site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   40294 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Watching the disastrous discussion between Zelensky Trump and Vance I wonder how you guys here feel? The whole thing made me nauseous , treating an ally like that is disgusting , unpresidential and certainly geopolitcally inept. The EU-US relationship is not salvagable and at this point I would clap if US bases were emptied and NATO dissolved. Decouple the EU from the US as fast as possible and be independent. There is no way to talk sense into lunatics like Trump and Vance and Putin's control over them somehow seems to be absolute. What an absolute disaster. I know that there will be differing opinions here but at least most of you must agree that this is too much, or not , maybe Russian propaganda really has you convinced that Ukrainians are stealing money and started the war or some nonsense.

  • -12

I'm embarrassed and disgusted. We should be the ones thanking Ukraine for doing the dirty work of defending Western civilization for us. All we've had to contribute is $120 billion in weapons that probably would have been thrown away. What an absolute bargain. I'm glad that Zelenskyy held his ground and didn't cave into their petty guilt-tripping bitchfest.

What, specifically, about Western Civilization has the war in Ukraine defended?

The understanding that war in Europe in the quest for control isn't a good idea and should not succeed? NATO's territorial safety? Giving an imperialist dictator a bloody nose? I can think of a couple of things. Why are you so ready to defend russia is the main question? Even if Ukraine hadnt actually defended any western value it was certainly supporting US interests in the region. Throwing an ally under the bus and bullying them like trump did is an obscenity.

I don't care about NATO. Ukraine has never been an ally to me, in either an official or unofficial capacity. Giving dictators bloody noses - this isn't 1942, and it's not as if the bloody noses left across the Middle East have reaped many rewards for myself or their locals. If Europe is concerned about their sovereignty, then they should start acting like it.

The spell of the mythical do-good American hegemony has been assailed from all sides and rotted from within. This isn't a defense of Putin. I'm just done with this bullshit, and no ra-ra'ing is going to pull me back in.

Russia is an authoritarian regime that doesn't respect secular liberal values, allies with muslim terrorists, and oppresses its own people. Anyone fighting such a regime, and preventing its incursion into Europe, is defending Western civilization.

Whittling down an ever-shrinking population of young European males even more, to save Western civilization.

England and Germany are also both authoritarian regimes that don’t respect secular liberal values. Australia locked people in quarantine camps against their will only FOUR years ago. Canada debanked a bunch of truckers because they were honking their horns. Various states in the US will de facto kidnap your children and castrate them.

At some point the west needs to remind itself what it means to be the west and what we’re supposed to be defending. Free speech, free expression, free association, parental rights, bodily autonomy; these are non-negotiable.

Russia doesn’t support these things either, and is clearly an authoritarian pseudo-democracy, but “the west” just keeps slipping, and the lack of contrast between us makes it harder to rile me into supporting a war to defend our values.

Russia is an authoritarian regime that doesn't respect secular liberal values, allies with muslim terrorists, and oppresses its own people.

I do not share your "secular liberal values", and am not interested in maintaining them. The median European neither shares my values nor respects my inalienable rights, and are both willing to coordinate meanness against me and has a long history of cooperating with efforts at such coordination. Any claim that Europe is a bastion against Muslim extremism seems laughable on the face, given Europe's obsession with importing as many people from extremist Muslim countries as possible and their evident failure to actually suppress the extremism of their new citizens. Europe as a bulwark of "Oppression" is likewise laughable; the median European would prefer me to be imprisoned than living as I am.

"Western Civilization" does not, I think, have a definition that we share in common, so I decline appeals to it.

Of course Europe is not a bastion against muslim extremism, but I think that's simply a failure of Europeans being too optimistic about letting in highly religious immigrants, hoping they would be converted to secular values. Russia, however, openly sides with dagestani warlords and invites them to rape and pillage Europe. If I had my way, Europe and the US would be completely rid of both christian and islamic oppression. That's not possible right now, but it could happen someday. Defeating Putin's barbarian orc army is a start.

  • -13

If your starting point in a negotiation is "let's defeat this army first and THEN we can rid the US of your chosen religion's oppression" it seems like you are not going to win a lot of new allies.

Of course Europe is not a bastion against muslim extremism, but I think that's simply a failure of Europeans being too optimistic about letting in highly religious immigrants, hoping they would be converted to secular values.

I am highly religious, as are many Americans. I am not interested in helping to build a system for suppressing Muslim extremism when it is self-evident that such a system will be used against people like me first and worst. Not when countries who don't want Muslim extremists could simply choose not to import Muslim extremists, and especially not when I strongly suspect that the enthusiasm with importing them is at least partially motivated by the hope that they'll form a reliable voting block against people like me.

Russia, however, openly sides with dagestani warlords and invites them to rape and pillage Europe.

I have no idea what this refers to, but would be willing to read up on it if you had a link. Meanwhile, we allied with child-raping drug dealers for twenty years in Afghanistan.

If I had my way, Europe and the US would be completely rid of both christian and islamic oppression. That's not possible right now, but it could happen someday. Defeating Putin's barbarian orc army is a start.

Yes. And then you wonder why I, as a Christian, am not enthusiastic about facilitating this process with my nation's blood and treasure.

You hate people like me. You'll harm us if you can. You are not a friend or even an ally. You are just as bad an enemy as Russia, and much more dangerous to me that Russia ever could be.

You hate people like me. You'll harm us if you can.

Not at all. I do believe in religious freedom. I just don't want to be governed by religious values, especially ones from outside my culture. I take issue with the way Christianity spread throughout the world, often by force, and displaced traditional European religions and atheism, but I don't blame individual christians for that.

Not at all. I do believe in religious freedom.

It would not surprise me if you did have a conceptual package of things you approve of and are willing to tolerate that you've labeled "religious freedom". I see no reason to believe that this package has sufficient overlap with the package I maintain under that label, nor to believe that you are in fact committed to this package in any durable way long-term, such that I should base my plans for the future on the assumption that it will protect people like me or work in our favor. When the new arguments about how things which were previously normal are actually weird and harmful and need to be suppressed, or why things which were previously abhorrent suddenly are the purest reflection of human liberty and must be defended, I expect the model "liberal" to update cleanly and arbitrarily in favor of withdrawing tolerance from those who disagree.

Again, the part where Progressives were absolutely in favor of mass-importing radical muslims on the assumption that, in your words, they would "be converted to secular values." "Conversion to secular values" isn't gravity. It's a socially-constructed mechanism that the Progressive tribe built and maintains at considerable expense, and it is and always will be innately hostile to people like myself. Tolerance is not a moral precept; the idea that it was was something between a delusion and a deliberate con.

