site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   26306 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 2023

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is nothing compared to other Ukrainian public relation efforts.

First there was picking American transgender woman as official spokesperson for Ukrainian army, who then went on unhinged rant threatening to kill "Russian propagandists" all over the world.

(speaking in English, not Russian, so it is clear that it were not Russians in Russia who were target of this threat)

This speech is there, it is something you will hear from mouth of cartoon Evil Mastermind(TM) in corny B movie, just before Action Hero(TM) storms in and drops the villain into his/her/their/zir/xir own shark tank.

Someone in charge then noticed this does not make Ukraine look exactly like Avengers team and decided to suspend Cirillo.

So sanity prevailed and all will be good (optics) from now?

Well, Zelensky just decided to make honorary "ambassador of Ukraine", of all people, Marina Abramovic, world famous performance artist.

It sounds like 4chan fake news prank, but it is real, reported by mainstream media(and then vanishing from their pages).

Ukraine knows well what it is doing, Ukraine tries hard to signal it is on the right side and win hearts and minds.

Hearts and minds of people who matter, not yours.

edit: links

Given how hard the US right is now pulling for "1. feed Ukraine to Putin 2. ???? 3. PROFIT!" - it's hard to blame Zelensky for betting on the other side. He has people's lives at stake. If sucking up to whatever Western weirdo is what helps to get weapons to save a thousand of Ukrainian lives - worth it thousand times over. I mean, the US red tribe can't be both "fuck all those guys over the border" and then be wondering "why those guys over the border suck up to Democrats?!" Because that's their only option, if the right says upfront they want nothing to do with it. Ukraine is toast without Western help, they just don't have the resources to fight Putin alone, especially given they can't afford to get a million of their own killed people like Putin can. So yes, sometimes it would look stupid. Sometimes it will be stupid - desperate people don't always look very attractive.

I don't believe for a second that giving weapons to Ukraine is saving Ukrainian lives. Especially now that it's apparently devolved into a static almost trench warfare situation. Every weapon given to them prolongs the conflict by X amount, and certainly results in some amount of casualties during that interval.

Every weapon given to them prolongs the conflict by X amount

I believe you vastly overestimate Russian resources. The war is absolutely winnable for Ukraine + Western aid combination. If Ukrainians were more directly assisted or given even more advanced long-range toys, it'd have been winnable quickly. But alas, nuclear blackmail (increasingly non-credible) and so on, so they'll keep throwing men into the grinder, getting closer to the objective very slowly and at a staggering cost.

You know, there's the issue with the proposal of distant appeasers which isn't well understood, I imagine. You still live in 2022, if not in 1980s like some Chomsky. But this is late 2023. The war has not just eroded Russian credibility as a military power or a rational agent in the international arena, screw that – it has eroded the credibility of the state itself. It has become a clown show worse than any pro-Western transgender performance. Yes, muh "Ukraine is corrupt shithole failed state" is a cope, Russian rule has become an unambiguously worse option, and not only for nationalist reasons as it could be believed in 2004 or so. The thin, see-through veneer of "based traditional Orthodox white nation" or whatever, which still held for some delusional people, has cracked. It's a feudal absurdity that puts patriots in prison and has to cowardly assassinate near-successful insurrectionists after loudly pardoning them, an ostensibly democratic and by all appearances authoritarian polity where some Muslim warlord's fat son pummels insufficiently obsequious citizens and law enforcement sticks their tongues into their asses, as we put it, a superpower of wounded soldiers forgotten on tarp under the sun, propagandists who don't even try anymore, every promise broken. It cannot credibly offer you prosperity or freedom, but also cannot guarantee you peace and stability. It is no longer capable of bribing anyone into obedience, not even the most naive Eastern Ukrainians of Russian descent who have survived the last two years.

It is virtually politically impossible for Ukraine to give up on restoring at least 2021 effective borders, and for the West to give up on Ukraine.

Dollars to donuts, if we'd given the Ukrainians our entire arsenal the week the war started the current situation would not be different by more than 10%.

Please do not put words in my mouth - Russia is not the good guy. Ukraine is not the good guy. They're both essentially shitholes except now one is being propped up with my tax dollars for some reason. I would never choose to live in either.

As much as the war has eroded Russian credibility, it's eroded US and NATO credibility. We put sanctions on Russia and... well that doesn't seem to have collapsed their economy as promised, does it. We fed Ukraine all this training and money and materiel for a massive summer offensive and... basically nothing was accomplished.

Now BRICS countries have a wedge to build a non-Dollar denominated global trade system. Now we've shown China that THE ENTIRETY OF NATO, US INCLUDED, can't produce enough munitions to match Russia in a large regional war. What exactly have we gained here? How are we going to gain? I don't see how Ukraine even gets back to status quo antebellum without NATO boots on the ground and planes in the sky. And then we're in a shooting war with a nuclear weapons state, which is terrible enough that I will fight to avoid it at all costs. AND FOR WHAT? FOR WHAT? Some Eastern European mudhole?

nuclear blackmail (increasingly non-credible)

You think Putin would not start nuking things if the Ukranians were advancing across the boarder and throwing conventional cruise missiles at targets in the interior?

You think Putin would not start nuking things if the Ukranians were advancing across the boarder and throwing conventional cruise missiles at targets in the interior?

Why cruise missiles, why this specific modality of escalation and not any other? I mainly meant more drones for the interior, but even for missiles, what does it matter?

Reminder: Russian interior is being routinely attacked now. Sometimes it's an entire border region being wrecked, sometimes it's a military airfield many hundreds of kilometers from the border, sometimes it's Moscow proper, and not just «a building» but a part of the city's business core, where progressive and corrupt Muskovites exchange crypto for USD under the watchful eye of FSB minders on a direct line to their Seychelles office, a sacred place. Sometimes it's straight up Kremlin. Ukrainians are routinely destroying infrastructure, have assassinated more than one propagandist near the heart of Russia, and in general are acting with complete brazen confidence that Putin is a bluffing bitch ruling a pyramid of treachery, grift and sheer indifference. What is the reason to believe otherwise? Answer me honestly, would you have anticipated two years ago that all this can be done to the Second Strongest Military Superpower without triggering the Judgement Day?

No, I am not 100% sure there is no level of attack which will trigger a nuclear response. But I am mostly confident it's not about Russia. Touch Kabayeva's child, Shoygu or Zolotov, you'll risk a great deal. Leave them alone and you're free to win the war by any means available. Even nuking major cities might not be off limits. Putin does not give a shit about much of anything geopolitical, he's shallower than a right-wing Twitter influencer, has no commitments and values his own life dearly.

