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.
Did you expect full front collapse in 3 hours? I know, measured by Russian performance, who famously took Kiev in 3 days, there's nothing to boast about. But seriously, talking about "little to show" within days of first engagement over a thousand km sized fronts is so non-serious I am struggling between me failing to recognize sarcasm and some kind of world model which would make any sense of it. Or you're just eager to skip forward to the part where the stupid Ukrs finally recognize they should stop resisting and sign something, no matter what, so we can move back to arguing about pronouns.
Because they didn't crush the whole Russian army in less than a week? Right.
Surprise? Are we talking about some alternative universe here? This offensive is being talked about for half a year at least, the only person who could be surprised by anything here is the one who has been in a coma for a year.
They are as much or little "on their toes" now as they were then. Russian army has deep structural problems, which didn't go anywhere, but it is better manned and supplied (quantitatively), because Russia is big and can sell to China tons of hydrocarbons and buy exploding things (and/or expendable thugs) with the proceeds. This basic reality hasn't changed. Fighting such army costs, and Ukrainians will bear those costs, just as they did before, and there's nothing to be done about it except trying to make these costs as low as possible. Which, by the way, means going slowly and deliberately, instead of sending human waves for slaughter, as Russia loves to do.
Ukraine would be complete and utter idiots to accept any such deal, because that's exactly that they had on 23 February 2022 - tons of papers signed and "security guarantees". They would be even bigger idiots if they thought "next time" NATO would do significantly more than they are doing this time, because there are some "guarantees". If the West would withdraw the help, it would be much harder for Ukrainians to fight, but they don't have an alternative - until Russia has not given up their plans to destroy them or rendered unable to fight any more, signing anything for them means giving Russians time to buy more weapons and try again.
People expected Operation Overlord. Except people forget that the first major objective, Cherbourg, was captured 20 days after the D-Day, the troops didn't just drive straight to Paris from Omaha Beach.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link