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 -
What is so wrong about caring about one's own interests, as opposed to the interests of others? The 'elites' are the ones going out and randomly, incompetently wrecking various countries or behaving incredibly recklessly. Standing aside while others fight is sound policy. We should not get involved in other people's problems. Firstly, it's expensive and makes enemies. Secondly, we don't necessarily understand what's going on and can't necessarily fix it. Thirdly, it benefits special interests and socializes losses. Everyone is poorer due to energy shortages or debt incurred by these wars - the benefits go to military contractors, bureaucracies, favoured NGOs and PMCs.
Just consider the last 20 years of military adventurism. What did we get? A pro-Iranian (wrecked) Iraq, wrecked Libya, wrecked Syria, wrecked Afghanistan. All this came with a huge price tag and a long list of new enemies. The military establishment is not very smart, nor are they good at winning. They are very good at wrecking and lying.
This is what happens when we listen to the 'moral high ground, think of the civil society' camp. We get wrecked countries and 12-figure bills. Why should Ukraine be any different? Long, expensive conflict which doesn't improve our position at all. The realist school has warned and warned that getting involved in Ukraine was a bad idea, that it would make the Russians very angry, that they'd rather wreck the country than let it fall into our hands. They've been totally vindicated. Russia is wrecking Ukraine, missile by missile and refugee by refugee.
How hard would it be to... do nothing? If we had done nothing for the last 20 years we'd be richer, safer and stronger.
People will go on and on about how we have to stand up and support the 'international rules based order' - the biggest crock of shit. What are the rules (is there any clear law anywhere)? Who wrote them? Who agreed to them? Apparently it's OK when we invade or bomb countries, yet it's illegal for Russia to invade its neighbours? This is arbitrary nonsense.
Let's support our interests, which are not present in Ukraine. There's nothing we need in Ukraine, there's no need to get hysterical about it. Ukraine is a core Russian interest and a peripheral interest for the West as a whole. Foreign policy should distinguish between core and peripheral interests.
No, it hasn't been. A lot of people demolished arguments of Mearsheimer. An example of critique:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XXmwyyKcBLk
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wjU-ve4Pn4k
I won't be repeating them, as it's just exhausting.
That doesn't demolish anyone, they just repeat tired old myths like the 'security guarantees' that Ukraine was given in exchange for transferring nukes they didn't control (what is a permissive action link?) to Russia. People don't even bother looking at what the agreement says, they don't bother reading the wikipedia page, they just lie! Ukraine was not given any security guarantee:
Seeking security council action is meaningless if it's against a veto-power.
You get your arguments from youtubers like 'Spaghetti Kozak Media & Heavy Industries LLC', I get mine from published authors (who predicted this whole affair years in advance). These people don't understand Mearsheimer, I doubt they've read any of his work. They grossly mischaracterize what he's saying: 'Europe is a poker chip'. At no point did he say this, it doesn't even have any meaning! Is Kraut talking about France, Germany, the EU? Who knows! At no point do they even repeat Mearsheimer's thesis from directly relevant books like 'The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities'.
It's also deeply ironic for these people to cast themselves in the moral high ground over the cold realists when the idiotic, reflexive interventionism they support has gotten an enormous number of people killed.
Argument from Authority. I thought academics can be trusted, see where they lead us with lockdowns!
But Spaghetti Kozak Media demonstrated much closer knowledge of Ukrainian affairs than Mearsheimer did — as someone who comes from this part of the world I can attest to this. I watched Mearsheimer's debate with Sykorsky — the dude is just ignorant. He did not predict anything — in fact, he said Putin won't attack, because he would be too stupid otherwise.
I don't remember when the US intervened into the war directly? They follow the spirit and the letter of the Memorandum by "providing assistance to Ukraine", and Russia broke the memorandum.
In Russian and Ukrainian versions of the documents, it is not "assurances", but "guarantees":
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/United_Nations_Treaty_Collection._Volume_3007._I-52241.pdf
page 7: Меморандум о гарантиях. Signed by American and British representatives as well. So please, study the matter a bit more, before opining. And do not trust some academics, they spew garbage, be it Fauci or Mearsheimer.
There's a reason people publish books (with footnotes and references) and don't just hold debates. Books and articles let people develop nuanced ideas over text, thinking things through carefully. Mearsheimer's record on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria is impressive. Furthermore, he says that it would be hard for Russia to conquer Ukraine:
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
Mearsheimer predicted exactly what happened, he said that Russia lacked the power to conquer Ukraine. He said that, if the current Western policy continued, Ukraine would be devastated, Russia-West relations would be more hostile (which clearly implies some kind of invasion or use of force). 100% correct and he was writing in 2014. And you say he's ignorant?