@Botond173, do you have any argument except a sneer that looks to be frozen since 26/02/2022, when steel columns of Russian forces were advancing towards Kiev?

It was clear that yes, they actually believed that the Russkies will not actually respond if their units are “accidentally” smashed by cruise missiles.

And? Where's the punchline that teaches us how they were wrong and you were right?

It was "advancing across the border" and cruise missiles -- with the advancing being the most important part. I do think if American cruise missiles were in frequent use by Ukraine rather than whatever bullshit they have cobbled together at the moment things would be considerably twitchier.

The point being that the fact that nothing so far has happened that approaches (what I imagine to be) Russia's nuclear threshold does not make me feel comfortable that the threshold does not exist somewhere in the near-ish possibility space.

I recall a quip from an acquaintance or maybe a channel in Telegram that "Ukrainians deliberately struck the Moscow skyscrapers outside of working hours because they were afraid of Retaliation otherwise". I suppose the Red Line is now at "you can drone our capital as long as you don't accidentally kill anyone".

The cruise missile strikes were accurate enough that no Russian units were hit. We know that. But it was possible for things to go a different way. Thankfully we didn't have to learn if those critics were right or not.

Yes, this is what ardent supporters of the Ukraine basically believe, unironically. Namely that, in the end, all Ukrainians lands can and will be liberated by force, and that either Putler will not dare to escalate the war so as to avoid complete defeat, or that whoever replaces him after a palace coup, revolution etc. will not dare either. You’d think that basing your entire policy on this assumption is lunacy, but this is where we’re at.

Incidentally I observed the same attitude when Trump ordered missile strikes on Syrian military bases back in 2017 and 2018. There were reasonable people who made the argument that launching cruise missiles at military targets in a country where Russian anti-aircraft and air force units are present might result in rather dangerous escalation if any of those units are hit by mistake. A bunch of people on the net immediately waved these concerns off and trivialized the whole issue, saying “nah, everybody involved is just posturing, it’s just bullshit, if anything happens, they’ll just sort it out in some backroom deal”. But based on their opinions voiced before, it was clear that what they actually mean is “nah, the Moskal will not dare to do anything”. It was clear that yes, they actually believed that the Russkies will not actually respond if their units are “accidentally” smashed by cruise missiles.

Russia isn’t going to nuke Washington DC or New York if the Ukrainians fire some missiles into the interior, and in any case they don’t have the manpower to attempt a land invasion or anything close to it. But I don’t think @DaseindustriesLtd is a particularly ill informed NAFO shill and, in any case, I’d wager he knows more about Russia than you.

You're right, but that's not what I've meant. It's conceivable that the Russians would deploy nuclear weapons against Ukrainian units if the collapse of the Crimean front seems imminent.

I have actually bet money, on terms that seemed favorable, on Russia nuking major bridges over Dnieper (yes, including Kiev), more than a year ago. You can imagine how it went.

Anyway, the most important question is: does the US need to make totally sure that Russia won't nuke Ukraine? Because I think "oh shit, Russians have nuked Ukraine in desperation" is not the worst piece of news for the State Department.

More comments

Surrendering seems unlikely to be good solution or better solution.

That’s far from clear

Well, I assume that if Ukraine would surrender and be digested by Russia - then Russia would proceed with next invasion. So Ukrainians would be dying in large numbers in stupid war started by Russia anyway AND you would have Russian occupation with all its consequences.

Well, I assume that if Ukraine would surrender and be digested by Russia - then Russia would proceed with next invasion.

You assume that (at least in part) because that's what you've been told -- upon which first principles do you base this assumption?

Declarations and behaviour of the current Russian government. And history of what Russia did in the past.

Also, if Ukraine would surrender without fight it would definitely embolden them to repeat this trick on other countries. And sooner or later there would be a war, worst case scenario is NATO dissolving, with direct NATO-Russia war being also quite bad thing.

upon which first principles do you base this assumption?

Observed behavior of the current Russian government.

Is this meant to be a reference to the South Ossetian war? Which was started by Georgia?

Dunno man, they aren't exactly blitzkreiging into Paris -- it's been almost ten years and so far they are mostly just messing around in areas that have a lot of ethnic Russians anyways. Not that any of this is right, but if Putin is Hitler it's 1949 and he's farting around in the Alsace or something.

Of course, if Ukrainians gave up immediately, most of their lives - except those who Russian would execute, torture to death or otherwise "disappear", but how many could they realistically kill? probably not too many, right? - would be saved, and they would live happily ever after under the benevolent rule of Putin. Too bad they are too stupid to realize that and give up finally...

I don’t think anyone supposes that Putin is a benevolent leader.

I don’t see Ukraine being particularly worse under Russian suzerainty than under some other conditions. It’s never going to be paradise.

That's one part of it. Another is that it's not like the alternative is between slaughter and no slaughter. Based on the observed behavior of Ukrainian national guard and police units and paramilitaries, any Ukrainian territory being recaptured would also result in mass executions and torture, "disappearances" etc.

What's your estimation on the amount of these that have happened in the territories Ukraine has already recaptured from the invasion?

How am I supposed to have estimations? After all, I'm sure nobody dares to try keeping track or count of these. In fact, nobody involved in any way has any incentive to raise the issue at all.

An excellent point. The Ukrainian ultra-nationalists have not been kind to the Russian speaking populations over the last decade plus.

get weapons to save a thousand of Ukrainian lives

This is a bit off topic, but as a realist I really wonder at the neocon thinking here. I'm asking you since you are vocal about your beliefs, but really anyone jumping into this question would be fine.

Assume you are an average Ukrainian. For reference that is someone probably working Ukraine's most common job, a factory worker, making the Ukrainian median salary of 600usd a month. If you live in the South from Odessa to Dontesk, or the east from Donetsk to Kharkiv than you more than likely already speak Russian, especially if you are in a city. You've lived in a country that was a Soviet territory, then a Russian puppet state, and now a western puppet state. What would most likely happen to you in the following scenarios:

-Russia invaded and the Ukrainian leadership completely capitulated and the war was over before it even started.

-Russia invades and you fight back, the west is initially supportive but pulls its support when it becomes clear the war has become one of attrition and there is no path to victory. You lose the war a couple years later, sometime in 2024-25. (current timeline)

-Russia invades and you fight back, the west gives you whatever support you want, the war drags on for years and years as more and more are sent to a front increasingly supplied by more modern and deadly weapons systems.

