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 -
True, and I agree with that. But that argument has a very small payload, and I don’t accept that framing of the issue. I think if you look at it more through a geopolitical and International Relations (IR) lens, ask yourself what Putin should’ve done if you were in his situation. I can’t think of a good decision to make either, but his hands were tied.
Did you know that Yanukovych was the democratically elected President of Ukraine before the western backed Maidan coup happened?
I don't believe for a second that this was an inevitable war forced on a reluctant Putin. He had choices at every point - the most important of course being the choice to invade Ukraine, which he could have simply not done. Now, he may have decided that war was the best path forward for his interests - and maybe that was even a rational decision based on the information he had at the time. He certainly wouldn't have been alone in thinking that Ukraine would not be able to put up much of a fight. But I highly suspect that if he had known the path that the future would take, he would have chosen differently.
His hands were not tied. He made a decision - and it was the wrong decision.
Yes. I'm also extremely confident he no longer has popular support in Ukraine.
How do you choose to interpret the Minsk Accords? If the west is unwilling to respect your security concerns. The problem I see in your logic is that it fails to take the Russia side of the equation seriously. This is why I ask you the same question the pro-western side can’t answer either. Given the events leading up to the crisis, if you were Putin, what would you have done?
Interesting that you seem to suggest coups can be justified in light of this logic. It wouldn’t surprise me why the west would believe it. That’s the inherent nature of political hypocrisy and duplicity. But it’s also good to know that disputing democratic elections is now in vogue if the vote goes the wrong way. The US proved that when it disputed the results of the people in Donetsk and Luhansk.
If Russia would invade and conquer Spain they would complain about security concerns posed by Portugal.
Russia's problem is that they want to be treated as superpower. They are not. That is why West refused to treat their demands seriously (and they demanded for example demilitarization of Poland and similar nonstarters).
Try to unfuck Russia. Starting from stealing less.
Definitely avoid speedrunning population collapse in Ukraine and Russia by increasing scope of ongoing war.
Yes, for example I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, also when they were elected as long as there is plausible less murderous alternative. (note: not claiming that this specific one was genocidal, just giving a clear example where it would be blatantly correct if alternatives were exhausted)
I am not treating democracy procedures as the highest virtue. Note that in this specific cases current ruler had no support from population. Whether Maidan was a coup or not is an interesting question BTW.
Ukraine isn't Spain and wanting your security concerns to be respected w/re to a country which is on your border and <300mi from your capital isn't demanding someone pretend you're a superpower, but pretend you're a country with any sovereignty whatsoever, something which is clearly a bridge too far for the US and its satrapies.
there is no serious argument that Russia, or any country, doesn't have legitimate security concerns in what happens in the country directly on its border and arguing a country claiming such is akin to demanding the world treat them as a superpower is nonsense
are you under the impression that Russia is not far more unfucked now under Putin than before he came to power?
Russia swallowing up over 10,000,000 ethnic russians seems to be a good strategy to stave off population collapse
What pro-russian or at least neutral, non-Western sources of information do you use to form your opinion about this topic?
It so happens that Poland also borders Ukraine and in its vital security interests is reducing Russian influence there. And yes, this directly conflicts with Russian interests. You cannot satisfy both. To say nothing about Ukrainian security concerns which are far more serious than Russian one, given that Ukraine invading Russia was absurdity and Russia continues invasions and threats of invasions.
Demanding that only Russian security concerns should be treated seriously is absurd. Maybe it should be treated more seriously from realpolitik perspective if they would actually be superpower.
And it so happens that basically everyone in that region except Russia has security concerns in direction almost exactly opposite from Russia. For obvious reasons.
But security concerns people somehow only mention Russian security concerns.
I was claiming that Russian demands are not satisfiable, after getting what they demanded they would be more powerful and escalate demands. So blocking and neutering them was a good step, if cooperation was not viable.
You seems to be confused about relation between USA and Poland. It does not mirror USSR and PRL.
I am claiming that trying to fix Russia would be far more worth it than vastly increasing scale of a war. And that Putin has not really focused on unfucking Russia and its systematic problems.
Large part of improvements were due to horribly bad start and high oil/gas prices.
No one, not even Russia, is demanding only Russian security concerns be addressed. Two countries can have security concerns in the same area and can have goals which are mutually exclusive and yet that doesn't mean either side's "concerns" or interests are illegitimate. Your comment was an attempt to frame Russia's repeated warnings and security concerns as not just counter to Poland or whatever else, but illegitimate and to be ignored.
Russia has a long history of abiding by its agreements and its demands are entirely reasonable. I cannot say the same for the US or its satrapies. This situation is not one of an expansive Russia, but one of an expansive US repeatedly encroaching on Russian regional interests over the last 30 years, including entering fake agreements (Minsk Accords) which it never even intended abiding by and instead using it to buy time to build a military. Claiming that Russian demands are "not satisfiable" given nearly 100 years of satisfactory agreements with Russia which have been tossed recently specifically because of US violation and encroachment is plainly ridiculous.
pretty much any communication, speech, or press release by Putin or the Russian government mentions other's security concerns; this is a flatly ridiculous claim to the point where it makes me think you are not engaging in good faith or don't have a clue what you're talking about
What pro-russian or at least neutral, non-Western sources of information do you use to form your opinion about this topic?
even a passing understanding of the situation in Russia before Putin and after Putin, even during wartime, proves this to be a ridiculous belief and claim
Since when? With whom? Definitely not for 100 years in Russia-Ukraine relations or Russia-Poland relations.
You seems to continue being confused. Poland is not satrapy of USA, has distinct priorities, relations, situation, pathologies, peculiarities and context.
To repeat: Poland is not satrapy of USA. Even Belarus is not really a satrapy of Russia.
This continued assertion makes me think you are not engaging in good faith or don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Not at all, its attempts to recolonize Poland (see say https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guarantees-says-western-response-not-encouraging-2021-12-17/ - not a great source but as starter example may be fitting) are not reasonable at all and they can fuck off. There is a reason why Poland send hundreds of tanks into Ukraine within first months of war. And I really like irony of tanks made on order of USSR blocking now Russian imperial ambitions and killing Russian soldiers.
I was referring to commentary on internet that keep to referring how we should care about Russian security concerns - and very often not mentioning security concerns of others. I admit that official Russian communication tends to be more subtle.
not only is having "distinct priorities, relations, situation, pathologies, peculiarities and context" not mutually exclusive with being a satrapy, it was a major driver of debacle to Persians trying to control their explicit satrapies in history from which the word comes from
Poland is a satrapy of the United States, likely one of its most ardent ones in Europe besides the yapping lunatics that are the Baltic states.
for the last 100 years with the US, Europe, China, Japan, OPEC, most countries in the world, in agreements on missiles, nuclear weapons, bioweapons, trade, exchange, and a wide variety of other agreements including in these exact conflict with France and Germany which have already admitted to using this agreements specifically for duplicitous reasons
to be honest, based on your comments here and to others in thread I do not think this will be an interesting and worthwhile discussion
good luck
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