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 -
Are you quite sure Europe wants that?
Time after time, I've seen pro-Russians portray the situation as the US dragging a kicking and screaming Europe into an anti-Russian confrontation it wants, but at least in most European countries, there has been extremely widespread support for anti-Russia sanctions and material support for Ukraine right from the starting months of the war, also lasting (in perhaps a bit more subdued form) through last winter (which pro-Russians widely predicted to be a trump card - "the weak Europeans will surely yield in an INSTANT when they experience a bit of a freeze without Russian gas!") This support has extended even beyond traditionally anti-Russian nation (us, the Baltics, Poland), but of course these the sheer fact that these countries are in the EU would tend to powerfully influence the whole union to that direction.
Because the whole of post-WW2 order is based on countries invading other countries and annexing parts of them - which was the thing that sparked WW2 in the first place - happening ever again. No matter if they are "randomly redrawn" borders or whatever. Russia confirmed the existence of that border in the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union fell, and then blatantly violated that confirmation, and then proceeded to violate it more and more by declaring the annexation of four oblasts.
This can be argued for Crimea (though even in Crimea the secessionist party had been a marginal electoral force before the Russian invasion and annexation) or even for the pre-2022 separatist-occupied areas of Donbass (if only due to the anti-separation population moving out/being pushed out), but on what basis would one argue this for the four currently occupied oblasts in their full form? On the basis of the farcical referendums? In case of Zaporizhzhia the Russians didn't even occupy the full area of the territory where they were purporting to hold the referendum.
Russia was already moving towards China way before 2022. If anything the true problem currently is American belligerence re: Taiwan pushing China towards Russia.
This is My recollection as well, If anything Poland, the UK, and the Baltic States roped the US into supporting Ukraine rather than vice versa.
I understand that it is an article of progressive dogma that the US is the only nation on earth capable of exercising agency but as someone who does not subscribe to that dogma, I'm just not seeing it.
More options
Context Copy link
Can you elaborate on this a bit? From my perspective, Taiwan is a real, independent country and the United States has continued to tread carefully when we really should have made that incredibly clear back in the Reagan era when China didn't have the ability to do anything other squawk with embarrassed rage in response.
Why? What would the Americans and even the Taiwanese ever gain from this? Taiwan got very very wealthy from acting as the competent capitalist step-brother to China trying to explore capitalism. All this rhetoric about liberal democratic Taiwan against big bad oppressive China is quite new. Taiwan was also an oppressive military dictatorship for most of its history.
The main advantage of recognizing Taiwan as independent is it would make much harder for the PRoC to make kissy faces and get Taiwan to rejoin the mainland without a fight. That looked vaguely possible for a while, but I think at this point it's off the table.
So no advantage at all as you admit this was a “vague possibility” for a while and nothing more. And Taiwan was supposed to make a mortal enemy of their only geographic neighbour and the source of a great deal of its wealth, for this? That they would possibly voluntarily join PRC?
I am sorry but what you are saying doesn’t make any sense at all.
Taiwan IS a mortal enemy of their only geographic neighbor; nothing is likely to change that except the fall of one government or another. So considering that a consequence is not sensible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What do we get from reneging on the One China Policy?
In my view we got the best side of that deal, by far. We get to treat Taiwan as its own country in everything but name and state visits. We even get to have visa-free travel agreements, and embassies, though they're not called embassies. China gets to save face with Taiwan being "part of China" in name only.
Had we gone another way and ended up with hostilities the RoC would have certainly lost its "outlying islands" which are accessible by bridge from the mainland.
More options
Context Copy link
Of course if PRC actually invades Taiwan it's a bad thing. It would destabilize the entire region, throw the economy into a tailspin, bring superpowers to conflict etc. EU's proper role would be mediation and conflict avoidance.
Still, formally, as far as I know, the Taiwan/China situation continues to be the same as before - the two countries agree that they're a part of "China", even though they - again, formally - disagree on whether the PRC or the ROC is the valid government. The same arrangement is confirmed by external parties, including the US, and even if the current Taiwan govt is led by the pro-independence side, they still haven't declared independence. As such, the situation is different from Ukraine. Again, while the US maintains One China policy, stuff like Pelosi making a very state-visit-like visit to Taiwan is a destabilizing factor in itself.
Of course, it must be admitted that I don't live in a vacuum myself, and for me, personally, well, Russia is right over the border and Taiwan is on the other side of the world. I just can't bring myself to care about these two situations to the same degree.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The start of this whole loathsome story was with the US trying to bring Ukraine into NATO back in 2008, which was vehemently opposed by France and Germany, the principal European countries. Eventually they got the US to water it down into 'when, not if, not now'. The US was the one providing lethal military aid to Ukraine pre-war, 90% of all aid pre-war.
Missing a not, anyway this is just a made up principle. Annexation is beyond the pale but we can bomb various countries into anarchy, set up puppet governments in them, divide countries into smaller parts, place troops in countries without their permission? We can meddle in the internal workings of other countries in ways that make Russiagate look like even more of a joke (looking at you Yeltsin). But as long as there are no annexations, it's fine?
This is like saying you can march into someone's house, shoot the owner, take their property, re-educate their children, give the property to nearby friends, squat on it indefinitely - but as long as you don't write your name down on the deed it's OK. No sane person would stand by this principle. Anyway, if Russia said 'oh we're not going to annex Ukraine, just conduct regime change', there would be no difference in the reaction from the West. Annexation is clearly not the issue here.
