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 -
So there is one thing about both sides' media coverage of Russian-Ukranian war that bugged me for the last two years - accusations of deliberate targeting of civilian buildings, specifically non-military hospitals, schools, malls and houses. Am I wrong in thinking that regardless of evidence in specific cases probability of this happening is so low that we should expect to see almost zero cases of it?
I specifically talking about deliberate strikes because there are many alternative explanations revolving around mistakes, negligence, and faulty weapons. Of course all blame for this still lays on the initiator of the war but I think claims of deliberate hits are generally explained by these reasons.
Specific targeting of civilians is not new to wars, it was done quite often for loot and plunder in the old times and with mass proliferation of planes and missiles it, and Douhet's doctrine were at its height in WW2. Strategic bombing(e.g. targeting general use infrastructure and in some case industry somewhat related to the war) never went out of fashion and was used in almost all wars where the participants had a large enough air fleet since. But terror bombing(e.g. striking civilian targets for the purpose of lowering the enemy morale) is generally not used because time and time again it was proved ineffective and even damaging to its goal. I can't recall any country that engaged in the open terror bombing campaigns from, again, WW2,
and if you decide to go this route you should be open about it. Main effect is on morale, it should be supported by propaganda and fiery speeches of inevitable death in case of continued defiance.I was quite obviously wrong about this(Thanks @ymeskhout for the correction). There is a modern tendency of doing things almost in the open and then fervently denying that you did them, that Russia follows often(recently with Prigozhin's untimely demise). What I wanted to communicate is that terror bombing needs to be open, or almost open because this doctrine by necessity requires large parts or even majority of your air force to have a desired effect. . I'm interested in the process that happens before such strike as imagined by people who disagree with me. Does Russian/Ukrainian command has a secret policy of terror bombings but to keep it secret limits it to some fraction of its forces? What do they or some random rogue commander hope to gain from it? How do they justify wasting precious ammunition on targets that aren't relevant to the war effort?I don't think that on any side of the barricades there exist some human-hating berserks that can answer "blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne!" to all of these questions and even if they did exist we would expect them to not have any power from the evidence we see.
To offer a contrary opinion. We have seen what a Russian war of annihilation looks like in Chechnya. They leveled cities. It looked apocalyptic. Russia's most heavy-handed tactics in Ukraine hardly resemble this. I would assume, then, that they want the country and its people largely intact.
This is true, in sort of a cosmic sense, but leaving it at that would mean Ukraine would not be beholden to any standard of conduct, which belies the entire point of having rules of war. Everyone thinks they're unquestionably in the right, or they wouldn't be going so far as to kill each other, so putting unilateral blame on those we deem responsible defeats the purpose. Jus ad bellum and jus in bello are distinct concepts for a reason.
People point to the destruction of apartments and such as atrocities. I see it as evidence of heavy-handedness, but it is not as straightforward an atrocity as the narrative holds. Many people are shocked and appalled that Russia would "attack residential areas." But battlefields don't really discriminate, and residential areas are not sacrosanct, they are incidental. Now, Ukraine sits in a disadvantaged but motivated position. Attacks on their own people are not going to be an unacceptable outcome to be avoided at all costs. The worst case scenario still puts Russia in an unambiguously bad light, so they have plenty incentive to fight from such positions and not to evacuate people- as you say, terror-bombing is often counter-productive. Which is because when you start killing innocent people in their backyards, your action galvanizes resistance. It isn't exactly a losing PR move for Ukraine.
This isn't really to say that Ukraine is responsible for Russia killing people. But there is an ugly side to all war, even the underdog fighting for their homeland, which usually entails using underhanded tactics like that, as seen in Palestine and Iraq as well. Russia is put in an impossible situation when fighting in areas full of civilians, even if they were angels. And they're not; they have far fewer reservations against civilian casualties than the US, despite cries of genocide being aimed at the latter for the last couple decades. But Russia, callous as they may be, is still doing things for a pragmatic reason, not because they are evil bloodthirsty orcs or what have you. The calculus is more like, "if there is an apartment that looks like a good fighting position overlooking your approach, why not blow it up?" And thus, an area containing becomes directly targeted. I have no doubt that these are the kinds of decisions that are so often characterized as deliberate attacks on civilians. And you'll find these sorts of judgment calls are not harshly condemned in any rules of war Russia has ever agreed to, because no soldiers have a responsibility to preserve what they deem to be credible potential threat to their lives.
I'm open to messages to the contrary, since I really do not sympathize much with Russia despite what I've said, but in my experience, any serious analysis of this issue tends to get drowned out by nationalistic rhetoric.
This point is flatly wrong. Bakhmut absolutely ended up looking like Grozny when all was said and done. Same with Mariupol. I'm sure it's happened in several other smaller towns as well.
Bakhmut is similar to Grozny, Mariupol, Fallujah, Raqqa and Mosul for the simple reason that there is no way to storm a city that is actively defended without total destruction of the infrastructure of this city.Trying to draw any conclusions about the motives of the storming on the basis of the destruction in the stormed city is just a pointless waste of time.
They aren’t leveling cities, and if they are, you deserved it?
I’m not saying it wasn’t strategically justified, because it really is hard to do that. But it is definitely a counter example against people claiming the combatants don’t really mean it.
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