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/
Interestingly, this was also Mearsheimer's prediction after they took Ukraine and pushed little green men into Eastern Ukraine.
He also thought Russia was too smart to try to annex the whole thing because they'd run into a quagmire. So just wreck it.
If they don't have a strategic fear of NATO, they've been remarkably consistent in this lie about this since they've held to it under two administrations starting from the end of the Cold War and the first wave of enlargements.
Also: it would mean that Cold War planners like Kennan were wrong about how aggravating it was to Russia, yet somehow right about the diplomatic consequences that they predicted would follow. My priors are that Kennan had a relatively good grasp of Russia's imperatives here.
Not to be uncharitable but I think the persistent widespread belief that NATO is no threat has multiple roots that I disagree with.
NATO is defensive and has good intentions: states don't take other states at their word and Russians especially don't trust the West. Rightly or wrongly, they perceive NATO expansion as based on a lie ("not one inch") and a conqueror's peace
More like 1b: well, NATO has good intentions and tough. This one is more of a normative argument which I have less to disagree with but isn't really a good look into Russian psychology then.
States with so many nuclear weapons need not worry either way, they have deterrence: states don't like to give inches, cause it leads to miles. During the height of the Cold War both states had vastly more nukes yet cared about conventional armaments and proximity (the US nearly ended the world over missiles in Cuba).
That said, I've been getting more and more convinced by the "land bridge to Crimea" mundane theory as a direct motivator.
Russia has no reasonable fear that NATO would launch some sort of land invasion of their internationally recognized territory because they have nuclear deterrent. America theoretically being able to put nuclear missiles closer to Russia doesn't erase that deterrent. Proximity of missiles mattered way more in 1962 when nuclear armed submarines and ICBMs we're just getting started. Also in the post WWII era there was this thought that winning a nuclear exchange was a thing that mattered, where now I don't think there's any Foreign Policy goal the American public would be willing to tolerate once city getting nuked in order to accomplish, so as long as you can credibly threaten that you're safe.
Russia has a totally reasonable fear that NATO is in the process of turning them from a global super power into an impotent commodities provider. But I also think it's totally unreasonable for Russia to expect to remain a regional hegemon in light of it's economic weakness. If you insist on trying to dominate part of Europe with an economy smaller than Italy's or Brazil's you have to use force or skulduggery because you're not outcompeting the EU on trade deals. If you could frame America & NATO as foreign colonizers to unite against maybe you could do it, but former SSR's are the strongest supporters of Ukraine precisely because they see Russia as a threat to dominate them not as a force to protect them from outside powers.
If Russia is determined to dominate it's neighbors internal politics without the soft power to compete with America or the EU then it is resolving to use force eventually.
During and after the Cold War both powers had credible deterrent. Yet they maintained large conventional forces. Why, if war was so unthinkable? My take: so they didn't get pushed on the conventional front until they were trapped in a nasty nuclear dilemma.
As I said: nations don't like to take chances or give inches.
The US was ahead in missiles. There was no way the Soviets would "win". The Soviets weren't trying to "win" a nuclear exchange, they were trying to balance against Jupiter missiles in Turkey.
Kennedy knew this: IIRC there's record of him using that exact example to highlight how escalatory Russian behavior was and he was told "um...yeah, we did that". He had to have known why Russia wanted balance (not annihilation)
He...didn't change his mind. No inches.
They're not a global superpower, though it flatters them to think they are. But yes, they are afraid of being knocked out of the ranks of the Great Powers.
That is a serious strategic fear. Wars have been fought for less and the US would raise holy hell it got knocked down to a Great Power, let alone out of those ranks altogether. Look at the absolute paranoid and forceful behavior it engaged in when it had marginal losses in the Cold War when some random Third World country flirted with communism (Which often harmed their own people more than anyone else)
Again: states don't like to give inches.
If the US can knock Russia down that far, they can try to knock them even farther down. While I'm sure there's a normative argument to the effect of "you deserve it" or "it wouldn't be necessary if Russia wasn't imperialist", states don't want to be at the mercy of other states if they can help it. Regardless of whether that state thinks it's more benevolent and knowing.
Maybe. As I said: I disagree less with the normative argument. But I don't think it says much about how Russians see this (the denial in the OP was about Russian perceptions of the threat - which is a very common thing, especially now )
Mainly, to project conventional power elsewhere. The Soviets invaded or threatened to invade their "allies" in every decade of the Cold War. The US army fought overseas in every decade of the Cold War, including the Soviet-style invasion of Grenada (though one followed by a restoration of democracy, not a feature of Soviet invasions...).
They had troops in Europe, where it almost certainly would have gone nuclear.
Depends where. Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, plus a threatened invasion of Poland, did not create a serious nuclear risk. US intervention to e.g. stop a communist revolution in France or Italy would not have caused a serious nuclear risk.
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