Peace and prosperity in Europe. To put this in neonazi terms, higher IQ western whites, spearheaded by leadership heavily colored by those born within the Hajnal line, have naturally held this one weird compact: no more brother wars. White western civilization also maintains its near monopoly on functional true democracy (for whatever worth and reality there is in that). And the peace and prosperity furthers the goal of Western civilization constantly getting richer, more technologically advanced, and producing the high levels of human cultural output - instead of being distracted with constant dick measuring wars between worthless dictators playing their own map expansion and coloring games. That latter bit is more the area of say, Africa or the Middle East, with one notable exception.

Weirdly, slavs consistently are the odd man out here. Southern slavs in the Balkans being the exception to European peace in the 90s. And Russia never ever being able to match the civilization level of western nations i.e. they've never had a democracy and similar internal civil development, for some reason, and show no signs of self improvement in the near future.

The Russian war of annexation is symbolically and functionally a civilizational war of oriental despotism and 3rd worldism vs Western Civilization. Resistance against it is resistance said orientalism and lower level of civilization. It punishes the weak and problemed in favor of the thriving and superior. Appeasement is degradation and invitation to further rot.

It's the geopolitical equivalent of a schoolyard bully that comes from a broken dysfunctional home of a whorish single mother and revolving door of boyfriends that occasionally beat said bully. Everyone with half a brain can tell such a bully is going nowhere in life long term, even if he's big right now. He takes advantage of high trust societal norms (non-violent, conflict averse teachers) to let out his frustration, from internal problems, on other students like "nerds" (who are actually higher IQ, more prosocial, and more mentally well adjusted). You'd be a fool to think the "nerds" should just let the bully do whatever he wants under the idea he'll just stop, or even worse sink to his level and imitate him. He's the defect and weak link.

Peace and prosperity in Europe.

Do they? I'm awash in takes daily about how, actually, Europe is kind of fucking poor. They haven't had a start up that matters globally in decades. Their economies are fractions of a single state. For many of them, their stock markets don't even crack $1T in total market cap compared to the US have several trillion dollar companies. France has the highest, and it's behind the US, China, Japan, India, Hong Kong and Canada.

And peace, well that's debatable. The powers that be have basically invited the barbarians inside the gates, and are throwing anybody in jail who complains.

I'm not sure Europe's thoroughly domesticated population is receiving the dividends for their emasculating behavior you imagine they are.

It reinforces my view that Trump is an intemperate, childish bully who worships power and is a massive Russia simp. I don't think Trump needs to be a Russian asset - though he could scarcely be doing a better job if he was - when he clearly admires and defers to Putin.

The "America First" mindset is nonsense from petulant idiots whose core grievance seems to be that our allies don't lick our boots hard enough. Literally weakening America for the sake of wounded pride (and absolute children are going to applaud this because this is their idea of "strong leadership").

Some version of "America First" has been predicted since the end of the Cold War.

One wonders how much more serious it would be under a different President.

Ah well, we'll never know.

Some version of "America First" has been predicted since the end of the Cold War.

Since 1941.

Sure but I mean the dismantling or downsizing of the American empire created to fight the Soviets, this is more about not even getting started.

They believe that because they are unaware of how many things this coupling offers the US, they same way they believe a lot of inaccurate things . You are right their perspective is flawed , because their supremacy is also a result of their control over Europe.

This kind of condescension just raises the temperature and honestly violates the spirit of this forum. Why not assume good faith of your outgroup and try to understand why many Americans are not interested in spending American blood and treasure to support the American empire? If you just want to jerk about how the benighted plebs are voting against their own interests, you can do that on Reddit.

As a Brit, it pains me to see another Anglosphere country repeat the folly of throwing its empire away.

It hurt me too until about a couple of hours ago. Honestly at this point , it can't come soon enough.

  • -11

How much choice did the UK have? Genuinely curious, I don't know much about the history.

I’m genuinely not sure either, so this is thinking out loud.

On the ‘it had to happen’ side:

  • nationalist terror movements were increasingly taking off (the Stern gang, various African movements).
  • Ghandi had found a non-violent method of beating / shaming the British into retreat; he proved it worked and he popularised it.
  • The British soldiery was feeling exhausted and put-upon. Many of them regarded socialism as their just reward for all they’d been through.
  • Britain was in an economic slump post-war.
  • Decades-long peacekeeping is different from world war.
  • America had (I think?) made it clear that they were willing to oppose British Imperialism with sanctions re: the Suez Canal and Britain was very dependent on America.
  • We had militant anti-imperial unions at home.

On the other side:

  • the British Army was already mobilised, and we’d literally just been all over the world defending the empire.
  • discipline among the troops was still pretty good.
  • The needs of keeping up the empire might have spurred economic development and kept up civic pride.
  • Worsening relations between Britain and the Empire might have prevented mass immigration.

In general, the ‘it had to happen’ arguments seem stronger, but I’m not sure.

The ‘empire’ seen as one thing is the bad idea. India should surely have been jettisoned earlier; most African colonies were economically worthless. Elsewhere there were many more actual strategic mistakes.

I always heard that India was the one part of the empire that made a profit. Untrue?

In general, could you expand on your point a bit? I’m not sure I follow.

My guess wrt India would be that population wise the UK probably didn't have the capacity to keep it subjugated long-term, at least not without resorting to the sort of brutality that would have been diplomatically infeasible. But 2rafa is no doubt better placed than me to comment.

Per usual, I'm late to the action.

As I watched the exchange, it felt like I was witness to a public altercation between a spoiled, petulant teenager acting out and his harried parents trying to contain the situation. The criticism of clothing style, the "who put the roof over your head"-type comments, the "you should be grateful" all played into the trope.

And as usual for public scenes between parents and wayward teenagers, no one came out looking good. The parents become exasperated, the teenager sulks, the public may send sympathetic glances towards the parents but mostly just feel awkward.

More interesting is the reaction of the public. Of course in America one side had to be right, and one wrong; so reaction fell necessarily along partisan lines. Some from both sides hailed this as the end of the international order, with a differing perspective on the desirability of this outcome. But what personally irked me was the reaction of Western European leaders, predictable as it was. When a teenager is acting out in public, you should never defend the teenager. The teenager needs to mature and grow: that happens through both direct criticism and social disapproval (and possibly ostracism until they learn to behave). If anything, public support should got to the parents. Privately there can (and possibly should be) discussion with the parents on how to handle such situations in the future, but petulant anti-socialness should not be condoned: especially when that teenager is responsible for millions of lives.