To me if I'm the average Ukrainian I prefer scenario 1. I probably still have a pretty below average life, maybe I keep a good mindset about it, maybe alcohol is cheap enough it doesn't matter. I don't die though, no conscription, and as long as I'm not part of the ultra nationalist movement I'm unlikely to see much of a difference, there is a new set of corrupt officials to bribe here and there to get through daily life, but life is mostly the same. At worst there is a major uptick in terrorist attacks as ultra nationalists shift to insurgency type tactics. Though without western support it's not clear how long these would last.

Since I anticipate you will take issue with the framing and suggest a hypothetical where Ukraine gets all the aid it wants and then wins and takes back all it's territory and for some reason Russia decides to never look west again... What wonder weapon would result in this actually happening? Even if we gave them nukes that seems to just result in a stalemate, since if Ukraine nuked Crimea* or Moscow, surely Russia would make sure Kiev no longer existed. In fact given the sheer number of nukes Russia has it might make sure most of Western Europe and the US no longer exist as well. Other than that there doesn't seem to be any conventional weapon that doesn't simply result in more escalation. They are already scraping the bottom of the barrel for conscripts and are at a serious population disadvantage. Sometimes surrender is the better move and the one that saves more lives, if it didn't and everyone that surrendered instantly died than it really wouldn't exist as an option.

I think your options are too limited. Right now, it seems that Russia doesn't have the combat power to push much further into Ukraine than it already has, at least not faster than a snail's pace, nor to do anything dramatic like capture Kiev, regardless of how much help we do or don't give to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Ukraine doesn't seem to have much chance of pushing the Russians back any time soon, regardless of how much help we do or don't give them. I don't think this is going to change either aside from large-scale direct intervention from Western troops, or several decades training up Ukrainian forces.

So the only practical options are probably 1. Continue to feed men on both sides into a pointless meat grinder, or 2. Sign some sort of peace treaty giving Russia at least most of what they already captured officially.

Zelenski has of course ruled this out completely, publically and repeatedly -- it's probable that this is kayfabe to some extent, but he certainly gives the impression of being drunk on koolaid.

I guess he's an actor -- maybe a better one than I'd assumed?

  1. Sign some sort of peace treaty giving Russia at least most of what they already captured officially.

Why you think that it does not end with Russia restarting pointless meat grinder few months or years later?

I don't think they have to push further into Ukraine though. They have the combat power to maintain the pressure they're putting on Ukraine, whereas Ukraine does not. Ukraine lacks any industry to produce more weapons so without western support they'd be short on those. They also lack people, so even with western support if its just a long war of attrition eventually Ukraine collapses. Attritional wars are ugly and boring, which makes western public interest less likely to stay high. If Russia were to make big gains the western MIC could sell that as a threat and push for more support, if Ukraine makes gains people keep supporting them because they think they can win. Long ugly stalemate of a meat grinder with Ukraine eventually collapsing seems the most likely outcome with current western support.

I don't know that they'd go for a peace treaty after the last one was just used to arm and organize Ukraine. If they did it'd be seen as just a pause in the war while both sides reorganized imo, not a real peace.

We will see.

You left out (4). The west gives you proper weapons and you win the war. 30 years later your children are richer than England.

This has happened before. Poland is on path to be wealthier than England in 10 years. The average dude might already be there.

Your preferred option sounds like I’ll accept be a drunkard and survive my life. (4) provides the option to have a large successful family. The EV is much much higher.

What haven't we given them that would actually make a difference? The First Marine Division?

What weapons the west gave to Poland that allowed it to beat Soviet military and throw their shackles? What military strategy was used?

(4) provides the option to have a large successful family. The EV is much much higher.

Why wasn’t Ukraine on this path before the war? Poland started off around where Ukraine was in early 1990s. It failed to thrive, to put it mildly, and the pre-war trajectory was not optimistic. The neighboring puppet state of Russia, Belarus, has done much better for itself.

If the plan is to build stronger ties with the West, join EU etc similarly to what Poland did, isn’t better strategy to cut the losses, stop the bleed, and negotiate peace with Russia, where you cede some territories in exchange for Russia acceding to your western strategy in future?

Ukraine never left Russias orbit. They only reoriented to economic integration with Europe after Maiden. Poland well the breakup of the USSR made it not possible for them to do war so they had an easier route.

I specifically mentioned the Russian puppet state of Belarus to point out that you can do much better than Ukraine while remaining in Russian orbit. My point was that if Ukraine experienced decades of stagnation while in Russian orbit while Belarus grew, why expect much different outcomes in western orbit?

Poland well the breakup of the USSR made it not possible for them to do war so they had an easier route.

Poland left the Communist Bloc years before USSR broke up. They managed that through diplomacy and negotiations, not western warmongering. Ukraine should try the same.

Ukraine should try the same.

They did. Russia invaded.

Twice.

Yeah, they signed agreements, and then didn’t keep to them. That’s not how you conduct diplomacy.

More comments

Again, though, we're back to the question of why it is that "not surrendering when you're invaded" is "Western warmongering".

The person I replied to suggested that Ukraine should take western weapons and win the war, and gave Poland as an example of this as a successful strategy. I pointed out that Poland achieved success by peaceful diplomatic means. If the West pushed weapons into Polish hands at that time, that would have been clear warmongering, because history proved that peaceful solution was possible. I did not refer to the recent events in Ukraine as western warmongering, only the hypothetical scenario where west pushes citizens of Polish People’s Republic to war with Soviet Union.

Now, let me explicitly say here that the current western strategy of funding Ukrainian military with the explicit, openly repeated goal of weakening Russian state and military, under the assumption of good ROI in terms of monetary spend/materiel relative to achieved damage to Russia, and with zero concern for Ukrainian blood being spilled to achieve these goals, and disregard for ultimate likelihood of Ukrainian victory, very much is warmongering.

Without the western “support”, the (stupid and evil) Russian invasion would be over with by now, and much less blood would have been spilled, and wealth and livelihoods destroyed, for pretty much the same ultimate geopolitical outcome. However, the West has clearly chosen strategy of slow trickle of support to pull in and attrit Russians as much as possible.

More comments

Did you not read the rest? I want an explanation of how that is possible before we entertain it. Since there doesn't seem to be any weapon that would win the war for Ukraine and every new weapons system we supply further risks nuclear apocalypse.

