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 -
Long series of questions are rarely intended to actually be engaged in good faith, but here we go anyway.
Why do you think any American ally believes the Americans were trying to 'defend' Ukraine in the way they do treaty-allies?
Ukraine, after all, has and had no treaty with the Americans. It does not host American forces. Despite much diplomatic discussion, the Americans haven't even been the pre-eminent western diplomatic presence in Ukraine for the last decade- that's been mostly the Germans and the French. The US provided many years of low-key and occasionally mid-key diplomatic support, but not heavy weapons and never combat forces, nor the sort of security guarantees it openly states about others.
Why would allies think that America not having a defense alliance with another country means the US won't honor it's defense alliances with them?
...especially when what only a year ago was still being called 'the world's second strongest army' has been driven into a ditch thanks to American support without any sort of treaty-level involvement?
Why would any sane country think one has to do with the other?
Just start from what, exactly, 'defend' is supposed to mean in this context. Sanctions were a retaliation, not a shield- what do you think sane people thought they were supposed to do? Similarly, 'most powerful weapons' is, ahem, not what sane people would characterize a military support chain that, just the other week, finally consented to some modern tanks. Sane countries know that when the United States is very publicly saying it is NOT going to send it's most modern air force, ground force, missile force, other other forms of current kit, it's not a shock when it doesn't.
Meanwhile, people expect the US to protect their trade because the US routinely protects trade with counter-piracy patrols and sufficient pressure on states that might otherwise think of 'taxing' international waters that oil still ships through the strait of hormuz even when Iranian proxies attack Saudi oil infrastructure. They don't start forgetting that because the US didn't do something it didn't claim to be doing (ie. solving all their disputes).
Evidence that you ever had that perception from your allies.
Probably because the Americans demonstrated that, without even being directly involved in a conflict, they can decisively ruin the day of one of the strongest military powers in the world with a super-power's worth of military surplus... with just a fraction of the American military surplus.
If you're a potential military aggressor, that's a heck of a lot of reason not to be an aggressor against any American client, or even states the Americans might feel sympathetic enough to support. If you're a potential military target, that's an overkill amount of potential support for your defense needs, and well worth trying to solicit sympathy to the American public.
The value of "perception" and "credibility" is precisely in how they're so nebulous that it's too hard to pin down the concrete cost-benefit math.
They may be nebulous, but they are nebulous concepts held by the allies, not the speaker. Which American ally has indicated they hold the view ascribed to them in the hypothetical?
As-is, no indication was given that any sane ally actually held the view, as opposed to a projection that 'sane allies' would agree with the speaker's framing. This is disputed, because the questions evidenced a lack of perspective that allies would consider relevant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link