The question linked here Is NATO justified in treating the war in Ukraine as insurgency?. The stated reason for closure is

The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center.

The question is indeed somewhat critical about NATO, but this hardly constitute "to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician."

As with previous unexplained closure, I am looking for opinions before passing it further to the SE moderators.


1 Answer 1


The problem with that question is that it's not a question. It's an argument, with a question tacked on to the end.

If we look at the question, we see a number of arguments and assertions, all of which are highly questionable and none of which are supported by any evidence:

  1. An assertion that NATO is pursuing an insurgency in Ukraine
  2. An assertion that the aid to Ukraine isn't sufficient for a real war
  3. A claim that this means NATO doesn't care about Ukraine or Eastern NATO members
  4. A claim that insurgencies can never defeat a real military force
  5. A claim that insurgency is impossible in Ukraine due to their terrain and the Ukrainian people

Then you stick a question on the end which amounts to: "If we accept my claims, NATO is doing something stupid. Why is NATO stupid?" On this site, a Question needs to be a real question, not an argument. If the main aim of your question is to push an argument, or if the question requires you to accept a list of questionable assertions, then it's a attempt to promote an argument or position, not to "learn more about governments, policies and political processes".

A way to make this question on-topic would be to focus just on things which are objective. You might ask, "Why is NATO only giving Ukraine man-portable weapons, rather than heavy equipment that would be more helpful in a direct war?" This question would get at what you want to learn about, without spending so much time pushing a specific argument.

  • 1
    I didn't call NATO "stupid" - I was asking why tehy do what they do, and not more (or elss). I still don't see how to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. applies here. Mar 17, 2022 at 8:50
  • 1
    @RogerVadim while giving context is good, your context makes NATO look stupid (or at the very least incompetent). Context that makes somebody/something look stupid is often viewed as pushing a specific cause, especially when they do so much of it. A way to get your question reopened IMO would be to simply find a source saying that NATO supports an insurgency instead of an actual war (a biased source can be used, although not ideal, if it has a disclaimer saying that it is biased), and then asking why NATO supports an insurgency instead of an actual war. Mar 17, 2022 at 14:06
  • 1
    @EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica I don't see how I make them look stupid - it is your subjective interpretation of what what I wrote, which has more to do with your own biases than anything I wrote. I merely outlined how I interpret their actions and why I don't understand them. Mar 17, 2022 at 14:12
  • 2
    @RogerVadim That's exactly the problem. Your post was an argument about what you think NATO is doing and why it doesn't make sense. That's fine on a discussion forum, but this isn't one of those. It's a question and answer site, and your posts should be focused on a open question, not an argument or narrative.
    – divibisan
    Mar 17, 2022 at 14:41
  • As a general rule, the less "context" and "introduction" your question has, the better, and if your question requires you to lay out arguments or givens which must be accepted for the question to make any sense, it's a "push question", and not appropriate here.
    – divibisan
    Mar 17, 2022 at 14:43
  • @divibisan an advanced question inevitably invovles an argument. Otherwise it likely can be answered by doing a bit of research. Mar 17, 2022 at 14:44
  • 3
    @RogerVadim That's the kind of questions this site is for. It's not a debate forum where people post arguments and others debate them. You could have asked your question much more simply: "NATO is providing Ukrainian forces with plenty of man-portable weapons which would be useful in an insurgency, but not heavy equipment for a direct clash with the Russian army. Why are they limiting their aid in this way?". This formulation gets at your question, but leaves it open for different kinds of answers or approaches, and doesn't presume certain facts which many will disagree with.
    – divibisan
    Mar 17, 2022 at 14:48
  • @divibisan for those who disagree with the facts, there is a comment section. Anyhow, your critics of my question do not seem to get closer to the actual closure reason: to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. Mar 17, 2022 at 14:57
  • 2
    @RogerVadim Again, that close reason covers all types on "push questions" that exist mostly or entirely to argue a point. You should read the meta page the Fizz linked above to understand more. If you dislike the way this site works, there are countless other places on the internet to discuss or argue or publish your arguments. If you're going to post here, you need to accept that your posts will be subject to the rules and community driven moderation this site is based on.
    – divibisan
    Mar 17, 2022 at 15:04
  • @divibisan I have some experience with the site and a pretty good idea of how it works. I am just trying to raise a bit the level of discussions in this community. Mar 17, 2022 at 15:06
  • 2
    Then, you have missed the point. Stack Exchange does not do "discussion", it does Question-and-Answers.
    – Nij
    Mar 18, 2022 at 6:29
  • @RogerVadim I think it's a perfectly reasonable aspiration in principle to "raise a bit the level of discussions". While Nij points out that Each Stack Exchange site is a Q&A site, we work within that format to discuss things all the time. But we must always adhere to the Q&A format otherwise this stops being Stack Exchange, and as currently written your post is a "push question" as it primarily articulates a position. If it quoted a position of a notable figure and asked if their arguments are valid or flawed that might help somewhat, but SE can't survive if question posts become positions. Mar 25, 2022 at 23:37
  • 1
    @RogerVadim I have asked over 5,000 Stack Exchange questions including about 500 hot network questions, thereforfe I have some sense for what will fly and what will be shot down in Stack Exchange. There is no logic to it per se but if you want to avoid your questions being closed you might abandon logic for some more effective rules of thumb. Bottom line, don't ask "push-questions" whether you acknowledge there is such a thing or not. Mar 26, 2022 at 8:36
  • 2
    @RogerVadim That’s not true. If you look at this question, it clearly says it was closed by 5 votes from users
    – divibisan
    Mar 26, 2022 at 15:02
  • 2
    @RogerVadim Your post is certainly a reasonable exercise for a group of people, it's just that the format you've used is incompatible with how Politics SE is currently set up. SE is open to pretty much the entire planet's internet; there have to be constraints to keep it from turning into just another internet mess like Facebook. One of them is that we don't use questions to argue positions; "X is Y, prove me wrong". It can be refactored to "Does X = Y?" or "Why doesn't Z think X = Y?" but you need to move your arguments to an answer post... Mar 26, 2022 at 20:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .