What exactly makes this question not "a good faith effort" etc.?

Question

I have a question about my Politics Stack Exchange post: What does the West gain by not letting Russia swallow Ukraine?

I have checked the resources linked in the closure note and attempted to figure out what exactly makes the question fall under the cited reasons for closure:

1. Possible lack of "Good faith effort":

   • "Be serious". Is the question playful? Doesn't look so to me.
   • "Defensible viewpoints": "if your question or answer contains nothing but unfounded assertions". I reckon the mod(s) may have discerned some "unfounded assertions". If so, what are they?
   • "Be careful of highly partisan sources". I reckon the Wikipedia isn't considered "partisan", is it?
   • "Explain your question". Did I not? Is the question not clear?
   • "Avoid bad (opinionated) assertions". Yes, I plead guilty of calling Russia "Mordor". Is that it?

2. "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician."

   Just guessing: my questioning of the stance of the West on the war in Ukraine is recognised as an attempt to "discredit" that stance. Right? Whereas I am not supporting this inference, I admit it could possibly be drawn.

   But, how to question the objective reasons behind the stance then?

Answer 1

I did not find the post/Q incredibly biased; some puns aside you've done a decent effort of presenting both sides of an argument. But consider what you're ultimately asking:

Was it really about standing on principle of what is right and what is wrong?

The main issue I had with your Q, which I noted in a comment:

I'm voting to close this Q because it fits the pattern "I don't believe the official reasons, what were the real reasons?" Answers to these kinds of Qs tend to be primarily opinion-based.

To expand a bit on that, consider what answers could look like:

No, the main reason was (take your pick, mix and match)

• to bleed Russia in an endless war, like the USSR in Afghanistan
• to eventually trigger regime change in Russia by domestic disgruntlement with the above
• to trigger ethnic uprisings/separatism in Russia, bringing and end to it as a big country
• to satisfy Biden's fantasy of a new semi-hot/cold war against authoritarianism
• to show Americans how wrong Trump was to seek a rapprochement with Putin, discrediting Trump in view of the next US election
• to reassert US dominance over Europe, i.e. show them "who's boss" again
• to boost the production and profits of the US military-industrial complex
• to boost US LNG sales
• to bring and end to humanity (as we know it) by nuclear war, as Illuminati predicted
• satanism

Etc.

Somewhat relevant: How does "Primarily Opinion-Based" work on this site?

---

Aside, but related, another recent Q asks

So, does the Ukrainian side really believe the far-fetched dream that they will go as far as to re-take Crimea?

It's pretty much long the same lines, just about a different actor and statement.

---

Finally, as I suggested in another comment, a way to make such questions less reliant on the opinion of the answerer and/or (SE) voters is to ask them from someone's perspective. Then we can check what they said etc.

As a suggestion: if you're looking for alternative imputed motives, you should narrow it down to some POV, like: "what does the Russian government say is motivating the West's response?" Or substitute (Russia) with some other actor you're interested in hearing their viewpoint.

The latter can be a bit broader like "what does the far left press/parties in France say about ?", but no so broad as to be the kitchen sink of all ulterior motives someone can come up with.

Answer 2

(Note: I neither downvoted, nor voted to close).

There are 3 things going on that would apply to many questions getting closed and downvoted.

1. Your question, as mentioned, is of a type that is often problematic: "what are the real reasons?".

2. You picked, or at least seemed to pick, the wrong side. I don't mean that judgmentally, I mean that the community has generally picked one side in this case, and will, at least sometimes, react harshly to people who stray from that narrative, even if the question is in good faith.

3. My main problem with the question however is that you spend too much effort laying out the reasons why you think the answers should go one way. You clearly feel a certain way. Often people react badly when people feel that a question pushes a certain narrative however.

Trim down much of your advantages/disadvantages basket (answers can bring them back) and you may get a better reception. Let people run with the answers, don't channel them to the conclusion you want to hear.

Answer 3

You are asking what would the west gain for not doing what they have done many times over the past half century or so when one country invades another to take it over by force. You are asking what the west has to gain by abandoning a friendly democracy to be invaded by a country they consider an advisory and let its citizens be killed. You seem to be suggesting that it would be better for them economically wise to just abandon Ukraine and let Russia have its way with them and whatever other countries they decide to target next.

