about homolobby and satanist nazi jewish gay Ukrainians.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's false — Turkey, Brazil, Vietnam and many other countries are neither American "vassals", not they are blockaded (though I object to the use of the term "vassal" to the US-aligned countries)
Americans didn't base nukes in Poland either (despite Poles expressing their desire to have them there).
So why do you deny their agency? They didn't have to, but they DECIDED to join.
Vietnam is pretty much aligned with the US nowadays, actually.
Probably because it's beneficial for them from the economic standpoint, and also because the US is a counter-weight to the Chinese influence in the region. Not because the US strongarms Vietnam.
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
After Russia was kicked out of areas it occupied/controlled by force. Large part of that conquests was result of alliance with Third Reich and Hitler.
They were invited by nearly everyone for obvious reasons.
You do know that Slovakia and Croatia entirely owe their existence to Hitler's legacy, don't you? Without him and his decisions, neither country would exist.
Do you still hold their independence to be legitimate?
You also know that Poland signed a nonaggression pact with the Third Reich, and took part in the partition of Czechoslovakia, don't you?
That is blatantly false, for multiple reasons. Dropping "entirely" would help a bit but still would be untrue.
And I am not calling for rolling back anything communist adjacent - I would not support undoing electrification of many rural areas of Poland on basis "it happened under communism". And I am not going to kill myself because I was born during communist rule. Or deconstruct motorways where construction started under Hitler.
But i would support undoing things done by Third Reich and USSR regimes that were unwanted.
Yes.
Yes. BTW, Trans-Olza is nowadays in Czechia.
Huh?
whooops!
It was supposed to be "But i would support undoing things done by(...)"
Then I suppose attaching Crimea to Soviet Ukraine in 1954, without consulting or even asking pretty much anyone involved, falls into the category of "things done by the USSR that were wanted" in your eyes.
No idea how far Crimea should be rolled back but accepting Russian invasion is one of options.
More options
Context Copy link
To fix the historical wrongs, Russia should have given Crimea independence as Crimean Khanate. First they destroyed its statehood, then they deported most Crimean Tartars to the Central Asia.
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
Both Slovakia and Croatia existed as distinct parts of Czechoslovakia (it's in the name) and Yugoslavia before Hitler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banovina_of_Croatia
They did not preserve their independence past WW2.
Yes - "distinct parts" i.e. administrative areas and not nations, which is what they currently are, and claim to be.
Their independence after 1991 was, disregarding foreign help for a moment, only possible because they had a bygone legacy as independent states that was possible to resurrect, and they only existed as independent states pre-1945 due to Hitler's decisions and the Third Reich.
They weren't just "administrative areas". Croats, for example, already existed as a separate ethnonational entity back then.
What was Croatia before 1941 if not an administrative part of the Yugoslavian state?
Ethnohistorical region with a strong separatist movement. Probability of Croats getting their independence as a result of Yugoslavian collapse (in itself a likely event) was quite high, Hitler had nothing to do with it.
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
Can we put this argument to rest? No one forced Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and the rest of Eastern Europe into NATO. Russia likes to talk about "sovereignty", but evidently it's "sovereignty for me, but not for thee"
We shouldn't, because expansion doesn't necessarily entail the use of force. Applying to join NATO doesn't automatically mean membership. On the part of the governments of NATO members, there needs to be a political will and decision to, technically speaking, invite those countries, and decide that they should join. That's still expansion.
Well, yes. As can be seen from case of Ukraine.
And Ukraine also demonstrates how it ends if you fail to run away from Russian bear quickly enough.
This is nothing but snark, and definitely not an argument. What was the window of opportunity for Ukraine to run away, in your view? When was it too early, and when was it too late?
Directly after fall of communism and some time later. Plenty of stuff was stolen during that time in Poland but Ukraine went far further and economical growth was anaemic later.
The made some steps since 2014 but it was too late to avoid Russian invasion and may be also too late to avoid conquest by Russia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why? It's like the meme "I consent, I consent, I don't". I think Mexico has the right to join any alliances it wants as well (though the US in that case can withdraw from NAFTA etc.). In that scenario, Mexico has to decide whether it wants to prioritize relationships with China or the US, and accept drawbacks of their decision. Poland and Baltic states made their decision — Russia had nothing to offer them, apart from chauvinistic sneering and cheap gas that they might later use to twist their arms politically.
So do the governments of NATO member states have any agency in all of this or not? For Poland and the Baltic states to make that decision, there needs to be a palpable intention on NATO's part to expand westwards, a call to be answered. Mexico can only join any alliance if it gets invited by that alliance, presumably because it wants to expand into the American continent. The issue here is not what it does or does not have a right to do.
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