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 -
Nobody seems to talk about the RU-UA war here anymore. I guess it's because we're saturated with it everywhere else.
Yet given that Ukraine has launched what is unquestionably the largest offensive since the Kharkov surge in late September when it took back wide swathes of territory, I believe a status update is warranted.
First, it is immediately clear that the Russians are much more prepared this time. The area that Ukraine took back in autumn was barely defended by a rag-tag group of volunteer militias. That was a big lapse by the Russian general command, which also led to the big mobilisation drive. This time is different.
Even pro-UA accounts like Julian Röpcke are conceding that Ukraine is losing lots of armored vehicles with very marginal gains. Western officials like the CIA chief or the US foreign secretary have all pointed out that the aftermath of the offensive will shape upcoming negotiations. Given that Ukraine has little to show for their offensive thus far, this inevitably casts a dark shadow on any prospects for large territorial compromises. Why would the Russians give the Ukrainians something at the negotiating table which they cannot gain on the battlefield?
To my mind, the best that Ukraine can hope for now is a stalemate. This war has shown that in the era of ubiquitous ISR capabilities, trying to surprise your enemy is much harder if he's on his toes (which the Russians weren't in the autumn, but they are now). Consequently, offensives are simply far costlier and harder. The Russians had the same problems, which is why capturing Bakhmut took such an absurdly long time.
For those of us who would want to see a negotiated settlement, the reality is that neither side is running out of money or arms. Russia is spending a moderate amount of money and the West can keep supplying Ukraine enough to keep going for years if the decision is made that defensive action is the way to go. The only way this war ends is if the West tells Ukraine to give in and accept large territorial losses in return for a settlement and possibly security guarantees. Such an outcome would be nearly impossible to sell to Ukraine's domestic public and would almost certainly end the career of whoever was leading the country, including Zelensky. Whatever comes out of this war, I'm not optimistic about Ukraine's long-term prospects.
I also think we should've had more discussion of the war.
This caught my eye: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/singapore-speech-hrvp-borrell-shangri-la-dialogue_en
Some Brussels swamp creature swans out to East Asia and says many banal things but also this:
700 billion euros! And there's economic damage in addition to that. 700 billion is just the cost of the bandage for the stab wound (self-inflicted I might add). Europe could've chosen to ignore the US hectoring them into sanctioning Russia, as Hungary did. And what is the cost of the bleeding? What is the cost outside of the EU? Germany and Britain are in a recession, as I recall.
What is the point of it all? Why are we defending borders that were randomly redrawn by the Soviets (in the case of Crimea), why care? Why are we supplying weapons so that Kiev can hold onto predominently Russian-speaking territories whose population mostly doesn't even want to be part of Ukraine? It goes rather against the Kosovo/Palestine/Kurds principle, if principle is an appropriate word to apply in relation to foreign policy.
This whole operation only makes sense if you start with the assumption that Russia is an enemy to be crushed. Then it makes sense to arm the Ukrainians to maximize the number of dead Russians at a relatively low cost. Relatively low, compared to a nuclear war. The War in Afghanistan probably killed more Russians/$ thanks to the sheer amount of poppies produced under our abysmal occupation government.
Anyway, trying to crush Russia has all kinds of bad effects. It pushes Russia towards China and Iran, solidifying an anti-Western axis that spans Eurasia. Our oil sanctions have unsettled OPEC, who might reasonably see a danger in the West trying to crush socially conservative, autocratic states that engage in 'illegal wars' and weaken their energy leverage. Saudi-Iranian rapprochement is accelerating rapidly and is brokered by China: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/persian-gulf-states-to-form-joint-navy-in-coordination-with-china/
And then there are all the problems Russia can cause for us. Do we want Russian missiles being contributed to China during a Pacific war? Do we want enormous numbers of troops and considerable airpower tied down in Europe, just in case some 'volunteers' move across the border and set up shop in Estonian towns that border Russia? That's a precedent that the Polish Volunteer corps set in Belgorod. Do we want Russian energy and agriculture powering a gigantic mobilized Chinese war machine? Are we really confident in funding a war of attrition against Russia of all countries?
