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/
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link