Since I anticipate you will take issue with the framing and suggest a hypothetical where Ukraine gets all the aid it wants and then wins and takes back all it's territory and for some reason Russia decides to never look west again... What wonder weapon would result in this actually happening? Even if we gave them nukes that seems to just result in a stalemate, since if Ukraine nuked Crimea* or Moscow, surely Russia would make sure Kiev no longer existed. In fact given the sheer number of nukes Russia has it might make sure most of Western Europe and the US no longer exist as well. Other than that there doesn't seem to be any conventional weapon that doesn't simply result in more escalation. They are already scraping the bottom of the barrel for conscripts and are at a serious population disadvantage. Sometimes surrender is the better move and the one that saves more lives, if it didn't and everyone that surrendered instantly died than it really wouldn't exist as an option.

Did you not read the rest? I want an explanation of how that is possible before we entertain it.

We keep supplying Ukraine, Russia runs out of will, manpower, or materiel before Ukraine does.

every new weapons system we supply further risks nuclear apocalypse.

Which doesn't mean they can't be supplied. "Putin might push the button" isn't an insta-win for Russia.

They have around 4x the population of Ukraine, for Russia to run out of manpower before Ukraine they would need to have a more than 4:1 loss ratio. I don't think even the Ukrainians are claiming that and they're been claiming absolutely absurd things the whole time.

The military production is up in the air, but so far Russian production appears to be up significantly from what it was prior to the war. They might've exhausted soviet stockpiles but they're producing 1k tanks per year, we're sending 31 Abrams. The US is trying to up artillery shell production but it costs 10x as much to make a single shell here. We've gone and strong armed basically every ally we have to provide them with their spares and even sent cluster munitions when that ran out.

It's just not realistic thinking. It's cynical as hell to boot, basically saying eventually enough Ukrainians will die that Ukraine will win.

They have around 4x the population of Ukraine, for Russia to run out of manpower before Ukraine they would need to have a more than 4:1 loss ratio. I don't think even the Ukrainians are claiming that and they're been claiming absolutely absurd things the whole time.

My dad recently complained to me that Western artillery has a higher effective range than Russian artillery. Maybe by 50% or so.

How much do you think this means in terms of k/d ratio? 30%? What about a 100% range difference? 200%? At what point does it become clear that technological superiority can, in fact, offset virtually any difference in manpower?

They have around 4x the population of Ukraine, for Russia to run out of manpower before Ukraine they would need to have a more than 4:1 loss ratio. I don't think even the Ukrainians are claiming that and they're been claiming absolutely absurd things the whole time.

The Ukrainian government has not generally reported losses but in December 2022 estimated 13k lost. Meanwhile the UK MoD figure for Russian casualty estimates from December 1st 2022 was 89k. If you were to accept their claims then by those loss ratios they could. Which isn't to say the claims are close to accurate but that it is not more absurd if taking those absurd claims as true to believe (or that they could claim) that they would win by attrition.

89k casualties does not mean anywhere close to 89k KIA though.

More comments

Since there doesn't seem to be any weapon that would win the war for Ukraine

Why you think so? Handful of outdated HIMARS was quite significant, handful of Storm Shadows keeps participating in meetings of Russian generals and so on.

every new weapons system we supply further risks nuclear apocalypse.

that is blatant nonsense and repeating russian propaganda warmongering

You referring to the Admiral that showed up on tv today?

The only thing that has made a difference in the war so far has been numbers. Ukraine had more of them at the beginning of the war. Their offensive on Kherson pulled enough Russians from the north that they were able to roll through the Kharkov areas. Russia bailed on holding Kherson to make the front more defensible until they could catch up. Russia mobilized more and that mostly equalized the forces and since then Ukraine has made no real gains despite the huge injection of western kit for their Spring offensive.

that is blatant nonsense and repeating russian propaganda warmongering

This is childish and not an argument.

You referring to the Admiral that showed up on tv today?

no, I specifically not mentioned admiral but more generic term as I wanted to wait till it is properly confirmed before I treat this claim seriously (that some high-ranking people dies is pretty confirmed, as far as I know)

We’ve given them 1980’s weapon systems and they held their own against Russia. Modern stuff would do it. American has won its wars with air supremacy so modern fighter planes with the proper weapon systems would do that. It’s much tougher to take out all the Russian artillery with artillery.

and with what pilots would the planes fly? A massive airforce requires even more massive logistics to keep it running, Ukraine has had difficulties even keeping their tiny airforce from being targeted and is forced to regularly fly them from place to place so they don't get taken out by Russian missile strikes. There is no way we can just park a few 100 f16s somewhere in Ukraine and maintain them without them being targeted even if there was such a location where they could be kept and maintained which there isn't...

This is the problem with all the wishful thinking of the pro Ukraine side. There is no depth to it. It's just endless handwaving away all the issues. How do you completely and unanimously win against Russia? Oh just give them airplanes. Wow. Insightful. Meanwhile 200-400k Ukrainians are dead up to 50k just from this doomed summer offensive and all those fancy western Leopards and Challengers are useless because war has evolved and between drones and remote mining they are sitting ducks. Ukrainians are crawling through tree lines at night to lead assaults on trenches after softening them up with artillery. That's so far the only strategy that gets them any progress. So forgive me if I doubt that America winning against 3rd worlders via airplanes isn't a guaranteed win.

We have more air defense systems too.

400k won’t die if they are properly armed.

400k dead though is a reasonable price to pay to get to exists as a people. We fought our revolutionary war. Every people who have ever existed fought for their lands.

Belarus isn’t do that great.

Russia has plenty of AD systems but Ukraine can still hit them. Problem right now is that drones are too cheap relative to the cost of any of the intercept systems. Can easily just over saturate and overwhelm them.

To get to exist as a people

See this right here makes no sense to me. Are you claiming that all of Ukraine will be killed if Russia wins? Some kind of Nazi concentration camps but on an even grander scale? That seems incredibly unlikely, probably not even possible given logistics of attempting to round up all of the Ukrainians to exterminate them, unless Russia goes total mobilization or something.

If you're claiming some kind of more hazy spiritual collective sense, then I think you really misunderstand how divided things are in Ukraine.

More comments

Given how hard the US right is now pulling for "1. feed Ukraine to Putin 2. ???? 3. PROFIT!"

The implication being that the pro-Ukraine side, by contrast, has a plan?

How'd Syria go?

Libya?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Iraq the first time?

Iran?

Afghanistan the first time?

