site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Dreher apparently wrote an article that too specifically quoted Orbans thoughts. Supposedly it’s a bigger deal in Hungary but I believe there’s a few money quotes to discuss.

On Ukraine:

“To be clear, Viktor Orban doesn’t want the West to be in a war with Russia. But he says that far too many Westerners are deluding themselves about what’s really happening—and what could happen. . . .

Orban said that the West needs to understand that Putin cannot afford to lose, and will not lose, because he’s up for re-election next year, and he cannot run as the president who lost a war. What’s more, he said, Russia cannot allow NATO to establish a presence in Ukraine. The time has long passed when Russia might have been able to conquer Ukraine, or install a friendly regime. Had Russia won a quick victory, that might have been possible, but it’s hopeless now. Therefore, said Orban, Russia’s goal is to make Ukraine an ungovernable wreck, so the West cannot claim it as a prize. At this, they have already succeeded.”

On Ukraine I 100% the west, specifically NATO and the US, is at war with Russia. I often see the criticism from critics of the war that we do not understand this point. We do. It’s just in the modern world country’s don’t officially declare war. Russia did not. Nato did not. Perhaps it gives you cover for peace or something to not say it directly, but for whatever reason war is not called war. I agree Putin probably can’t lose the war or he’s out of office and perhaps a sacrificial lamb for the next dude. Disagree Russia had any strategic fear of NATO. 100% agree a fear of EU in Russia was justified as the western cultural umbrella would spread easier which he didn’t mention but culture war I’ve always believed was far stronger than any military war. Think Putin could have won the war earlier with better planning by crushing the military in the east first. But they had bad intel. Now the west is invested so theirs no way for Putin to win so his only play I guess is to make Ukraine in the east depopulated. Perhaps that’s not losing at a high costs.

On EU:

“Someone asked the prime minister if he wanted Hungary to stay in the EU. “Definitely not!” he said, adding that Hungary has no choice, because 85 percent of its exports are within the EU.”

This is true everywhere. Our wealth is thru trade. The old meme - the right can just invent their own twitter, their own internet, their own payment system…….Everything is interconnected and dependent on others. Centralized services have better economies of scale. Hungary due to geography can only be wealthy by becoming interconnected in the EU. Some businesses more constant costs businesses do not have these factors - farming, light manufacturing, etc (mostly right dominated industries). The lefts conquered all the industries that scale or have strong network effects. And that’s where the culture war fight has come from of trying to not be dominated.

https://www.thebulwark.com/how-rod-dreher-caused-an-international-scandal-in-eastern-europe/

What Orban says keeps me up at night simply because he’s right. And what’s really scary is that I don’t think either side can back down. We’re giving Ukraine everything, and talking about even fighter jets. If we give Ukraine everything and they lose, that’s a serious blow to the credibility of NATO as a protector of the current international order. I think this is why China is supportive. If we can’t defend Ukraine, why would we be able to protect our Asian Allies in Korea or Japan? If we can’t actually protect Ukraine despite billions in sanctions and giving the most powerful weapons we have, what sane country is going to trust us to be their defense or to protect their trade or solve their disputes? And without that perception, we lose a lot of power. If you’re not looking to NATO as much for defense and trade protection, why do you care what they say?

And given that neither side can afford to lose, I fear an out of control escalation. NATO leaders know that their power will be diminished by a loss, that’s why Ukraine keeps getting more and more weapons, more advanced weapons, etc. they can’t afford to lose, especially after investing heavily in Ukrainian victory. Putin likewise can’t lose (though I think there’s a fig leaf in that if he gets Donbas in a peace deal, it’s more than he had to start with, while for NATO anything short of the 1990s border is a loss). It’s just not a situation that either side can back away from.

If we can’t actually protect Ukraine despite billions in sanctions and giving the most powerful weapons we have, what sane country is going to trust us to be their defense or to protect their trade or solve their disputes?

Ukraine isn't getting the most powerful stuff NATO has. Ukraine got a bunch of old Soviet equipment from the ex-WARPAC NATO members and it's gotten some stuff a generation or two out of date from the US. They're also only getting some of the wider environment of military organization NATO militaries operate with. They don't have the training, the military traditions, the economy...