Watching the disastrous discussion between Zelensky Trump and Vance I wonder how you guys here feel? The whole thing made me nauseous

"Nausea" is exactly how I felt as well. Trump could have had such an easy win: show the world the US is still the keeper of peace and justice, bloody the nose of one of America's two main rivals and get natural resources worth trillions for the US economy. Instead, him and Vance are acting like 10-year old playground bullies, antagonizing their allies and showing the world the US will only follow through on promises when convenient.

As someone on a different forum put it, the main danger for Russia right now is running out of champagne.

bloody the nose of one of America's two main rivals

Does anyone think Russia is a rival? For what? Hearts and minds? The world wants to move here. We have multiple states with a bigger GDP. Slavic population is going to keep shrinking.

Not saying they don't matter, nukes and resources matter, but rival is over-egging the pudding.

The 10 minutes at the end were not the whole meeting. It was 50 minutes of “Putin is a terrorist” and “no concessions to a killer” from Zelenskyy. Trump and Vance’s frustration boiled over in the end, even if it seemed unprovoked in the shortened clip.

I felt after the Lex interview that Ukraine will become part of Russia. Zelenskyy is completely blinded by his hate for Russia and Putin and his desire for revenge, to the point that he cannot accept the reality of Ukraine’s losing position.

Ukraine’s only hope is that Trump is able to break Zelenskyy. Trump claims that Zelenskyy is already begging to be let back in. But I’m not sure it’s possible: Zelenskyy may be too courageous/stupid, which will spell the end of Ukraine.

Making Russia pay an exorbitant price for having invaded was the correct call and has long since been accomplished, but any real chance of Ukraine getting its land back evaporated after the 2023 counteroffensive went nowhere. This has to end at some point. If the demilitarized welfare states of the EU want to declare war on Russia to liberate the eastern oblasts then let them do so, but otherwise it's about time to start packing it in.

Unfortunately the brutal lesson the Russians are currently learning is “The Euro-American defense complex is a pale shadow of it’s former self, the buffet is now open”.

This seems needlessly overwrought. Russia is exerting power like thirty miles from its own border, and only doing so at the price of tens of thousands of vehicles and hundreds of thousands of men. If nuclear weapons all disappeared tomorrow I feel like they'd need about three Russias to take down Poland at this point.

and only doing so at the price of tens of thousands of vehicles and hundreds of thousands of men

Yes, just like the United States lost half a million men and two thousand Abrams tanks during their failed offensive to take the Iraqi capitol during the second Gulf War. Or at least that’s what Baghdad Bob told me...

If nuclear weapons all disappeared tomorrow I feel like they'd need about three Russias to take down Poland at this point.

And if I was seven foot-four and had great hand-eye coordination I would be making 55 million dollars a year in the NBA. Also, the Polish army is about 1/3 the size of Ukraine’s army.

Yes, just like the United States lost half a million men and two thousand Abrams tanks during their failed offensive to take the Iraqi capitol during the second Gulf War. Or at least that’s what Baghdad Bob told me...

Did the fight for Baghdad drag on for three years of savage trench warfare while the US was reduced to fielding tanks from four generations ago and everyone gawped at satellite images of their empty vehicle depots? No? I'm sure Ukraine is fluffing their numbers but there's no way to imagine Russia hasn't suffered absolutely appalling losses, in a war mostly taking place a day's walk from their own border.

Was I supposed to have been under a prior impression that Russia would never ever be able to extend military force even one inch beyond their own borders no matter how much they were willing to bleed for it? Were you?

Maybe you were, maybe you're one of those Reddit heroes who were counting on truth and justice and Harry Potter and the Avengers to triumph in the end, but for some of us the writing has been on the wall for over a year. The west, including the previous administration, just gives way less of a shit about this than Russia does. Sorry if you bought the propaganda.

I deleted my prior angry screed that I had here, I realized that I had started this whole exchange by accidentally replying to entirely the wrong person, which is why my tone seemed seemed so oddly strident.

My point was that it’s probably time for Ukraine to pack it in because they’re not doing as well as claimed, and NATO likely doesn’t have the industrial capacity to bail them out. I went and looked at your other posts and I noticed that you were saying basically the same thing and I was sort of talking past you. Sorry about that.

All good man.

This just seems like an insane takeaway. Russia couldn’t capture Ukraine. What makes you think Russia is thinking “and now I can take back say Poland.”

Russia couldn't capture Ukraine (so far because the war is still ongoing) because Ukraine had the largest land military in Europe apart from Russia, had a vast air defense stockpile inherited from Soviet Union, and had a military that fought with some various intensity with Russia since 2014 and had experience. On top of that, Ukraine is large and has a large defense depth. Putin thought Ukraine will just not fight.

Nobody knows what Putin thinks but if he succeeds in Ukraine, he has a war machine, veterans (including criminals that would be better kept in the army), war economy that would crumble if demobilized. At this point, the risk of continuing the conquest may not be larger than the risk of demobilizing. Russia is no match to a unified NATO (even ex-US) but fractured and indecisive NATO is vulnerable.

America is throwing its empire away for nothing, like @doglatine says. There was no reason to do it. It cost almost no American lives and secured America's place as the richest major nation on earth. The American public were and are wealthier than ever. There were zero downsides bar the occasional volunteer getting hit by an IED in a military they volunteered for. As a percenage of American GDP, it amounted to a pittance, whereas for the British and French, Empire was always an economic burden. What is the reason? Pure arrogance.

Neither Trump nor Vance are controlled by Putin. But both have a strong, angry contrarian streak, which is more than sufficient to explain this. The US has an extroardinarily overvalued currency and has a deficit that will now exceed 6% GDP; Trump is currently trying to pass $4tn of tax cuts with $2tn of spending cuts. That the US can borrow so much, so easily, so cheaply is testament to its extraordinary power and influence, easy to lose, hard to gain.

There were zero downsides bar the occasional volunteer getting hit by an IED in a military they volunteered for.

There were a lot of downsides for the people that were getting hit by those IEDs, which is why they stopped volunteering. If there’s another war it will have to be fought by conscripts.

It can be fought by drones with much higher tolerance for civilian casualties, as I’ve long advocated here.

If there's another war the core red tribe will demand a draft, because we don't want to bear the brunt of the casualties again. The cultural memory of stop losses and foreign national guard deployments is still there and there's anger about national guard activations for foreign peacekeeping duties today. Act like a major war is on or don't have a troop surge.