...Like, what's your actual conception of how this is all going to roll out? Putin is couped by the competent, democratic statesmen who form his opposition and then Russia reforms into a functional capitalist democracy, thereby nullifying the threat of their considerable nuclear arsenal? Is that the road you're looking for?

If you want to defend the interventionist consensus, defend the results it has delivered over the last thirty years through the multiple fucking iterations it has played out, very publicly, at vast economic and social and human cost. Show how all the previous disasters were really just faulty perception, or working the kinks out, or something other than simply a blind-spot in your geopolitical perception the size of the fucking moon. I'll cop to not expecting the Russian army to be a shambolic trash-disaster, and sure, right now we are fairly thoroughly mauling that army for pennies on the dollar, given that Ukranian and Russian lives are considered to have no value in the equation. But what's the endgame, here?

What are you willing to call success, such that we can move on, job well done, no more entanglements and expenditures needed?

What are you willing to call failure, such that you agree that it's time to cut our losses?

Because I have heard this fucking song and dance before, where "these next six months are critical" for ten or fifteen or twenty years at a stretch, and my heuristic is that anyone selling that bullshit is either a braindead incompetent or a literal vampire who requires decapitation and a stake through the heart. I refuse to play this game where we pretend that all those previous disasters and betrayals and massacres and atrocities didn't actually happen or were just crazy random happenstance, where we pretend that American foreign policy and leadership should be presumed to be competent and efficient and generally on the ball. I can't pretend that hard, and I have zero respect for those who can.

That is their “plan”, pretty much. Or that there will be a glorious campaign of liberation ending in Crimea, and Putler will capitulate because he’s actually a paper tiger. Or that he’ll be couped by a second Gorbachev/Yeltsin who will do the same. Or that he’ll not actually be replaced by anyone, and instead there’ll be another Time of Troubles and the Russian state will disintegrate, and there won’t be any negative repercussions because it’s not like the collapse of a state with thousands of nuclear warheads would result in that. I’m not being flippant. That’s the “plan”, as expressed by their own words and narratives.

What precisely do you think happens when a state with thousands of nuclear warheads collapses?

Something definitely worse than, say, Ukraine agreeing to a ceasefire.

I assume you mean that "something" happens to Ukraine?

I recall the men with their hands on the buttons didn't launch even back during the Cold War when the chain of command was intact and clear. You think they will have more resolve/recklessness when it isn't?

That's not what I meant, but that would also be conceivable in that case, obviously.

I meant rogue states, terrorist groups, organized crime groups etc. gaining control of nuclear warheads and using them for blackmail etc. Nuclear warheads entering the black market. Ethnic conflicts, humanitarian catastrophe etc.

I don't think any of this needs to be spelled out actually, but I'll assume your question was honest.

My question was honest in that I wanted to hear what you had in mind when you alluded to that - some specific outcomes or just a generic nuclear scare.

It looks like whatever consequences there are would largely befall Russia itself. If the West can be confident that the concerted Russian nuclear stockpile is, at worst, MAD, surely they can laugh off a single straggler or two who tries to point a fraction of that stockpile at them?

More comments

...Like, what's your actual conception of how this is all going to roll out? Putin is couped by the competent, democratic statesmen who form his opposition and then Russia reforms into a functional capitalist democracy, thereby nullifying the threat of their considerable nuclear arsenal? Is that the road you're looking for?

I think it's more like this

What are you willing to call success, such that we can move on, job well done, no more entanglements and expenditures needed?

It is not a board game. USA will continue to have relations with all involved parties, it does not end.

...Like, what's your actual conception of how this is all going to roll out? Putin is couped by the competent, democratic statesmen who form his opposition and then Russia reforms into a functional capitalist democracy, thereby nullifying the threat of their considerable nuclear arsenal? Is that the road you're looking for?

No, not expecting that. I would settle for Russia defanged enough that they shut up about USSR-sized sphere of influence. And will stop thinking they can take on NATO or countries supported by NATO.

It appears that going through ginormous stockpiles produced by USSR may be needed before that will happen.

(obviously, settling for being corrupt and internally violent and sort-of-useful as sort-of counterbalance against China would be nice, but sadly they actually believed that they are still superpower entitled to rule over central and eastern Europe...)

that they shut up about USSR-sized sphere of influence.

USSR sized sphere of influence? Ukraine is closer to Moscow than Canada is to Washington.

They also made repeated comments and actions concerning Baltics and Poland. I am well aware that they have not invaded this countries outright, so far.

But I want them to stop completely and cease any military threats whatsoever (for start, stop repeated airspace incursion with their military planes). And ensure that their officials makes threats/jokes/suggestions about invading Poland as often as Germans ones are doing as of 2023.

And I want all US servicemen and equipment brought back to the USA, all foreign military entanglements ended, and for our supposed allies to defend themselves.

It is not a board game. USA will continue to have relations with all involved parties, it does not end.

Okay, what's your assessment of what we've achieved versus what we paid from this approach to date?

No, not expecting that. I would settle for Russia defanged enough that they shut up about USSR-sized sphere of influence.

We defanged Iraq very thoroughly in the first gulf war. Hussein no longer was able to exercise territorial ambitions. Do you find that this made the world a better place?

We defanged Iraq very thoroughly in the first gulf war. Hussein no longer was able to exercise territorial ambitions. Do you find that this made the world a better place?

My knowledge about middle east and wars there is far more limited than of eastern Europe so I do not feel very qualified to answer.

But my expectation was that Russia was going to start serious war with someone at some point (or recreate USSR by repeated invasions and countries surrendering). So funding defence of Ukraine is preferable in my opinion to fighting direct NATO-Russia war that would be far more problematic in many aspects.

Okay, what's your assessment of what we've achieved versus what we paid from this approach to date?

That it was worth spending this funds to achieve this, though less innocent lives would be lost if materiel would be provided earlier, on larger scale and more decisively rather then being dripped bit by bit.

(disclaimer: I am from Poland, not from USA - for me aggressive and too powerful Russia is top1 geopolitic problem)

but sadly they actually believed that they are still superpower entitled to rule over central and eastern Europe

How do you arrive at this conclusion from Russia invading what was literally their own satellite state for 20 years after the USSR fell until the US took it away? It's just completely out of touch with reality.

I base it on treating Ukraine as own satellite state and on their comments and actions concerning Baltics and Poland.

This "Russia = USSR" logic doesn't work out the way you think it does.

Firstly, it means inheriting the legacy of the Holodomor. Attempting to claim a moral right to rule a people after you attempt to genocide them is...something.