The way I read your question is it is suggesting that they should have just let Russia do what it wanted because it would have been more profitable.

Answer 4

I did not see this question when it was active, and didn't vote on it either way. But looking at it now, the problem of 'good faith' jumps out at me where it says:

And, arguably, Russia wouldn't have continued invading further in Europe.

First, there are several significant European nations that are not part of NATO — Finland, Sweden, Belarus, Moldova — and any number of nations in central Asia that could be next on the agenda. If Russia took over Ukraine with little resistance:

1. they would be emboldened
2. their armed forces would be largely intact
3. they would have secured new ports, transit routes, resources, and conscripts

The suggestion that Russia would say "Eh, that's all we wanted, so we'll go home now" flies in the face of historical precedent; it's what Neville Chamberlain kept suggesting each time Hitler invaded someplace new. That is such a prominent part of the lead-up to WWII that I find it hard to believe you weren't aware of it, and if you honestly weren't aware then you piously did not make any 'good faith' effort to research your question before posting it.

You know you were posting a question that many would find challenging, if only because you knew you were arguing the side of the apparent perpetrator. If you're going to challenge people you need to have your ducks in a row, otherwise you end up looking like a troll. And simply skipping over the obvious and tragic problem of appeasement implies some very disordered ducks.

Answer 5

I have voted to delete this question now. And I downvoted it.

It essentially makes all the Russian arguments while paying lip service to the notion that it opposes those arguments.

It does not demonstrate any effort by the author to research, or even reason out, why those argument may not have merit. It mocks them, but it certainly attempts to portray them as the only "adult" or "realistic" positions.

At least, that's my reading of how the question is written.

One could argue that it is only my subjective opinion. And one would be correct. But my opinion is what I use to make my judgement calls.

Answer 6

» I don't believe the official reasons, what were the real reasons? « is a good starting point. But its not sufficient.

You see you question the western narrative but not the western framing.

In the spirit of Prof. Lakoff it may be good to examine the various frames involved. A key element of framing is the time-frame chosen to narrate the history. Put differently, the history that is relevant to the situation. So when you say "... Russia swallow Ukraine..." the implication is so outrageous that it must be rejected -- at least if you're 'decent' -- out of hand without further consideration and never allowed.

But this phrasing only makes sense if one makes some strong framing commitments:

• American time-frame: Time started on Thursday 24th Feb 2022. Prior to that everyone was in the garden of Eden living happily ever before. And then the evil Putin invaded a harmless neighbouring democratic state simply because it was unarmed.
• Russian time-frame: Time started in Februrary 2014 when the elected government of Kiev was overthrown in a coup d'état by the Obama-Nuland duo with a cumulative payout of 5 billion dollars who then went on to install a pro-US bellicosely anti-Russia puppet regime. When this anti-Russia bellicose puppet regime becoming a NATO member became a serious possibility it was all too much to sit back and watch.
• The Russian frame viewed in the American frame: 1991. Putin considers the fall of the Soviet union the greatest calamity of the 20th century. So Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet/Russian empire. Since this is outrageous, everything the Russians want is outrageous. To be fair there are a large number of very eminent Americans -- Mearsheimer, Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, Kissinger ... who dont align with this "American view of the Russian view" but this is the most widely seen view (in the west).
• East European time-frame: Early twentieth century at the latest or much earlier... centuries, maybe a millenium -- England 19th, Poland 18th, Sweden 17th, Lithuania 14th.... Byzantium 10th centuries Long list here To get some taste of this East European ancient entanglement with Russia just hear Sikorski, whose Russia-hatred is so visceral it became an embarrassment for ally-US when he tweeted Thank you USA for the pipeline blasts!!

Never mind the Rest of the World frame for whom the great powers are attacking each other in a hegemonistic war, shredding Ukraine and causing a serious threat to the whole world: Sachs. There is not too much question in the minds of people outside Europe/USA that Russia-USA are at war and everyone starting from the poorest countries are being made to foot the bill for this mega Hollywood blockbuster. Peace or war is not upto the Ukranians but Washington DC: Sen. Richard Black

So when you say "... Russia swallowing up Ukraine..." you are swallowing hook, line and sinker the American frame that we must start time=0 in Feb of this year and as George Lakoff would say thereby making this question unacceptable.