What’s happened is the aesthetic of the Empire became less about some non-partisan celebration of Captain America’s thunderbutt and more about evangelising radical social issues of the Democrat party like Pride Parades and trans kids.

The Republicans, thanks to their total lack of representation in organisations of any influence, decided it was simpler to dismantle the Empire entirely rather than try to steer it away from gay pride back to Captain Thunderbutt.

Basically, the Empire-maintaining parts of the government became partisan, and now are being cut off since the other party is in power.

Eh, you can become overly focused on the culture war and recent events. I think this is missing the huge impact of Iraq in discrediting the very notion of that empire on the Republican side.

The republicans were in power, recently, and they entangled Americans in a costly boondoggle based on lies they justified on the same sorts of lines people are now hearing about Ukraine; a bunch of moralistic appeals and (what appear to them to be) phantom threats about how the whole spider-web will collapse and America will be imperiled if people don't fork over their money and sons.

All of the necons and atlanticists fled to the Democratic party when they were defeated by Trump. The sorting is in part a result of the broken consensus which is a result of Republican failures.

All of the necons and atlanticists fled to the Democratic party when they were defeated by Trump.

That started happening much earlier, when Obama defeated McCain. Note that the Ukrainian War kicked off under a Democrat administration (and an absentee President, though his son was very involved in starting it).

The sorting is in part a result of the broken consensus which is a result of Republican failures.

Indeed, the polarity has swapped- the Dems/Blue find themselves the conservatives in contrast with the Reps/Red, who are the reformers/"liberals" now.

Yeah I don’t think so. We’re telling the rest of the world that they don’t get everything for free anymore.

Ukraine can’t show up in our country, yell at our president, and try to shame us into giving them more money. JD rightly pointed out that Zelensky was in PA campaigning for KaHa in October. That kind of thing is not acceptably any longer.

When did anyone get anything for free? Most weapons europeans buy are american and the americans have infinite control over europe since the end of WW2 , the fact that you have been convinced somehow that you were taken advantage of is part of the problem. It was your president that yelled at zelensky and not the other way around. Ok since it's not acceptable , take your bases, dissolve NATO and leave the continent. You are doing us a favour and destroying your hegemony , win win.

the world that they don’t get everything for free anymore

Even for those not sharing the Atlantic consensus' liberal secular values, how does America's control over many of the world's largest economies constitute charity? Why don't you believe that it gives American companies full access to foreign markets, subsidizes American debt etc. contributing a large portion of American prosperity after the 1980's and especially 2000's deindustrialization? E.g. a trade deficit is good for consumers, for the normal folk...

Yeah I don’t think so. We’re telling the rest of the world that they don’t get everything for free anymore.

The rest of the world never got anything for free. The domination of the US over Europe was beneficial for the US. In exchange for protection, the US could push for its military technologies through STANAGS and use ITAR regulations to control Europe's defense production. Trump and the US right think that the US only owe their success to their superior economy. It seems obvious to me that it is in a very large part a result of the network of allies they built in the world. We will who is right in the future.

Trump said that Zelensky had been maximalist in negotiations, Zelensky rebutted with a boilerplate 'it's hard to negotiate with a vicious enemy' type paraphrase. Trump would have nodded sagely and said nothing or replied with some more ambivalent criticism. The show would have gone on.

Then Vance out of nowhere responds with a comment about litigating the debate in public (which they were all engaged in) and then a ridiculously simpish "you're disrespecting the president, SAY THANK YOU" jibe that made no sense. Trump was and is more than capable of defending himself, and nothing Zelensky said was particularly personal.

Out of context though. This was supposed to be a friendly press conference, with negotiations to take place in private, but Zelenskyy tried to leverage it as an opportunity to negotiate and lecture Trump and Vance. After 40-ish minutes Vance lost patience with Zelenskyy’s stunt.

I think Trump would have handled it better alone but Zelenskyy sabotaging the press conference was a massive diplomatic mistake.

That is not what happened though? I don’t mean as an interpretation, I mean that is very objectively just not the course of events.

Trump said something about the importance of diplomacy, and how tough words don’t mean anything.

Vance interjected basically just agreeing with him, but adding a jab at Joe Biden.

Zelensky then turns it into an argument by implying that you can’t be diplomatic with somebody like Putin. Zelensky points out that regardless of diplomacy, Putin has been slow invading Ukraine for 10 years now. Zelensky says “so what kind of diplomacy do you mean?”

Jd: “I mean the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country”, and then goes on to say he thinks it’s inappropriate to try and litigate this in front of the press (I think he’s right).

Doesn’t matter if you find it ridiculous or not. Argue politely, without insisting that everyone who disagrees is a mindkilled moron, or don’t argue at all.

We have warned you repeatedly. One day ban this time.

When you start talking about Putin's control over Vance and Trump you should double check yourself and think "what am I doing here?"

The reason for the antagonism between the US right and Europe and Ukraine right now is not a mystery, and you don't need Putin based conspiracy theories to explain it.

Part 1: Ukraine has been acting as part Democrats international money laundering operations that have been further exposed via the vetting of USAID. They also engaged in an active cover up of those money laundering operations, a but-for, reason that Joe Biden was able to win in 2020. In other words. Zelensky went all in betting on Biden. His son's freedom was in Zelensky's hands after all.

Part 2: Zelensky doubles down on being partisan in 2024, actively campaigning for Biden then Harris.

Part 3: Ukraine is a symptom of longstanding fractures between Europe as a whole and the American right. Europe has been militarily freeloading for almost a century at this point. On top of that the cultural shift is probably even more problematic. The European reaction Vance's freedom of speech speech has been disturbing. There hasn't been an ounce of self reflection, just pure agitprop and condescension. But lets be clear, yes they are the baddies. There are the ones imprisoning grandmas for praying 30 meters from an abortion clinic and dads for calling a Muslim who raped his daughter a rapist.

They'd probably arrested Vance if he was some comedian instead of the VP. The situation isn't just bad. It is really bad.

None of the things you just said has any basis in fact , sorry to say. I know already where you get your info. What does have basis in fact though is the propaganda masterclass the russians have played in your country ( and in europe too of course) , I am done trying to argue on this, if you seriously can support your president's conduct , you are welcome to cut ties with us and leave the continent. Do you think it's a coincidence everyone has started hating you? Maybe you should ask yourself ' Am I acting like an asshole ? '.

  • -20

Europeans hating Americans is as old as apple pie friend.

The snobbery didn't start with Trump and people's various Putin conspiracy theories either. They were snobbish about GW Bush before Iraq!

If I am Europe and I had the option to side with China to kill and humiliate a large number of American Red Tribers during or post Trump during a conflict, I can't imagine why I would'nt take that opportunity at this point.

  • -13

I can't imagine why I would'nt take that opportunity at this point.

...because it's psycopathic?

Any more so than siding with the US in its clash with China? Why? It would be a mutually engaged conflict from a third party POV one side is just as valid as the other all things being equal.

Because you would presumably not be siding with the US for the opportunity of killing and humiliating a large number of people.

That would be the exact reason except it would be China they are trying to humiliate in this case. No one thinks the US would be fighting for Taiwan for any real existential or even significant material gain. The war would be to humble one side and maintain/shatter US hegemony. I made the distinction of parties because one party being in charge of the hegemony is now probably detrimental to Europe in the short and long term.

Edit: Is it taboo to quote a deleted comment?

Any more so than siding with the US in its clash with China?

Yes, because siding with the US in such a situation is unlikely to involve killing millions of Chinese civilians for the sake of some weird revenge fantasy.

killing millions of Chinese civilians for the sake of some weird revenge fantasy.

It would shock me if more than 1000 American civilians died in the whole Taiwan war. I am virtually certain more Chinese civilians will die in that war than Americans.

The old, "side with the fascist enthnostate because the liberal democracy's leader told you to stop putting meme-makers in prison" move!

Unfortunately it is not implausible given the authoritarian direction Europe has gone down.

I don't see how Europe benefits anymore from a MAGA American hegemony than it does from the true Multipolar world that would immediately develop post a crushing US military defeat. I am not trying to be dense here and am open to arguments why I am wrong about this.

  • -14

I don't see how Europe benefits anymore from a MAGA American hegemony than it does from the true Multipolar world that would immediately develop post a crushing US military defeat

What do you actually imagine a multipolar world looks like? You know that free and open shipping lanes aren't present in the state of nature right? Global supply chains are complex and absolute necessities for whatever nation you call home flows through an uncontested sea kept that way by the American navy. At best you now need to to fund a navy to protect these ships coming and going, at worst they stop coming and going and you find out real quick what a boon a free and open global economy is and how dependent you were on it as millions starve.

I don't like what Trump and pals are doing here, but you have no idea how much you're taking for granted to be able to make a statement like this. Europe is no energy independent, what do you think life looks like when you can't keep the lights on without a militarily defended fuel supply?

I obviously see Europeans more aligned with China — both believe in authoritarianism. Seems to me the biggest difference is China isn’t as weak as Europe.

I would wager that EU defense spending is about to increase dramatically. A Moneys Paw situation if there ever was one.

More comments

If I am Europe and I had the option to side with China to kill and humiliate a large number of American Red Tribers during or post Trump during a conflict, I can't imagine why I would'nt take that opportunity at this point.

I don't see how Europe benefits anymore from a MAGA American hegemony than it does from the true Multipolar world that would immediately develop post a crushing US military defeat

The reason to not kill large numbers of people is because killing is evil. It's not because of some flimsy model of geopolitical relations.

But, to answer your question, no one knows what would happen if China handed the US a crushing military defeat with Europe stepping on its neck as well. Would Europe starve? Would they become a client of China? Would there be nuclear war? Or would the continent thrive as, absent their American daddy, they were forced to become serious countries again. Your guess is good as anyone's.

Would there be nuclear war

I am of the very strong opinion that before the Taiwan war even happens, both countries' nuclear red lines are going to be made clear and understood by both sides before it kicks off. That might just be hopium but I think it tracks.

More comments

Well, there will be no crushing US military defeat. Certainly not one orchestrated in any way by Europe.

And if there were one by China you'd be under the boot of an Fascist ethnostate. As opposed to "checks notes" "MAGA American Hegemony" aka, us telling you to let people post memes on the internet and to cool it with sentencing the victims of rape to longer sentences than the rapists got for calling the rapists rapists.

You are acting like the current American regime is some sort of illiberal order with aspirations of world domination, whereas in reality they are politely suggesting you follow the normal postwar rules about free speech and asking you to build functional militaries to check the local aggressive dictatorships.

Well, there will be no crushing US military defeat. Certainly not one orchestrated in any way by Europe.

And if there were one by China you'd be under the boot of an Fascist ethnostate.

I find it hard to believe the US being routed in the South China Sea would lead to Chinese world domination. I don't even think China is much interested in that even if it were possible. The end of the US Hegemony does not entail China ruling the world.

China is uninterested in conquering Europe and has no interested in ruling over Europeans, so why should they care?

'Hey friends, I just told you I'd join China to kill and humiliate you! I'm open to arguments about why I'm wrong.'

Uh, no, I think I''ll just be happy to return the favor by at least identifying you as not a friend nor an ally and, in fact, something far closer to an enemy with which I share little.

I wouldn't as I am an American but if I were European? Yeah I would be looking to end the US Hegemony right about now. A Multipolar would with China as the other poll would start to look a lot more stable

If I am Europe and I had the option to side with China to kill and humiliate a large number of American Red Tribers during or post Trump during a conflict, I can't imagine why I wouldn't take that opportunity at this point.

Yes. We Red-Tribers understand this quite well, which is why things have gone the way they have gone. Common knowledge of the nature of the Red/Blue conflict is what has driven the Culture War escalation spiral, and is what will continue to drive it in the future until that spiral exceeds the tensile strength of our existing social arrangement.

I mean, guess in my view, the American Red Tribe vs The American Blue Tribe + The entire rest of the world is not a winnable fight. Its such an obvious loser that I don't know why anyone would maneuver themselves in such a manner. Trump is burning every bridge and seems unlikely given his actions thus far to leave much of his cult of personality intact for whoever inherits the mess after his last term.

How are the American Blue Tribes supposed to get the Europeans, let alone the entire rest of the world on their side against the American Red Tribe?

Even when the Europeans + The American Blue Tribe were also + American Red Tribe on one side in the early Ukraine War, they couldn't get the rest of the world on their side.

I mean, Europeans are on the side of the American blue tribe, the question really is "does that matter?" Blue Tribe is increasingly the domain of the unmarried woman and effete men. Several European armies don't even practice with live bullets. Its somewhat like that classic 4chan post about how democracy doesn't work if men and women are split on issues. What if worldwide fighters and non-fighters are generally split? Can the parties of the weak, helpless, and welfare recipients keep a party of soldiers and construction workers sufficiently morally cowed indefinitely?

I mean, guess in my view, the American Red Tribe vs The American Blue Tribe + The entire rest of the world is not a winnable fight.

Whether it's winnable is questionable, but more questionable is the basic polarity of the situation.

The American Red Tribe vs Blue Tribe + the entire rest of the world was the situation we were previously converging on. Red tribe cooperated with and funded the creation of an international ideological alliance controlled and directed almost entirely by Blue Tribe, which directed American tax money in vast amounts to Blue Tribe projects designed more or less explicitly to increase Blue Tribe power both at home and abroad.

We are now attempting to dismantle that system. If we succeed, the result will not be "Red Tribe vs Blue Tribe + the entire rest of the world", because the international ideological alliance will break up and die. Then it will simply be Red Tribe vs Blue Tribe. You've already stated your personal view of the stakes of that conflict; we'll see how it goes in practice.

These are some pretty ridiculous accusations. It wasn’t enough to say that USAID was a waste for saving third-world lives; now it has to be a laundering scheme? How? Where? Seriously, what percentage of USAID money do you think went to Eastern Europe?

I don’t understand how you connect it to Biden winning, either.

Part 2 I’ll concede. It’s not surprising given Trump’s stated appreciation for Putin—and his skepticism of NATO. Those are enough to terrify Ukraine.

I think your third point is a complete mess, too. You shouldn’t write off all of Europe because sometimes they don’t live up to your standards. Also, if you’re talking about Paula Harlow, she’s an American.

These are some pretty ridiculous accusations. It wasn’t enough to say that USAID was a waste for saving third-world lives; now it has to be a laundering scheme? How? Where? Seriously, what percentage of USAID money do you think went to Eastern Europe?

USAID? Probably not much. They are all parallel operations. Biden's son's "business" in Ukraine wasn't USAID funded, but it was a similar operation.

I don’t understand how you connect it to Biden winning, either.

Zelensky could have investigated Biden, and easily convicted his son in abstentia. This would have torpedo'd Biden. Instead he participated in a cover up of Hunter's activities and actively participated in various Putin-based hoaxes aimed at Trump.

I think your third point is a complete mess, too. You shouldn’t write off all of Europe because sometimes they don’t live up to your standards. Also, if you’re talking about Paula Harlow, she’s an American.

I dont really see what standard they are living up to at all. I was actually thinking of Adam Smith-Connor of UK, but I assume there are other grannies. Paula Harlow, is of course, an American tragedy as well. We aren't perfect, but Europeans make us look like angels compared to their Stalinist speech restrictions.

Okay, so how has “the vetting of USAID” exposed Ukraine corruption? How is the Burisma scandal (or Clinton’s uranium deal, or whatever else) a “similar operation?”

Graft is a symptom, not a cause.

Yes. Ukrainian graft was merely one part of the Democrat money machine. But it was a part. And when confronted on it Zelensky toed the DNC line and clearly chose to ally himself with them.

USAID is another part of the Democrat money machine. They are all similar operations in that they funnel money to Democrats using 3rd party, often 3rd world, cutouts.

Democrats international money laundering operations that have been further exposed via the vetting of USAID

That's still a conspiracy. At least, I've yet to see any proof or even mildly plausible concrete descriptions. Domestic webs of domestic (insert pejorative adjectives) NGOs (and in Central America) doing things we don't like, sure. But they're doing concrete work, which we oppose. If they were just laundering the money into their pockets, the culture war might look different. But in Ukraine? Ukrainian journalists and logistics organizations certainly aren't redirecting money to help people break the law in the US, they're making up for destroyed logistics systems and talking about the war... Anyway, please do point me to proof if I'm wrong!

Have you ever stepped back and thought “maybe Trump and Vance think the Ukraine situation is foolish without the Putin factor?”

Maybe they think the European leaders are ridiculous without the Putin factor? After all, the Euro leadership is full of very serious people who also happen to be complete and utter morons of the highest order.

I welcome uncoupling America from such people.

Talking about European leaders being morons while you have a dummy like trump as a president is top comedy.

  • -16

The better way to frame it is that they think they're weak morons. Their ridiculousness comes from the disconnect between their pomposity and seriousness and their inability to manage without America.

The basic Trumpian view is that Trump may be crass but America can at least handle its own business or face the consequences. You get more leeway if you can pay your own tab.

Trump(ism) is all about power or the appearance thereof.

They haven't needed to manage without America because America managed for them in return for supremacy , that is the way of the post war order. The fact that Trump doesn't understand that and is clearly a bully in love with Putin is the main problem. The European politicians are a result of this state of affairs, a weak continent paying protection to someone else.

  • -10

It's a weak continent that cannot break free of US hegemony, is reluctant to pay part of the toll of said hegemony (maintaining militaries at a certain level of potency) while fantasizing about pulling away and having an independent foreign policy and doing things that both annoy its hegemon (like Germany's sidling up to Russia for energy, which they laughed at Trump for criticizing*) and perhaps even make wars that its hegemon must fight more likely. And is unwilling to shoulder sole responsibility for said wars.

The "deal" left dissatisfaction on both sides because there's no coherent bargain in ink, because Europe is a bunch of different factions. It's essentially a sort of cowardly/lazy slide into American dependence paired with wishful thinking about an independence that would not require reconciling these contradictions.

* What person who acknowledges the supremacy of the another does this btw?

Can you name one accomplishment or intelligent thing the big Euro leaders have achieved or done in the last decade? I can’t.

While I don't think I'd call many European leaders morons, over the past few decades many of them have shown themselves to be quite unserious. Sweden tried to launch a "feminist" foreign policy in the 2010s. Germany dismantled their nuclear power supply for no good reason and became dependant on Russian gas. Leaders in countries like Spain and Ireland larp as third-world revolutionaries with their Palestine support. The UK is trying to pay Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands from them. And so on. For all of Trump's weird antics his mercenary nature is at least better suited to how the world actually works.

The whole thing made me nauseous , treating an ally like that is disgusting , unpresidential and certainly geopolitcally inept.

Ukraine is not an ally. I get that the U.S. foreign policy blob sometimes talks like that, but they are not part of NATO, there has never been a treaty of alliance, the American people were never sold on Ukraine being an ally. Personally, I just want the war to end as soon as possible and I really don't care about territorial concessions or military concessions Ukraine might need to make.

