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 -
Even if/when Germany does finish developing LNG infrastructure for ships, importing it by ship from the US would still be hugely more expensive than getting it via pipeline from Russia. That's why pipelines exist in the first place. Liquefying natural gas to -160 degrees to fit on a ship and then regasifying it at the other end is energy-intensive!
Even if Nordstream was not providing sufficient leverage over Germany to achieve Russian policy goals at this point in time, it could do so in the future as a bargaining chip, strengthening the Russian negotiating position. Germany has historically been amongst the most pro-Russian countries within NATO. They and France were less enthusiastic about arming Ukraine prewar, they were unwilling to bring them into NATO and even today it's the UK and US who provided the majority of weapons to Ukraine. Germany is still amongst the most pro-Russian countries in NATO, it is only that everyone dislikes Russia more than before.
There is no 'use it or lose it' for Russia. They control the flow of gas in that pipeline, which is innately cheaper than anything anyone can do with ships. They can just shut it down but leave the pipeline there. The US is not substituting this pipeline with their own, they're selling their gas at much higher prices by ship.
This argument that Nordstream was not providing leverage to Russia simply does not hold up. Germany would inherently prefer cheap gas to expensive gas. That is leverage, it allows Russia to impose costs by not providing cheap gas. That is the whole point of turning the pipelines off. There is no shelf-life and its presence does split Germany from the rest of NATO to some extent. This may not be visible and may be outweighed by other factors but it's present nonetheless.
There are no strategic benefits to Russia from this. The Germans are now more dependant on the US. US energy exporters are making a lot of money. The media seems happy to imply that the Russians are to blame for this, so even the false-flag angle isn't working out for Russia.
It seems obvious to me that you and Dean are operating with different definitions of leverage (potentially, among other things).
Dean is disputing that a contributor that is "outweighed by other factors" can meaningfully be called leverage. To paraphrase:
"I've got a tool to help me accomplish a task."
"If you use the tool, can you accomplish the task?"
"No."
"Then how is the tool meaningfully useful in this context?"
In this case, despite the existence of the pipeline in a non-functional state, Germany was continuing to support Ukraine. The aid of the tool (non-functioning pipeline) was not accomplishing the task (getting Germany to bail on Ukraine). Might this have changed as winter sets in and Germany becomes more desperate for fuel? Maybe! Or maybe not, perhaps Germany decides that support-for-Ukraine remains their preferred position.
The point is, there's no evidence that turned-off-pipeline was going to be a winning move for Russia in terms of swaying German policy. There is a logical argument to that end, which you've made, but logical arguments can be wrong all the time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link