But even ignoring that, the USSR literally agreed to dissolve into independent states in 1991. If the Soviets "owned" Ukraine, then Russia inheriting their claims means it has no claim as such over Ukraine.

Also, the Budapest Memo had Russia agree to not use military force against Ukraine.

You can talk all you want about "satellite states" and what not, Russia already agreed decades ago it wouldn't do what it has been doing since 2014.

Firstly, it means inheriting the legacy of the Holodomor. Attempting to claim a moral right to rule a people after you attempt to genocide them is...something.

It's geopolitics, who the fuck cares. If tanks and jet fighters required newborns to be put in blenders in order to function, nothing about our world would change.

I think a great many people care about moral justification for a claim of rulership.

Indeed, we are all here because, centuries ago, some opportunistic Anglos and Scots had questions about rulership.

I'm not claiming that Russia = USSR.

USSR controlled Ukraine more or less directly up until 91.

Ukraine was then it's own state on paper, but in reality a Russian satellite state up until 2014. "A russian satellite state for 20 years" Technically 23.

It only entered the western orbit after the coup in 2014. (Well the western part of it)

Russia isn't trying to expand its sphere of influence to USSR levels, that would mean going as far west as Germany. It's just trying to maintain it at post USSR levels and even that is seen as some extreme aggressive act while NATO bombs and murders everyone outside of the west indiscriminately and people that think they're civilized make endless excuses for the abuse.

Ukraine was then it's own state on paper, but in reality a Russian satellite state up until 2014.

Doesn't really matter. Russia signed the agreements to let Ukraine be independent. Can't complain if it actually exercises that status.

Russia isn't trying to expand its sphere of influence to USSR levels

Yeah, because it can't. There's no going back in that regard unless NATO itself breaks up, and Putin's invasion literally reversed the flagging support for that organization. Talk about a strategic blunder. What it is doing, however, is trying to gobble up nations while it can to its west. Because once the NATO aegis is established, it's over, that country is not coming back.

NATO bombs and murders everyone outside of the west indiscriminately and people that think they're civilized make endless excuses for the abuse.

Which bombs are we referring to? Bosnia and Herzegovina? Serbia? Afghanistan? The Gulf of Aden? Libya? Syria?

Iraq?

I sometimes consider the hypothetical world in which the 2003 invasion was skipped. It's obviously hard to predict such outcomes, but I think it's not implausible a continued Hussein regime might not be better for the average Iraqi. It's not like they had a particularly good human rights record.

Sure, there was a lot of destruction from the war (which I'd generally agree was poorly-conceived), but how would Iraq have faced the Arab Spring? It seems plausible that could have ended less like ISIS and more like the still-ongoing Syrian Civil War, likely complete with Russia intentionally bombing civilian targets and waves of refugees fleeing to Europe.

For all it's faults in the invasion, the country now could be much worse than it is today. Which is distinctly not an endorsement of the operation, merely a pause for consideration.

For all it's faults in the invasion, the country now could be much worse than it is today.

It could be. The actual result was sufficiently awful that I would prefer to roll those dice. Certainly the difference between the predicted and actual outcomes leaves me with zero faith in the wisdom of further interventionism.

For the record, I agree with your take. The comment is more referencing cases in which people rhetorically imply that the country is worse off than otherwise, which I think is less clear.

Amusingly, in a late 200X with no Iraq War, then the Iranians still have a nuclear program in its later stages, only for it's initial target. Who would still be, at best, maintaining the strategic bluff of ambiguity in hopes of deterance, as they did before, but with the understanding that their most significant enemy truly was pursuing greater WMDs.

Black humor, but humor none the less.

The Arab spring was the US as well... Saying Iraq would've been destabilized anyways because the US would start destabilizing MENA countries again a decade later doesn't really make US foreign policy look better.

The implication being that the pro-Ukraine side, by contrast, has a plan?

Whatever plan they may or may not have, it's certainly less stupid than Carlson's "we feed Ukraine to Putin and he'll battle China for US" or Vivek's "We feed Ukraine to Putin and there would be peace in our time". But I suspect, different "pro-Ukraine" sides - many of which aren't as pro-Ukraine as they present - have different plans. US Democrats probably try to maximize the profit (both pecuniary and political) from the war while committing to as little as possible and not letting Russia become unpredictable (because that looks like work and who needs that), most of the EU tries to show off as much as possible while doing as little as possible, Ukrainians try to survive...

Like, what's your actual conception of how this is all going to roll out?

Given current players, likely pretty badly for all involved. Probably there will be some temporary ceasefire and then a new war in 5-10 years, and so on. Until Russia finally collapses, but that can take a long while - last time it took 70 years.

But what's the endgame, here?

We all dead, sooner or later? I mean, what exactly you expect the "endgame" to be? It's not some kind of Magic The Gathering match, where you sit down, play a round, then come up and go back home. Who told you there's such a thing as "endgame" at all? The war surely will end, one way or another, at least all the previous wars did. How it will end depends on a lot of things, and anybody who says they can predict it, are lying.

What are you willing to call failure, such that you agree that it's time to cut our losses?

If you approach any task with "when are we calling it a failure finally", then yes, the question would only be when you call it a failure. But then, why you are surprised there are so many failures? You're literally rooting for it, so you're getting what you asked for.

"we feed Ukraine to Putin and he'll battle China for US"

This would actually have been the best option, but only if it was taken several years ago. Russia and China uniting and working together are the only real powerbloc capable of dealing with the US - if they were in opposition to each other, or if Russia was firmly a part of the western community, the global situation would look very different right now. Russia has no motivation to go into Ukraine if NATO doesn't expand to their borders and they're a respected member of the western coalition - so in that universe the war just doesn't happen anyway, given that one of the roots of this conflict was over Ukraine moving into the EU orbit or the Russian orbit. There's a decent bit of evidence that Russia actually did want to be a part of the western community and would have preferred this to being part of the "global south"/jungle, and I think that world is a much nicer place to live in this one.

But that ship has sailed, and if Carlson is suggesting that the US try to pivot to that option now then he's deluded. China and Russia have a lot of reasons to be enemies, but the current situation has forced them together - and done so in a way that's going to be hard to disentangle. Both of them know that they're unable to take on the US individually, and at the same time they think that the US is impossible to negotiate with and an untrustworthy partner. Serious thinkers have said for years that one of the chief goals of US foreign policy should be to make sure that Russia and China absolutely hate each other, which isn't really that hard of a goal to achieve - but US policy over the last few decades has just brought them closer and closer together, and made it clear that continuing to use the US dollar and existing global financial infrastructure is a critical weakness. What can the US even credibly offer Russia to pull them away from China at this point? Even if Trump gets in and manages to overcome the deep state inertia preventing him from normalising relationships with Russia, I don't think they'd be willing to come back to the table because they've gotten too invested in their own alternatives.

