site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   38880 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Here’s where we would treat Ukraine as the ally that they should be. This is where you own up to the Budapest Memorandum that was signed by Yeltsin and Clinton to provide security guarantees for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. (The 1994 Budapest Memorandum saw Ukraine give up nukes for security guarantees from Russia, the U.S., and others—guarantees now in tatters.)

I know I bang on and on about this, but this is just entirely wrong:

  1. The Budapest Memorandum does not provide security guarantees.
  2. Ukraine happened to have nuclear weapons on its soil. It never had operational control of the weapons.
  3. The Budapest Memorandum is not legally binding, as per the US State Department.

I mean, the Budapest Memorandum could have been made a real paper (just as 'protector of Orthodox Christians' was a thin excuse to meddle in the Ottoman Empire) but Obama chose to not pick it up, and Biden after him. The Monroe doctrine doesn't exist on any formal treaty or legislation but if any European decided to invade a South American country Uncle Sam would magically appear regardless of the lack of justification to do so.

'Law' in this case was just the pretense of legality: if the Americans really wanted to go down to the mat for Ukraine, they'd have manufactured a reason to do so. They didn't, so they fell on the 'do nothing' side of strategic ambiguity.

Nowhere does the Budapest Memorandum suggest that the United States would intervene on Ukraine's behalf outside of complaining to the UN about it (which, I suppose, could in theory lead to US involvement – but of course guess who has veto power on the security council?)

Now, as you say, the US could manufacture a reason. They could invoke the Russian violation of the memorandum as a cause for war (although by that logic US violations of the memorandum would also be a valid casus belli for Russia to declare war on the United States). But I think Americans really do not want to go down to the mat for Ukraine because we would prefer not to see Rammstein nuked and thousands of Americans dead, even as a merely "plausible" outcome.

And, on that note, do you know who else would prefer not to see Rammstein nuked? Germany! Supposing the US went to the mat for Ukraine – we might not be able to get all of NATO onboard and could even see a situation where places like Germany deny the US overflight rights like France has in the past. Do you know how difficult it would be to support Ukraine if continental NATO balked? Without Turkey's participation our ships would be barred from the Black Sea, our land access would be cut off if Eastern European states decided not to play ball (to be fair, Poland seems one of the states most likely to cooperate in this scenario) and Denmark could probably also shut off US access to the Baltics.

I'm not sure what's exactly the most likely outcome here, but while Europe now is talking a big game about helping Zelensky, I remember when Germany had to be browbeaten to send Leopards. I'm not sure what the other NATO states would do if the US had decided to go to war in 2022, but I doubt they would all have lined up to join.

Ukraine happened to have nuclear weapons on its soil. It never had operational control of the weapons.

Does that mean they were missing critical technology needed to use the weapons? Or something like on paper the people authorized to use them were all in Russia?

In the absence of the Budapest Memorandum, could Ukraine have become a nuclear state in its own right?

Does that mean they were missing critical technology needed to use the weapons? Or something like on paper the people authorized to use them were all in Russia?

Basically, the troops manning the nuclear weapons were not loyal to Ukraine, and the permissive action links needed to authorize use were not in Ukrainian hands. So "Ukraine" did not have the launch codes, and they also didn't have the guys who would launch the missiles.

In the absence of the Budapest Memorandum, could Ukraine have become a nuclear state in its own right?

Technically, it's not very hard to build a nuclear weapon. If they had wanted, I think they probably could have become a nuclear state relatively easily (even after giving up the nuclear weapons), barring intervention from the US or Russia.

Worryingly, they could pretty easily become a nuclear weapons state now by cannibalizing their nuclear reactors. Zelensky has threatened to do that. And that’s assuming none of the fifty or so Soviet nuclear warheads that went missing aren’t in Ukraine’a possession. Which puts their constant demand for delivery systems that can hit Moscow in a rather ominous light.

You cannot use commercial reactor fuel for weapons (except some kind of dirty bomb). It would be easier to make weapons material from scratch.

Yes, and in fact Zelensky suggested that "all the package decision of 1994 are in doubt" less than a week before Putin declared the "Special Military Operation," and the Russians claimed that Ukraine was looking to acquire them, one of their justifications for the 2022 invasion. Now, maybe Zelensky wasn't thinking of nuclear weapons when he gave that speech (although he hardly could be ignorant of the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum!), but he certainly is now.

ETA – I'm just going to post the full Zelensky quote from 2022 for a bit of extra context:

Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time. I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.

Basically, the troops manning the nuclear weapons were not loyal to Ukraine

I am rather curious to whom the troops of the crumbling nominally-Soviet empire were, or were expected, to be loyal to. It may well be that the nuclear folks were distinctly Russian, but more broadly I can't see everyone swearing fealty to Moscow when their families now live in independent nations.

Well, I dunno, if Puerto Rico declared independence I would not expect the US troops stationed there to suddenly have fealty to Puerto Rico.

However, as it happens, we know the answer to your question – they specifically avoided swearing fealty to Ukraine and swore fealty to the Commonwealth of Independent States instead.

See page 25 of this DTRA report.

Moscow. The Ukrainian and Russian militaries didn't disentangle for over a decade after the 1994 memorandum. There really wasn't even a question about this who the soldiers had loyalty towards.

And even if that wasn't true; if Ukraine had moved to capture and possess those weapons, the Soviet tanks would have rolled across the border right there, maybe even with American support.

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