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 -
Stop switching between perspectives. The economic costs you highlight are borne by europe, while the ‘russia is no threat / it’s just some lines on a map’ narrative is only valid from beyond the atlantic. Ask the ukrainians, then the poles, if russia is no threat. That China might get strengthened because of OPEC etc, and therefore the US could lose the world top-dog competition, doesn’t even register as a concern. Europe’s needs are decidedly lower on maslow’s hierarchy. There's an existential security threat at the door.
The closer to Ukraine, the more immediate the threat, the greater the cost that can be borne. “We” think 700 billion is cheap. You worry about your own gas bill. The LNG substitution has worked out well for the US, so relax.
If you are in NATO, then you have nuclear weapons and huge, technologically advanced armies on your side. You are not facing any threat, existential or otherwise, from a Russia in normal conditions. Only in certain scenarios are you in danger - if there's a war between Russia and NATO for example. Why might there be a war between Russia and NATO? Perhaps if this war in Ukraine massively worsens Russia-NATO relations... Europe's hysteria about the threat from Russia is ill-informed and makes no strategic sense. They have huge conventional and significant nuclear forces.
Ukraine, Georgia and so on obviously faced a threat from Russia but this does not mean NATO countries face a threat from Russia. There are significant differences between small countries without nuclear patrons or allies who have ongoing conflicts with Russian minorities right next door to Russia and NATO members.
Just because the bear is eating fish, it does not follow that it will start eating killer whales or giant squid.
You’re oscillating between the idea that russia is no threat , and that russia is only a threat because it’s antagonized – you should pick one and stick to it. It's like the law of merited impossibility."They won't ever invade, and if they do, it's your own fault!".
Putin believes that he can strongarm and break up nato. I’m sure you of all people are familiar with the narrative – the west is weak, decadent, unwilling to fight for its ideals. Were he not bogged down in Ukraine, he might do something really stupid like send little green men down to estonia to liberate oppressed russian-speaking minorities. Ukraine is a dry run for the west’s response in case of such an emergency, and continuing support signalizes nato’s commitment to defend its members, therefore avoiding a direct war.
The European half of NATO has a lot of weapons, a lot of troops, a lot of everything except tactical nukes. They spend far more than Russia on their military. There is no reason to feel threatened when you are very well armed at all levels short of nuclear war.
Someone can not be a threat in normal circumstances, yet be dangerous if antagonized. This is not a contradiction.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, it signals that the West is ready to support any anti-Russian country next to Russia. If you're worried about little green men in Estonia, why not base troops in Estonia? Or maybe you could encourage the Baltics to be more tolerant to its Russian-speaking minority? I would've thought expelling people who didn't have sufficient grasp of Latvian is a rather odd approach for an EU embracing multiculturalism and 3rd world immigration: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russians-take-language-test-avoid-expulsion-latvia-2023-05-08/
If Russia didn't want russophones in neighboring countries expelled, they should stop using the existence of Russian speaking people in other countries as a casus belli.
More options
Context Copy link
‘X is no threat’ implies ‘regardless of X”s feelings’. Relying on the goodwill of russia for security is no security at all.
Sure, russia would get crushed, but overwhelming material inferiority didn’t prevent the japanese from declaring war. I could listen to you all day telling me how ironclad nato's alliance and how outclassed russia’s army is. Therefore I'm sure you realize ukrainian victory is inevitable, the only question is how long russia can hold on. The loser determines when the war ends.
Irrelevant point-scoring. We’ll do as we please, and if putin thinks otherwise, he should get used to the taste of our metal.
You do understand that the militaries of NATO are different to those of Ukraine, right? That they have equipment they're unwilling or incapable of transferring, like F-35s, Eurofighters, AWACs planes? That the numbers and training of forces under Ukrainian command and NATO command are wildly different?
There are distinctions here that you are not grasping. Russia's conventional forces are weaker than NATO's. Russia's tactical nuclear forces are stronger than NATO's. Russia's strategic nuclear forces are roughly on par, perhaps somewhat weaker than NATO's. NATO is not Ukraine, though there are certain connections. These facts are important if you want to understand the conflict in context. Upthread, people are calling Mearsheimer a crackpot but his depth and breadth of understanding is far beyond a lot of what I'm seeing in this thread.
We were comparing budgets to ascertain the likelihood of victory. Supplying an amount far greater than russia's military budget is no problem for nato. The capabilities ukraine are already getting are superior to those of russian armaments.
Mearsheimer believes europe has no agency, he writes for a purely american audience. In his view, Ukraine, poland, and the rest of europe are just chips to be exchanged to hopefully recreate the cold war. Even in purely power-realists terms, he didn’t get the memo that the russian federation is far weaker than the soviet union and the EU, and therefore incapable of maintaining the USSR’s sphere of influence. You’ll understand why a european doesn’t find his perspective helpful or convincing.
Yes and no - some parts of ISR, ATGMs are superior. Tanks like the 2A6 are roughly on-par with Russia, other weapons were obsolete decades ago like Leopard 1s. Furthermore, budgets are not the primary decisive factor in wartime, as our adventures in Afghanistan can attest.
This is a mischaracterization of what he's saying. Mearsheimer said that the Russians probably weren't strong enough to occupy Ukraine but that it was a core strategic interest to prevent Ukraine joining NATO so Putin would do whatever it takes to prevent it. Even if Russia does not have the power to conquer Ukraine, they do have the power to destroy it.
Mearsheimer has been consistently right about many important topics years in advance: the Iraq War being a disaster, US-China competition intensifying. Ignoring Mearsheimer is precisely how Europe and the US got into this mess, which has left everyone poorer and less safe. It's like watching a blind man running around, crashing into things, scorning the sighted watchers (Kennan and Mearsheimer) who warn him about electrical cables and walls.
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
That's blackmail and we must refuse. If they destroy ukraine, it's on them.
The EU is sensitive to potential threats near their home territory, that's why Ukraine will continue to be supported.
Equating of the world's sole superpower with some second rate regional power.
This is my favourite of the realist switcheroos. Ukraine is supposed to forget right and wrong, and yield to russian might. However, where the relationship between russia and the west is concerned, the same ten-to-one might differential is moot and russia has been unfairly wronged etc.
So, as the russians themselves said to the ukrainians, we don't have to listen to them, we have superior might. We'll do what we can, and russians will suffer what they must.
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
Yes and this is precisely why Ukraine wanted to join NATO in the first place.
The Ukrainians believed, correctly as it turns out, that Russia wanted them either dead or back under Moscow's thumb, and they really didn't want to be back under Moscow's thumb, so they acted accordingly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link