Yes they are. For 3 years they have been fighting to further your interests too , whether your interests changed so much that you now align more with putin is a different matter , but for 3 years yes they were an ally. The fact that you now align with putin so much that you dislike who he dislikes speaks to how unserious and untrustworthy the new US goverment is .

  • -17

It was never in my interests for US government to be involved with Ukraine. My position on Ukraine is the same as Obama stated in 2016, which is that it is a core interest of Russia but not of the U.S..

What country are you from BTW?

What source of knowledge are you using to form an opinion of what is or isn't in your interest? Because I am sure Obama would gladly say he acted like an idiot back then. Poland and the baltics border Ukraine which are in NATO , so of course it's not ideal for these countries to border an aggresive and expansionist Russia. How is this not clear? If you can't think like that leave the alliance, and if you have changed your mind that much change your foreign policy , just don't go around acting like trump is acting and disrespecting and bullying your former allies. I am from Greece.

as Obama stated

For fuller context:

As regards the two-year-old conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the president said Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow, in a way that it is not for the United States. He noted that, since Ukraine does not belong to NATO, it is vulnerable to Russian military domination, and that “we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for.”

The extent to which people react differently to Obama's regarding his position on Ukraine compared to how they do to Trump is quite noteworthy.

Well, as an American I care deeply about territorial concessions in Ukraine. I don't want russia getting one more inch of land. I want them to be taught a brutal lesson for their aggression. Ukrainian soldiers are fighting for my interests in a much more direct way than American soldiers have in any war since WW2. I don't understand how any American of European descent can care about Ukraine less than Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or any of the other countries our tax dollars have been squandered on over the years.

I'm an American of European descent. (Actually, I live in Europe).

I don't care who controls some low-quality real estate in eastern Ukraine. I care about the people who are getting killed in the war. More so the Ukrainians, who are are undergoing horrible suffering they did nothing to deserve, but yes, also the Russians as well. Accordingly, my preference is for the war to end as soon as possible, regardless of what this means for "territorial integrity", "credibility" or similar considerations. I have felt this way since day 1, incidentally.

I hope that answers your question.

  1. I don’t want my taxpayer dollars squandered.

  2. Ukraine is a shitty corrupt country of zero political significance that easily could’ve been described in a low simmering civil war.

  3. KSA is actually strategically important. There is a close connection with Israel (which isn’t nearly the same corrupt shithole as Ukraine). Basically there is no value in Ukraine.

I don't understand how any American of European descent can care

I'm an American of European descent. I don't care which flag flies over the Ukraine, it has nothing to do with me. And I believe that the elite class who run the GAE essentially parasitizes helots like me to give money to the rest of the countries you list, countries that I feel no kinship towards, and in fact dislike.

Ukrainians are not fighting for my interests as a religious red triber. They may be fighting for your interests as a progressive blue triber. But that shouldn't be hard for you to understand.

Are you a new poster? Assuming you're not a troll trying to stir up drama, I recommend trying to steelman your outgroup's beliefs and to spend more time considering why they might disagree with your framing of things.

Well I didn't say you should care, just that I don't understand how Americans can care about Ukraine less than Israel or other countries that we spend billions defending. Obviously I don't expect religious red tribers to agree with my anti-religious views, but it seems like there should be some common ground in not wanting Europe to be overrun. As much as I'm frustrated by some of Europe's anti-free speech laws, it's still my ancestral homeland.

I can't defend the support for Israel or middle eastern shenanigans as I also firmly oppose both. As far as not wanting Europe to be overrun, your post prompted me to write a tangentially related post here. In short, Europe and America have drifted apart, and I don't know if it still makes sense to act as though they share similar cultures and beliefs.

I don't care about Ukraine less than those. I don't care about any of those countries one bit. I have no malice towards them, but I don't see why we should intervene in their affairs. Once we fix our numerous internal problems, then maybe we can use those resources to play world police. But until then, I do not think there's a good justification for spending money on other nations' problems rather than our own.

Ukraine is not an ally. I get that the U.S. foreign policy blob sometimes talks like that, but they are not part of NATO, there has never been a treaty of alliance, the American people were never sold on Ukraine being an ally.

This is part of what confuses me about the recent discourse surrounding what's been going on. I'm very sympathetic to Ukraine, but the sorts of comments about how recent events are evidence of the US betraying Europe or its allies or whatever seem so much more divorced from reality than they usually are that I'm left wondering if I've missed some crucial development in all this.

I just watched it, and I'm pretty conflict-averse irl so boy, it was hard. My face is flushed. Vance and Zelensky are going to be replaying that disastrous ten minutes in their heads over and over tonight. I think Trump already forgot about it.

But, watching it, it's pretty obvious what went wrong.

The administration is getting grilled about a security guarantee because Ukraine is confident a cease-fire will not prevent future incursions from Russia. The US doesn't want to commit to a security guarantee because they know that there's a real chance they would have to intervene because of the same worry. Ukraine and the US both agree that Russia is not trustworthy, but the US cannot publicly acknowledge this, because then a security guarantee would then directly imply that the US is agreeing to take an active role against Russia in a hot war. Also you can't do diplomacy with someone if you've already committed to the position that's it's futile. Zelensky is at war; he can do that. The US shouldn't do that.

Zelensky's point (that Russia has violated agreements in the past) was a good one, and it of course stumps Trump and Vance. I think Vance's aggressive reaction was more like, "Are you really trying to box us in on this right here, in front of the cameras?" I'm sure this really caught Zelensky off guard, because the playbook he was running works very well in Europe and elsewhere, to my understanding. The shouting was a result of Zelensky's attempts to interrupt. In fairness, there was interrupting from all sides.

Ok tell me why I'm wrong.

The US doesn't want to commit to a security guarantee because they know that there's a real chance they would have to intervene because of the same worry.

What purpose does serve an army if you prove everyone you will never use it?

We have just come off fighting a continuous war in multiple countries for the last two decades. I am pretty confident that most serious people in the world understand that the US is, in fact, capable of prosecuting wars when we find it necessary. The question is not whether we can fight, it's if we should in this instance. And the answer is a hard no.

Those wars don't count. The US at war with small and poor countries. Nobody in the world will ever think the US are a reliable ally unless the enemy is Iraq and Afghanistan, and even in the later case the US did not win...

  • -10

Those wars don't count.

Ok.

Nobody in the world will ever think the US are a reliable ally unless the enemy is Iraq and Afghanistan, and even in the later case the US did not win...