Ukraine is NATO supporting a country it has no formal commitments to because NATO countries think it's either the right thing to do, a good realist move, or some mixture thereof. If it doesn't work out, that's humiliating, in a way, but not incredibly moreso than the Afghanistan pullout or the mess in Iraq. Countries with whom NATO or the US have actual treaty obligations will know they have nothing to worry about. They saw what happened with the HIMARs. They know how far ahead of everyone else NATO is. If things don't work out for Ukraine on a strategic level, that's ultimately because the West didn't care enough to do more than throw some pocket change and old equipment at them.

Japan and Korea may develop a niggling fear in the back of their mind about just how far the willingness of the US and NATO to commit to a war in their defense may go, but they also know the situation is sufficiently different that they can re-assure themselves and move on with their day.

Ukraine isn't getting the most powerful stuff NATO has.

They're giving UA everything good it can possibly use.

Tanks and planes would just get wasted because Ukraine armed forces aren't really competent. According to some of the people fighting there, they're about as incompetent as Russia, with a few good formations but mostly it's bad.

Link is a talk where some Australian veteran who's fighting over there is almost succeeding in making the podcaster cry. Not sure why - it's mostly a honest look at Wagner (competent, well equipped ruthless bastards, apparently 'near peer' according to the Aus soldier), Ukraine army -apart from certain brigades, almost as bad as Russian but less well equipped, corrupt, prone to wasting lives by the hundred in senseless attacks by green formations, Ukrainian government (almost afghanistan tier corruption), western aid (given without regard to effectiveness).

The artillery given to UA is fairly good, especially HIMARs, which together with the spy satellite data was probably some of the most help Ukraine got.

But too little. It's really notable that America, once the world's most industrialised nation can't even scrape up a thousand good self-propelled howitzers for Ukraine, or enough spotting drones and ammunition.

Tanks and planes would just get wasted because Ukraine armed forces aren't really competent.

Competent relative to what standard is the key question here. Much like the old saw about the two hikers confronted by a bear, you don't need to be "fast" so much as "faster than the other guy".

They're giving UA everything good it can possibly use.

Yeah, and all the really good stuff is dependent on a level of infrastructural support and training the Ukrainians can't replicate. Instead, they get the stuff that can be deployed independently, which is usually old or relatively less effective.

Also, if Wagner were near-peer, they'd be wiping the floor with the Ukrainians.

Also, if Wagner were near-peer, they'd be wiping the floor with the Ukrainians.

Well, the Aussie guy in the video says that they're inflicting massively disproportionate casualties on Ukrainians who don't rotate heavily attrited units and are thus being pushed out of position after position.

Wagner might not be big enough to do that, though.

The US needs to win this war because their credibility re sanctions is in the toilet.

:Presses X to Doubt:

There's no damage to the US or NATO that can be done in Ukraine that wasn't already done in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact there is actually a pretty strong argument to be made (both strategic and economic) that expending munitions that had already been paid for against the Russians is better than expending them in exercises or scrapping them after they've exceeded their shelf-life.

Let us be blunt, every Russian killed in Ukraine, every aircraft shot down, every armored vehicle burned, makes Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Et Al safer. If the neo-bolsheviks decide that they would rather throw nukes than live in a world they can't bully their neighbors that's on them not us.

In fact there is actually a pretty strong argument to be made (both strategic and economic) that expending munitions that had already been paid for against the Russians is better than expending them in exercises or scrapping them after they've exceeded their shelf-life.

You can see this in how much of the donations from Europe have been equipment that's still serviceable but getting near the end of its shelf life. There's little point in hoarding such equipment when you can instead put that equipment to use right now against the opponent you kept it for and while doing so, lower your own future risk of retaliation.

There's no damage to the US or NATO that can be done in Ukraine that wasn't already done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If anything, seeing Russia bungle their lightning invasion/coup makes the maneuver warfare phase of the Iraqi War look even more impressive.

Somehow, the US didn't learn its lesson re: sactions 215 years ago, with the Embargo Act.