You first. Ukraine was not given a security guarantee. There's no debate about this, it's black and white. Read the very link you posted. Read it carefully, unlike the youtuber you cited who thought there was a security guarantee.
There was no security guarantee. And it has equal validity in all languages, linguistics are irrelevant.
Yep, page 7: Меморандум о гарантиях
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/гарантия
Now, in the articles it is not said that the US will intervene on behalf of Ukraine if it is attacked. It’s says about assistance. Which the US provided so far.
While Mearsheimer talks about NATO being a threat to Russia, I can't take him seriously. Here, read this, maybe you are unfamiliar with this concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
He correctly predicted that Russia is a threat to Ukraine, but he incorrectly identified the reason for why it is, and thus his arguments do not hold. They are a threat because Putin, and a large part of Russian political class, views Russians and Ukrainians one people that should be reunited, Anschluss-style. NATO has no place in this picture, aside from being a potential deterrent.
No, he said "Putin is too smart to try that".
There's a distinction between a security guarantee and security assistance. You are saying assistance, assistance, assistance... I am saying that there was no guarantee, contra your youtuber. These are critical distinctions! These are the reasons we have books, papers, written by people who know a thing or two about what they're talking about as opposed to just regurgitating talking points. Mearsheimer knows things that youtubers do not - hence why he was right about Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Ukraine.
When and in what context? It's quite clear from the text that Mearsheimer writes that Putin might try to invade. Mearsheimer said that Putin lacks the power to conquer all of Ukraine, not that he wouldn't invade.
Again and again Mearsheimer states that Ukraine is a core strategic interest for Russia, that they'll withstand considerable suffering to ensure NATO does not have a presence there. It logically follows that Mearsheimer thinks that Russia would invade Ukraine, as I said above. For example, here's a quote:
If Mearsheimer said something like 'Putin would not invade with a goal to conquer and permanently annex all Ukraine' then that fits with the rest of what he's written and published. If he says 'Putin would not invade Ukraine in any circumstances' then that fits with what you're arguing about Mearsheimer being ignorant.
If this was the case, then Putin would've done something about it earlier and people would've written about it pre-2014. Where are the scholars talking about Putin's desire to conquer Ukraine pre-2008? You don't find it suspicious that the Russo-Georgian war happens immediately after the US says Ukraine and Georgia will join the alliance eventually? How convenient that Putin becomes a Russian pan-nationalist precisely when NATO enlargement gets closest to Russia.
Mearsheimer has demonstrated that he doesn't have expertise on Eastern Europe many times in his speeches and debates, there is no need to read all the corpus of a crank, it is enough just to listen to his speeches.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Like here he is denying that "Putin is bent on creating a greater Russia" (29 minute slide). Demonstrably false.
33 minute slide: he claims that the west's response "so far" is "doubling down". Now, it was 7 years ago. The US started to provide significant assistance to Ukraine, and sanctioned some Russians only after Malaysia airliner was being shot down by Russians (as confirmed by the International Court). How the West should have reacted? Especially, when Russia denied any involvement?
39 minute slide: he claims that Ukraine should guarantee language rights for minorities. Well, if Mearsheimer knew anything about Ukraine, he would have known about
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-truth-behind-ukraine-s-language-policy/
Kivalov-Kolesnichenko language law. Just a bunch of nonsense from an old crank.
No, why do you think that? He tried to pull Belarus and Ukraine into "Union State". It's a well-known fact, maybe not to you, or Mearsheimer.
As suspicious as when a robber tries to rob a bank the day before a new security measures are introduced. The bank security must have provoked him! Russia didn't wait 2008 to try to encroach on Crimea when Ukraine was under pro-Ru president:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict
And he did say in his lecture:
So, I guess, a win for the US? As that's exactly what happened, that is true.
That literally proves his point, that Ukraine in 2014 was moving to suppress the Russian language and in 2018 they did do precisely that by repealing the law!
Do what Mearsheimer said this whole time and make it clear that Ukraine wasn't going to be part of NATO, sweep it under the carpet (like the enormous numbers of people dying in Yemen for example). That would have avoided this whole war. But no, they doubled down instead providing more arms, more NATO integration, more training and so on. Besides, when the US shoots down an airliner, nobody gets sanctioned. Accidents happen.
Not with troops. Putin only started intervening overseas in 2008 and there's a clear reactive tendency. Georgia, 2008, right after NATO membership is promised in some future time, right after the emboldened Georgians go in on South Ossetia. Then in 2014, right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian government gets deposed. One tiny border dispute in 2003 does not an imperialist make.
So I was completely right! You didn't grasp the distinction in what Mearsheimer is saying, the difference between invasion and conquest. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand what Mearsheimer is talking about or you've been deliberately mischaracterizing his ideas.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link