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 -
There is always this stupid idea that if only we were a bit kinder with those leaders (be it Hitler, Putin or others), if we had made just one or two small concessions, there would have been no war. But this is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of their regime. Whatever you give them, they see as a sign of weakness, a proof that they can push harder. You negociated with me about Syria, so that I can do anything there? I will also take Ukraine. You give me Danzig? I will also take Alsace. It's a game where they can only win: either you give them what they want, and they are stronger and can push for more, or you don't, and they get a casus belli.
EDIT:
By the way, I remember quite precisely what happened, and the jews were not responsible of it. All of America wanted this war. The people who opposed it took a ton of shit. You probably wanted this war yourself. But I guess it is easier to blame the stupid choices you made on the jews.
I'm sorry but I think your take is just pure garbage. It flattens the complexity of geopolitical motivations and concerns into a childish cartoon with designated evil people and designated good people, rather than looking at the incredibly complex historical dynamics which play into real world conflicts. Not only that, you've gotten the situation on the ground entirely wrong - it was the US trying to manufacture a casus belli, with the Russians not actually needing one (given that they were there in response to a request from the government of the area). Similarly, if you think that Putin simply decided to invade the Ukraine on a whim as a result of the US failing to stop him in Syria, you're just flat out wrong - the conflict in the Ukraine started before that.
But worse, this kind of belief and idea actively makes peace more difficult to achieve. When you just say that some category of people are arbitrarily bad and negotiating with them isn't possible, you close off dialogue and prevent the acquisition of the kind of perspective that can actually find a non-violent resolution. When you spend time and effort understanding why other people act the way they do and the factors motivating them, you can understand what they consider to be an existential threat. When you recognise other people as rational actors in their own set of circumstances and strive to understand that context you can find ways to compromise and allow both sides to get a portion of what they want. But your view? When you treat other people as simple villains that cannot be negotiated with, only held down with brute force, then it is impossible to understand what motivates them and why they do the things they do. There's no possibility for compromise with the two-dimensional villain that you've conjured up in your head, just war and pure physical force - which makes me glad that we do not live in the world you are imagining.
This is such an absurd strawman I question how seriously you believe this. Yes, of course Putin (and Hitler, and Stalin, and al-Assad, and every other dictator) is not a cartoon villain who acts only in a simple reactive manner. But he does act according to cause and effect. He wanted Ukraine for a long time, for a lot of reasons. No one said "He simply decided to invade Ukraine on a whim." It's perfectly reasonable to think that the lack of response in one place emboldened him to push forward his Ukraine goals.
I am curious what compromise you think is possible that doesn't amount to "Give him everything he wants"?
I simply took the OP at their word and did not try to sanewash their comments. To wit:
Framing the idea of dealing with or negotiating with people as being a sign of weakness that simply results in them taking advantage of you means that brute force "diplomacy" is the only option that's left. What other conclusion can be drawn from the claim that giving them anything at all represents an unacceptable loss? Maybe I should have just sanewashed his comment and assumed he meant something else, but I don't see what other conclusions to draw from a paragraph that essentially says that any form of negotiation is a mug's game that leads to them winning every time.
But you actually raised real objections in your post so I'll answer them.
First of all, the US didn't just "negotiate" with Putin in Syria. They attempted an invasion of the country in an effort to instigate a regime-change and replace Assad, and then failed. Russian naval forces have been in the country since the cold war, and the two nations have been allied for a long time. Russia correctly saw that the deposing of Assad would change the situation in the Middle East in a way that was very much not in their favour, and so they did their best to make sure Assad remained in power. The US is in this case an aggressive, invading military power that still has troops in Syria, and they are there without the permission of the region's government. How can you possibly interpret this as the US "negotiating" with Putin? The US military tried to achieve their goals and failed, then accepted the situation because there wasn't anything else they could do about it. This is akin to trying to assault somebody, losing the resulting fight, and then claiming that because you "negotiated" with them and let them keep their wallet, they are now emboldened to be even more aggressive towards you in the future.
I don't really think this is true - I think that Russia's preferred outcome would have been for Ukraine to remain a neutral borderzone between them and NATO forces. Russia made it abundantly clear that they saw the placing of missile interdiction systems on their front door to be an existential threat, and I don't even think they're wrong to do so. But I don't even need to get into the weeds of psychoanalysis where I work out the motivations behind a major power like Russia in order to resolve this argument - I can, even without authoritative sources, definitively state that what happened in 2015 Syria did not play any role in motivating Russia's 2014 seizure of Crimea from Ukraine (which is itself not even the first outbreak of conflict in the current dispute).
Firm security guarantee that Ukraine does not join NATO nor host NATO forces/missile systems, and an end to the attacks on the breakaway republics and Crimea. Beyond that, a rescindment of the sanctions placed upon Russia and a return of their seized assets. I think that's a fair compromise and would satisfy the Russians, even if the US wouldn't be happy about it. Ukraine would even be free to join the EU in this case too.
Leaving aside your questionable version of history, your argument now is essentially that Putin is justified in what he did. This isn't an argument about whether he's a cartoon villain acting irrationally with whom it's impossible to negotiate (which is what you accused the OP of believing). It's an argument about whether or not he's in the wrong. My objection was that you cast the OP's argument as a strawman. I disagree with your (Russian) version of events in Syria and Ukraine, but that's an entirely different point of contention.
I don't appreciate the casting of my understanding of the situation as "Russian". I am not Russian nor do I live there, nor am I especially invested in their victory - though not for lack of trying, given how frequently I offer to bet that Crimea will not be retaken by Ukraine. I think that they're almost certainly going to end up the victors in the current conflict, but that's just my best understanding of the situation rather than what I want to happen (which is, for the record, peace).
As for justification, I don't think that's precisely the right word, but it does fit. I absolutely think that if you look at the situation in Ukraine in a broader historical context, going back to the Maidan and the troubles that led up to it, you can gain a much better understanding of the situation and why Putin is doing what he is doing - and having done that is why I object so strongly to sophomoric takes like the outcome of the Syrian conflict travelling backwards through time and informing Russian strategy in the past.
Well, it seems to follow "we must surrender to Russia" which is good for Russia and bad for everyone else.
Especially
was weird. It is quite clear that preferred outcome for Putin and other similar russians would be recreation of USSR or larger.
Then next step would be to send totally-not-russian-army into Kherson. Or maybe meddle in Estonia.
Russians would be happy. But I see no reason to expect that they would hold to it better than to Budapest Memorandum.
No, this is a more general principle. If Russia was messing around in Mexico or Canada I'd come down on the side of the US - but right now it is the US empire getting involved in a nation that is immediately adjacent to Russia.
Again, I disagree. Russian strategy right now recognises that they cannot overcome the current hegemon by themselves, which is why they're focused on strengthening their ties with China and laying the groundwork for a multipolar world. They're not interested in recreating the USSR, but the current conflict was motivated by real and serious security concerns (if you disagree, ask yourself how the US government would react if what happened in Ukraine happened in Mexico or Canada).
For what purpose? Russia had a very clear and definite set of reasons to go into Ukraine, and I don't see those reasons existing for Estonia. And isn't Kherson in Ukraine anyway?
Why would they break an agreement which you already said would make them happy?
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