Even if Russia and China disliked each other as much as, say, India and China (an immense long shot), Russia isn’t sacrificing millions of men, the entire Eastern third of their country, all their power in Central Asia and unfathomable amounts of treasure on some bullshit crusade against the CCP at America’s behest lmao. Ironically there’s nothing more neocon ‘game theory’ than trying to play CK2 or Civilization in real life and thinking the US can bait Russia into fighting WW3 for us.

Making peace with China is easier, more desirable and more in America’s interests than making peace with Russia.

Russia isn’t sacrificing millions of men, the entire Eastern third of their country, all their power in Central Asia and unfathomable amounts of treasure on some bullshit crusade against the CCP at America’s behest lmao.

You're totally right, but it isn't like the US would need them to be at war. They'd just need them to be mildly hostile to each other, to the point that they'd be more willing to work with the US than their immediate, border-sharing neighbour. There isn't even a need to go to war with China in this case - they'd be too economically dependent. If you made sure the US didn't ship their entire manufacturing industry to China in the 90s as well, the differential in capacity would be so massive conflict just wouldn't even need to happen.

Our current plan is to give Ukraine every weapon we have, regardless of whether or not the Ukrainians are able to win the war, letting the war drag on while we essentially use up our weapons in Ukraine (which will probably lessen our ability to defend Taiwan (and thus secure our chips supply), lose credibility as it becomes obvious that we can no longer actually deliver on our promises, and Ukraine will probably lose Donbas anyway.

I think it would be better to cede Donbas and arm the remaining and build NATO bases in West Ukraine as a deterrent to further incursions.

arm the remaining and build NATO bases in West Ukraine as a deterrent to further incursions.

wait

are you against sending weapons to Ukraine or not?

And combo "cede Donbas" and "send NATO soldiers to fight against Russia" is quite curious and new to me.

Our current plan is to give Ukraine every weapon we have

This is obviously false. On the contrary, the plan is explicitly not to give many weapons - such as long-range rockets, planes, and many other things - or at least delay giving them as long as possible. If the plan really were "to give Ukraine every weapon we have" it's impossible to explain why ATACMS rockets or modern planes were not given or why modern tanks were only given late this year - we certainly had them way before that, they weren't created this year.

regardless of whether or not the Ukrainians are able to win the war

"Win the war" is a very vague thing - and the extent of how much Ukrainians win right now is a direct function of how much weapons (and what kind of weapons) they have. Right now, their air capabilities are minuscule, and they long-range strike capabilities are such that they can only do sporadic one-off hits, after months of preparation. This is way short of "every weapon we have", unless US military has been lying to us for years about all those advanced weaponry they are supposed to have, and somehow instead spent all those billions on building mocks of all that weaponry that doesn't exist in reality. I don't think even the most committed conspiracy nuts go that far.

letting the war drag on while we essentially use up our weapons in Ukraine

Giving enough weaponry not to lose but not enough to decisively win - which was the actual plan for the last 1.5 years - is a great way to let the war drag on. You concept does not offer any explanation why we're discussing long-range rockets today and not in February 2022. Mine explains it perfectly. I think the concept that explains the available facts

I think it would be better to cede Donbas

Did you wake up yesterday from a 20 year coma? Ukraine has been "ceding Donbass" since 2014. That's when it came under Russian control (fun fact: the guy who organized it, Igor Girkin, is now being slowly tortured to death in Russian prison, because that's how Russian "thank you" looks like) and since then, Ukraine didn't have any control there and could do nothing about it. Just as they could do nothing about Russia owning Crimea (besides completely toothless and impotent "sanctions"). Presenting it as some kind of a "solution", while this was exactly the starting point of the war, is completely bewildering - it's like saying "we could avoid WW2 if only we let Hitler arm himself and signed a peace treaty with him and given him Sudetenland". And it didn't happen in the last century - it happened less than 10 years ago! And still you feel free to completely ignore it. Astonishing.

build NATO bases in West Ukraine as a deterrent to further incursions.

So, your solution is instead of having Ukrainians fight Russians with Western weaponry, is to have Western troops do the same? That would go just fine with German, French and Belgian voters. They dream about their soldiers dying on Ukrainian soil, I am sure, and despite now willing to send about 1 tank per month as soon as the war is out of TV screens, they will surely be glad so send hundreds of them and live bodies in the harm's way because... what? I am not sure how this makes any sense.

fun fact: the guy who organized it, Igor Girkin, is now being slowly tortured to death in Russian prison, because that's how Russian "thank you" looks like

according to unconfirmed reports they let Ukrainian POW to attack and beat him

If you approach any task with "when are we calling it a failure finally", then yes, the question would only be when you call it a failure. But then, why you are surprised there are so many failures? You're literally rooting for it, so you're getting what you asked for.

...I'm not sure where to even begin with this statement. I cannot form a sensible model of a thought-process that would have this statement as its output. Could you elaborate?

Do you agree that the american occupation of Afghanistan was a failure?

Do you think pessimism regarding American foreign policy or military competence or the general strategic goals in the invasion of Afghanistan is the primary cause of that failure? That if we had only pushed harder, been willing to commit more, worthwhile outcomes could have been secured?

We all dead, sooner or later?

We are all dead sooner or later no matter what policy we pursue toward Russia or Ukraine. You are acting as though your policy preferences require zero justification. That is a pretty wild response to someone pointing to three decades of extremely ruinous policy failure.

Why do you believe your prefered policy a good idea? Why is it a better idea than doing nothing?

Do you understand that your prefered policies have costs? That they have consequences? That if government is a coherent concept at all, you need to actually try to anticipate these things and steer a course toward positive outcomes? Is politics literally nothing more to you than good fucking vibes?

How it will end depends on a lot of things, and anybody who says they can predict it, are lying.

If no one knows anything, why are you criticizing the people who don't want to spend a lot of money and resources escalating this war and its attendant tail-risks? Why do you even have an opinion?

Whatever plan they may or may not have, it's certainly less stupid than Carlson's "we feed Ukraine to Putin and he'll battle China for US" or Vivek's "We feed Ukraine to Putin and there would be peace in our time".

Prove it. Support that statement. Why is it better? On the basis of what data? What leads you to this conclusion?

