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 -
One can argue that countries have no right ever to forcibly intervene in another country based on that country's own internal affairs, and many do, but it is a rule more honoured in the breach than the observance.
"Forcefully intervene" as a euphemism for conquest is cowardly. Russia is attempting intervention here in the sense that forcible rape is a form of spirited disagreement about sexual relations. Russia is not intervening in Ukraine's internal affairs, they are attempting to obliterate entirely the concept of Ukrainian internal affairs.
Go and talk to the Yugoslavians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Afghanistanis, the Libyans. The Cubans, the Argentines, the Bolivians and the Brazilians. Hong Kong, if you like. Nobody likes being the subject of conquest, 'military intervention' bombing campaigns, foreign-backed coups or assassinations; no nation capable of carrying them out refrains from them.
It is simply a fact that strong nations see themselves as being justified in violently reordering other countries to suit themselves, while making spirited denunciations any time it's done by anyone except themselves. Nobody except members of the country in question are fooled by the old Russel conjugation of 'I am saving the people of poor Country X from their tyrannical leadership and bad upbringing / you are installing a puppet government and will be taking a warm interest in future cultural affairs / he is a conqueror embarking on a program of annexation'. There have been no formal declarations of war since 1945, do you think that 'good' nations have embarked on no wars? Let us not forget that Russia is no conqueror but is only, aha, 'embarking on a special military operation to protect Russian-speaking citizens and rid the world of the Nazi scourge'.
I think that your view is too cynical by half. Your view, which I would paraphrase as
is not so different from
Both the IRBO and the state of law in the US are not perfect, but they are clearly distinct from their respective baselines.
While some of the conflicts you have mentioned were clearly waged by powerful states for ulterior reasons, and I have been opposed to GWBs adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq from the start, I also notice that most of the wars waged by the left were not for outright conquest and annexation. A few of the wars might even have been net positive, like interfering in the genocidal mess that was the Yugoslavia civil war. In retrospect, I can not say I am especially proud of NATO for sitting out the Rwanda situation, for example.
Russia's war in Ukraine is one of straightforward annexation. This is markedly different to what GWB did. Thus, it is in the interest of the proponents of the IRBO to make Russia pay as high a price as possible, to deter both them and other states from trying the same in the future.
If this also means that Putin fails to conquer Ukraine, that is a bonus, but for the international supporters of Ukraine that is not the essential outcome. The goal is to make the war net negative for Russia by making them pay a high price in blood and economy.
As long as the Ukrainians are fine with dying for that, it seems like a no-brainer for the West to give them the materiel to continue their war.
I take your point, and would prefer to split the difference by saying that the international rule-based order is a polite fiction that constrains smaller and weaker countries most of the time, but doesn't change the fundamental reality that larger, more powerful nations have international interests and will find a way to justify violent warfare, regime change and other such things in pursuit of them. This is true IMO regardless of one's feelings on the morality of the matter.
I personally am not sure I find straightforward annexation in the general case to be clearly worse than regime and culture change as America tried to carry out in the Middle East (for example). I am quite willing to believe that Russian are fairly unkind and extractive rulers, and among the people you would least like to be occupied by, although I also find @Botond173's point convincing:
On a personal level, I find the West's attempts to destroy their enemies (and their friends) through slow corrosion to be... unappealing, perhaps. Having long since lost faith in the liberal project, the attitude of, "Don't worry, you* will choose to dissolve your country" repels me as much or more than blunter, more ham-handed attempts to do the same thing.
*or the leaders who pass our filtering process.
I have heard this argument before, and acknowledge its force, but I think it's important to acknowledge that 'the Ukranians' are not a homogenous group. There was a huge exodus of young men who fled recently when Zelensky relaxed the borders, and apparently it has become commonplace to Ukranian families to send their male children abroad before they reach 18. As with many wars, I am not convinced that the young men actually doing the dying are doing so voluntarily, and being a young man myself that weighs upon me with disproportionate force.
In short I find your position broadly reasonable and defensible, but disagree.
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