Besides, where is it written in the UN charter that countries can't be annexed or that invasions are illegal? The UN charter says nothing about 'no annexations', the Security Council is the highest authority on these matters. Whatever the Security Council decides is binding. If the Security Council can't make up its mind, then there is nothing left to say.
The whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, is officially targeted for NATO integration and has been for years. For example, in 2021 the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership affirmed the territorial integrity of Ukraine and its ownership of Crimea. It said that Ukraine was going to get 'full integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions' which means NATO and EU. The US was helping Ukraine finish the necessary reforms and so on. It's just putting two and two together: full integration into Euro-Atlantic, full recognition of pre-2014 borders, plus weapons = the military support is to retake everything: Luhansk, Crimea and so on. Now maybe the US doesn't quite want to go that far in real terms, yet that's what they're formally saying, that's what is written down in treaties and in their rhetoric.
Sure and the US has been egging them on all the way. There's a haunting Biden clip from the early 2000s where, when Putin says that he'll work more with China because the US is overbearing, Biden says something like 'good luck with that - there is no replacement for the US, ultimately you have to come to the table whether you like it or not'. There were opportunities to work with Russia in the war on terror but the US just squandered them, pulling out of the ABM treaty for instance. What is that if not a giant red flag?
Yes. Wars of annexation materially strengthen aggressors and incentivize further war, they are a sort of geopolitical positive feedback loop. In the modern era going to war makes you weaker and poorer, less capable of waging war rather than more. Sometimes countries are willing to do it anyway, and of course there is gaming of the boundaries, but keeping the feedback loop negative rather than positive helps stop this getting too out of hand. How harmful (or beneficial) the war is to the country being invaded isn't really relevant to that, the important thing is that it be harmful to the aggressor. For instance the invasion of Iraq imposed a cost rather than a benefit on the U.S. (as even most of its proponents knew it would) so it didn't result in a series of more U.S. invasions, but the Russian invasion of Crimea was sufficiently beneficial that it chain-reacted into the invasion of the rest of Ukraine.
Wars must have no winners, only losers, and to ensure this continues to remain the case countries are willing to take losses themselves so that attempted wars of annexation leave the aggressor indisputably worse-off. Complaining that countries are "irrationally" willing to harm themselves for the sake of deterrence is deeply silly, it's basic game-theory and central to the logic of modern war. If Russia thought countries wouldn't really be willing to harm themselves for no benefit besides vague principles of game-theoretic value, that's just another way that Russia's status as a low-trust society has made them weaker.
Did they know that? I remember that time well and I recall many, many hours of debate with advocates of the Iraq war who spent a great deal of time telling me about the many benefits of victory in the Iraq war.
Sometimes I wish I had kept in touch with some of the more passionate voices. I'd be interested in hearing their perspective now.
More options
Context Copy link
But they weren't saying this. Nobody in the US was saying officially that the Iraq war was going to weaken America but that they should do it anyway. The opponents of the Iraq war were saying this would be a quagmire, cause all kinds of problems. The proponents were saying 'let's get rid of Saddam it'll be easy and stabilize the Middle East, spread democracy, make new allies...'. Now the proponents weren't exactly honest about their true goals and were not aligned with US national interests... But anyway, if you march into a country and turn it into a vassal, it's supposed to strengthen your alliance bloc since they then can contribute to further wars.
Helping Iraqis and the Middle East doesn't significantly materially strengthen the U.S., it's expending U.S. resources and power for the sake of charity. This is inherently self-limiting, the U.S. has resources to waste on things like this but in the end it is left with less capability to wage war than it started with. Having Iraq as an ally or vassal was never going to be valuable enough to be worth a war, even if it was as easy as proponents thought it would be, and proponents of the war instead justified the war in terms of humanitarian (Saddam, democracy) or threat-reduction (WMDs) concerns. And the U.S. didn't even really turn Iraq into a vassal, it's a democracy that has been at times vocally critical of the U.S. and there is no guarantee that U.S./Iraq relations won't worsen further in the future. It would have been far easier to turn it into an ally in some other way, like buddying up to Saddam or replacing him with some other dictator. Proponents of the Iraq war didn't say they would turn Iraq into a vassal, they said they would turn it into a democracy, and that is indeed what they did. It was the opponents of the Iraq war who said the U.S. would materially benefit, the "No blood for oil" people, but that was never remotely realistic and the proponents didn't say it was.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The actual principle is that the United States can do what it wants because of its military capacity. There are many fig leaves layered over the top of this, but the reality is that the principle that governs the difference between the United States and Russia is that those that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. American diplomats and politicians claim otherwise, often with sweet language about democracy and such, but the reality is quite apparent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The American order has been based on bombing and fighting constantly. Arguing that Iraq was better because they have forced Sunnis and Shias to stay in the same country is a stretch. Tearing Libya into a patch of warlords nominally under the same government was far worse. If anything Russia is giving the people in Donetsk citizenship and integrating them into the Russian medical system. The US left Yemen as ruins while taking no responsibility. Was forcing Pashtuns and Tajiks to live in Afghanistan together really a great humanitarian success?
Trump is bragging about destroying Venezuela and talking about how the US should have stolen their oil.
The US doesn't change borders, it forces countries to submit and then blocks medical supplies to the country if it doesn't obey.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link