We can't really back down now that Leopards and Bradleys are aflame in Ukraine but it is not clear how any of this is in the national interests of most Western countries. We could've just ignored the whole thing, chose not to have an opinion on Ukraine in 2008, in 2014 in 2018 or 2022. It could be swept under the carpet, like the war in Yemen. Without Nuland, without NATO proposals, without Western training for the Ukrainian military, would there be a long and grinding war? It may well be in the interests of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon to pursue a foreign policy full of exciting conflicts and intensify rivalries, yet it is not so good for people with gas bills, fertilizer needs and taxes to pay.
Russia's nukes are fine, their submarines are fine and their airforce is lightly attrited. Their army is still mostly intact, even if it has been greatly weakened.
The US military is the smallest, oldest and least trained it has been since before WWII. The US nuclear triad is absolutely ancient, submarines are old, the US doesn't even make cruisers any more, B52s are going through another upgrade cycle. The US military manufacturing sector was hit bad by the wars in the Middle East. The US has largely kept Reagan's military in order while fighting peasants in the middle east for the past 20 years. Apache and black hawk helicopters are old.
The US has now become the patron for the Ukrainian military, which is about the size of the US Army. The Ukrainians are rapidly expending the mountain of equipment left behind from the Soviet era and will need to be supplied with western gear. The Ukrainians barely have any bases left, minimal military infrastructure is left, they have an extreme shortage of officers. Training and equipping Ukraine is going to be massive black hole for decades to come. Ukraine has already drained vast quantities of ammunition, spare parts, training capacity and basic military equipment.
The US isn't competing with Russia, the US is trying to establish global hegemony. Borrowing money at 5% interest to try to keep the largest military in Europe outside of Russia in a high state of readiness is going to swallow tonnes of resources.
While the US is expending more ATGMs, artillery shells, short range air defences in a week than they manufacture in a month, China is producing at a level comparable to all of NATO. In the 50s the US had fighter jets while much of the world was in the 1800s. Today the world is catching up, and US exceptionalism is harder to defend. France outclassed Vietnam and Algeria, yet they defeated the French empire.
The US made a big mistake of not establishing Limes. The US hasn't gone for natural and easily defensible borders, instead it pushes to the end of the Earth. The US therefore gets stuck wasting trillions defending villages in Afghanistan, will soon be spending a hundred billion a year defending Taiwan and will have to finance 1.5 times the French military to defend Europe's worst backwater.
This comment says nothing. All this money is negligible compared to the size of the American economy. It “sounds big”, that’s all. And I think it’s important, now and again, for any great power to show the world who’s boss. Looking at historical imperial lifespans it’s likely the US still has at least fifty years on top.
The industrial capacity is the biggest bottleneck. It doesn't matter how much money the US spends, there won't be enough artillery shells. The US is emptying it stock of air defence on the border to Iran, which clearly strengthens Iran's ability to hit back with missiles. Ukraine had thousands of SAM before the war which now are largely expended. Replacing s300 missiles with 5 million dollar Patriot missiles isn't only expensive, it requires those missiles to be manufactured. Add on the 250 s300 launchers and there is both economic and supply chain woes. Meanwhile, China outpaces the US in SAM production. The resources to train troops is strained. This war is causing a major NATO-supply chain shock. After three decades of failed wars, the US can't simultaneously keep the war in Ukraine going, dominate the middle east and keep China back. Latin American countries and the middle east have clearly moved away from the American orbit, with the US tied down in Taiwan and Ukraine.
As for cost, the cost has been enormous. It isn't just the tens of billions spent on weapons so far, it is going to be tens of billions per year for decades. Add 5% interest on these loans and the cost is significant. The inflation, caused by this war combined with the raised interest rates to combat it, far surpasses the direct cost of the weapons.
While empires don't die quickly, the US is clearly in a latter phase as it is stuck continuously fighting wars on the periphery while not being able to expand. Empires tend to decline when problems that need to be dealt with outstrips the ability to handle them. The Russia situation piled more problems on the US.
This is nothing for the US.
The inflation was caused by money printing during COVID. The war has contributed very little to inflation, at least in the US.
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