...I'm not sure where to even begin with this statement. I cannot form a sensible model of a thought-process that would have this statement as its output. Could you elaborate?

Elaborate what? You pre-declare that US intervention must be a failure and the only question is when we recognize that failure. In that model, of course it'd be a failure. I just don't accept that model as something having to do with the reality.

Do you agree that the american occupation of Afghanistan was a failure?

Irrelevant for the question being discussed.

That if we had only pushed harder, been willing to commit more, worthwhile outcomes could have been secured?

No, I think if they pushed smarter, and been willing to do different things, then yes, they could be. It's not a direct function of dollars spent or boots standing on the ground. At least not that alone. But again, this is irrelevant for the question discussed.

That is a pretty wild response to someone pointing to three decades of extremely ruinous policy failure.

Again, policy failures in Afghanistan are not relevant here, as we're not talking about Afghanistan.

If no one knows anything,

I didn't say "no one knows anything", I said exact picture years ahead is not possible to predict right now. That's not the same thing at all. If you demand "before we do anything, tell me and guarantee me you can exactly predict what would happen in a multi-factor hyper-complex event 10 years ahead" - then of course you won't be able to do a single thing. That's not how things are done. You have a general goal, and general means of achieving it - in this case, trim Russia's ambition of territorial conquest in Europe, and giving Ukrainians the weapons - and then you adapt your tactics depending on the circumstances arriving.

you criticizing the people who don't want to spend a lot of money and resources escalating this war

The war is already "escalated". That choice is past us. The question is - does the "collective security" arrangement in Europe survive, or do we go back to "every little country for themselves" and the inevitable endless bloodbath that follows that. There's still a chance to preserve that order, but it is going away fast. And more we talk about "when we already recognize we lost everything and should give up?" the sooner we lose everything, including all this nice cushy civilization we enjoy so much. It's much more fragile than commonly thought.

Is politics literally nothing more to you than good fucking vibes?

I can't even begin to understand what you mean here, but let me assure you in one thing. Contrary to the belief popular on many college campuses, adding swearing to your argument does not make it more convincing, it just makes you look more unhinged.

Prove it. Support that statement. Why is it better? On the basis of what data? What leads you to this conclusion?

Observation of the existing facts. When somebody literally proposes as a solution for the war the situation from which the war started, I conclude he's either ignoramus or is lying to my eyes. When somebody proposes a bunch of non-sequiturs as a supposedly logical argument to a goal - I assume he is either bad at logic or is lying. Carlson has been proposing wildly illogical concept of if we let Russia consume Ukraine, Putin somehow would be friendly to the US (this is laughable to anyone who listened for the last 5 years of Russian propaganda, which has been full of mouth-foaming anti-Western paranoia, and their whole geopolitical concept is rooted at opposition to the West, which is weak and decadent and soul-less) and somehow commit himself to fighting China (despite Russia having zero motive for that and tons of motives to the contrary) - and doesn't even bother to support his fantasies with anything but other wild stories (like the stupid biolab shit). That makes about as much sense as saying if only we helped Hitler to introduce common sense banking regulations, he'd be off the whole Jews thing - about that level of silliness. Vivek is simpler, he's just playing ignorant. He's proposing a solution which he must know - since he is not actually dumb - is not solving anything because that's where the war started. But it sounds nice to people who are ignorant in the matter, and makes him sound like he has solutions for everything to people that want somebody to have solutions. And also to the people who think "fuck Ukraine, better give that money to me!" but are ashamed to say it aloud, so they are looking for someone to say the same but in a smart way, so it doesn't sound asshole-ish but geopolitically smart. That's all his play, the whole con. Fortunately, he's also irrelevant since there's no chance he'd be anywhere near any real power anytime soon.

Why do you believe your prefered policy a good idea? Why is it a better idea than doing nothing?

Do you understand that your prefered policies have costs? That they have consequences? That if government is a coherent concept at all, you need to actually try to anticipate these things and steer a course toward positive outcomes? Is politics literally nothing more to you than good fucking vibes?

You're cheating.

  1. You point out instances where we intervened and shitty situations failed to improve or did, in fact, get worse. What about instances where the isolationism and appeasement carried the day?

How'd Rwanda go? I guess there weren't any stars and stripes draped caskets flying home, but at the same time hundreds of thousands of people died in large part due to the apathy of the West - your choice to do nothing also carries consequences. I can even imagine a hypothetical counterfactual where we did intervene, and after averting genocide and saving a quarter million lives, the isolationists could still I-told-you-so about the failed Rwandan state, neocolonialism, continued ethnic violence between Hutus and Tutsis, incompetent American foreign policy wonks, whatever.

Similarly, there's a parallel universe where we failed to arm South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and any or all of them fell into the orbit of China/USSR. Any of these countries could easily have been failed states suffering under communism rather than the prosperous, developed nations they are today. Airlifting supplies to West Berlin? Fuck that, have you seen the price of sugar in New York?

  1. Many of the examples you give are just categorically different from Ukraine. Selling/donating a country arms to defend it's right to self-determination is distinct from us putting boots on the ground and invading a sovereign nation ourselves. If the Ukrainians decide the juice isn't worth the squeeze, and hey, whatever, those Russians aren't that bad anyways.

  2. Implicit in your writing is that Ukrainians lack agency and are just useful pawns for the West to push around a board. My impression is that support in Ukraine for prosecuting the war is fairly high. Internationally, many loathe Putin even more than they used to and support for NATO (cold comfort to you, perhaps) and the West are boosted. Again, the inverse of many of the examples you gave, no?

Failure would be Ukraine being completely conquered and subjugated by Russia. Failure would be the Ukrainian army deserting en masse, as they lose a sense of national unity and their appetite for the war. Failure would be swathes of the world aligning with Russia, China and/or communism/authoritarianism.

As you point out, it's harder to paint a rosy picture of success. Childish dreams of kumbaya moments where Russia and China join our big hugpile and all the nations of the earth are buddy-buddy as we blast off in SpaceX rockets to other solar systems are unlikely to follow from sending Ukraine some artillery shells and tanks. Success may just be another frozen conflict and DMZ around Crimea and the Donbas. But the Ukrainians can make that decision for themselves, and if they decide to fight, I believe that they should be given the means to do so within reason.

Overseas military adventures don't particularly interest me, and I align with you in large part in your condemnation of the wars we have prosecuted in the last half-century. But I disagree that absolute isolationism in every scenario is the appropriate heuristic to pull from that. s

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats