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 -
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/
It's an interesting question of how one defines war. Nazi Germany was not at war with Republican Spain, yet they had troops fighting alongside Franco unofficially as volunteers. The Soviets similarly sent air volunteers to China and fought some fairly large battles in Manchuria
You can have gradations of war below declared war. For instance, the US in Korea was doing a 'police action' as opposed to a declared war yet I think we all agree that the US was at war.
The British admitted to sending special forces to Ukraine (supposedly just for training or recon/ISR purposes), I have no doubt that the US has troops there as well. The assistance of Western intelligence and communications to Ukrainian forces is considerable, they're using US satellites down to a tactical level of firing at coordinates that are given to them.
But is this an actual war? I lean against it, on the basis that US and Russian brigades aren't actually fighting eachother. Even then it might still fall below the level of war, by some miracle, if the fighting starts and stops without officially being recognized. PRC and the USSR weren't at war, they just had some border skirmishes back in the day.
Well Russia is in a “special military operation” - obviously they are in a war. Nato is financing the Ukranian war and providing other things. Our industrial base and military depots are providing all the means to fight the war. So Natos mercenaries with NATO weapons are fighting the war. Pick your definition of war.
Funny thing is if we just sent American boots on the ground Putin would either have a choice of going full nuclear war (I think low probability 1%) or he could use it as an excuse for sueing for peace and saving face. That would actually solve his election issues he fought but couldn’t fight America cuz America is too strong and he didn’t want to end the world and showed prudence versus the Americans escalating.
Outside the box thinking what if Biden just got on airforce 1 and flew to Moscow to discuss peace? Would show a lot of respect that maybe a deal could be cut.
[citation needed]
Sure they are mostly fighting for themselves. I remember an article of increase in wages for the Ukranian military early in the invasion. Since Ukraines economy has significantly shrunk who do you think is funding that.
And will eventually be responsible for significant rebuilding costs like in Iraq/Afghanistan. It might not be explicit $40k a soldier straight from US treasury but I don’t think the mercenary label for US interest is misleading.
Describing Ukraine as deciding to be involved in war because they are paid for this is not matching what is actually happening. At all.
So it is heavily misleading.
I get your point. But armed with NATO guns and wages paid by NATO even if they are fighting for their own land I don’t think is hugely extreme to call them NATO mercenaries. False in the sense that your not hiring random country people to do the fighting.
The term you're looking for is "backed by NATO" or "NATO backed".
Well then you think wrong, it's false in the sense that it's false.
We are paying their wages. So mercenaries also isn’t false.
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