Given how our alliances have worked out over the last few decades, this seems to be an acceptable outcome. I am tired of being a "reliable ally" to "allies" who offer nothing in return but ever-increasing demands, recrimination, and interference in our internal politics to my tribe's detriment.

am tired of being a "reliable ally" to "allies" who offer nothing in return but ever-increasing demands, recrimination, and interference in our internal politics

Those allies have offered you a mostly free global market. The network effect means that the value of a network is proportional to the square of its number of users, and allied countries users have contributed in no small part to US big tech consummer basis, even though the US use its tech as a mean of spying on them.

That is why I think that the fall of Trumpism will not come from #Resist, or from democracy, or from the juges, but from capitalism itself.

to my tribe

When Scott Alexander explained this concept, it was meant as something to fight against, not as a political compass.

Those allies have offered you a mostly free global market.

Whether this was a good deal or not is the debate, and the status quo has been losing that debate, worse and worse, for quite some time now in my estimation. Americans do not generally seem to believe that our economic system is working, and the mounting frustration is spilling over into extremism on both the right and the left. You seem aware of this as well with your reference to the fall of Trumpism coming from capitalism.

On that point, my disagreement would be that Trumpism is itself a response to the model of "Capitalism" that we've all been living under for the last several decades. Maybe it will succeed, and maybe it won't; if it fails, further escalation seems inevitable.

When Scott Alexander explained this concept, it was meant as something to fight against, not as a political compass.

Indeed. And in my estimation, Scott Alexander and his supporters, of which I used to be one, lost that fight decisively. Zunger and Ozy were correct, Scott was wrong, as he himself seems to have recognized over time. Tribalism won because humans require values-coherence for cooperation to function, because the range of possible values allows for values-incoherence, and because liberal norms foster unlimited values drift until the norms themselves become unsustainable. Tolerance is not a moral precept, and will never be a moral precept. It is only ever a peace treaty, and under conditions of sufficient values-diversity the treaty stops making sense.

I don't think capitalism will fail and Trump will die with it. I think capitalism will survive but Trump will be destroyed in the process. Americans may be unsatisfied with the way the world works, but they just have unrealistic expectations.

The network effect means that the value of a network is proportional to the square of its number of users

This means the network is mutually beneficial, so the US is paying with it's own membership, so the allies are still not offering anything.

When Scott Alexander explained this concept, it was meant as something to fight against, not as a political compass.

Effectively this means Scott Alexander wanted to have the values of his tribe be the only ones that can even be considered.

This means the network is mutually beneficial, so the US is paying with it's own membership, so the allies are still not offering anything.

The money? The companies are american, didn't you notice?

More comments

When you step back the fact the meeting was allowed to take place in the way it did is baffling.

The minerals deal in itself is one sided -- it's not clear why Zelenskyy should give away so much without something -- anything at all -- in exchange, presumably a security guarantee. So one would think he's thinking the purpose of the visit is partly to discuss that. Maybe Trump thinks Zelenskyy is visiting simply to sign over the minerals and pay homage, but Zelenskyy has a different understanding, that there must be a chance of the US discussing Ukraine's terms further before signing. And the administration should know he's thinking that.

Yet despite this stark unfinished business, the first meeting in Washington is in front of the media, as if the visit is primarily ceremonial, and goes on for an hour. This seems highly unusual. Who planned it this way and for what reason? Not to mention, it was staged with both Trump and Vance there but only Zelenskyy from his side -- why??

Superficially it seems like the behind-the-scenes diplomats failed dismally at their jobs in allowing the meeting to happen at all in advance of the signing (of course they may have had a better plan that was overruled). Else the meeting was arranged like this deliberately to go wrong, but I don't really understand why.

it's not clear why Zelenskyy should give away so much without something -- anything at all -- in exchange, presumably a security guarantee.

How are you coming and taking about this at all when you haven’t read anything about it, or even listened to the interview that js the topic of discussion in this thread?

Seriously what motivates this?

Zelensky is not giving away so much without anything at all. Trump and his proxies explain that giving us access to these minerals (Trump mistakenly at the beginning of the interview calls them “raw earth minerals”) gives us “skin in the game” and an obvious strong financial incentive to protect Ukraine.

But I’m actually asking: what is the motivation to talk about this without knowing anything about it?

What do you think it is I don't know? Zelenskyy is managing multiple open questions -- the minerals deal, the prospect of a ceasefire/peace deal and how it will be enforced, and longer term planning for what happens if Russia musters forces and stages a third invasion. All those things are interconnected. The meeting seemed to suppose that just the minerals deal would be signed in advance of anything else being resolved, which seems foolhardy on Ukraine's part (if they were not in fact expecting further dialogue prior to signing). Negotiations by their nature can't be done piecemeal because once a concession is made it can't be taken back. As much as possible needs to be agreed at once. To think the minerals deal is security guarantee enough because of 'skin in the game' is to assume far too much. It surely only makes sense as part of an overall package of 'what next?' and I think it's likely that additional discussions and agreements relating to security would need to happen for Ukraine to be sensible to go forward with it without being unduly trusting.

You're wrong because the media coverage for just about everyone else, propagandistic or otherwise, will insist that it's far greater than that.

Trump may still have already forgotten about it, but he'll be asked about it, and be grumpy to be reminded over and over by journalists eager to needle him.

Scott Greer has an article about "simping" where he says this about abortion:

Conservatives uphold this attitude towards abortion. They insist the women who get abortion are blameless–it’s all the men’s fault. One pro-life leader recently said legalized abortion is “100%” the fault of men. “It’s a tool they use to cover up their crimes or neglect women & children they should take care of or have convinced some women they need in order to be ‘equal’ to them in the workplace,” exhorted Students for Life 39-year-old president Kristan Hawkins. She ended her post by emphasizing how her husband knows his place. This simp attitude is why Pro-Life Inc. was furious when Trump suggested in 2016 that women who get abortions may face criminal penalties. Only the (presumably male) doctors should be punished if abortion is illegal. This makes as much sense as not punishing a woman who hires a hitman to kill her husband. Such are the wages of simping.

https://www.highly-respected.com/p/the-simp-society

I would ask Greer whether pro-lifers were "simps" throughout America's history, when state laws almost exclusively targeted abortion doctors rather than women:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/donald-trump-abortion-wrong-punishing-women/

On the abortion issue, I bet there are a lot of people out there who don't really care about abortion but figure that pro-life is just going back to the situation in 1973. People like Trump, who remembers America in 1973, and figure that the illegality of abortion wasn't a big problem back then and won't be a big problem now. But pro-life in 2025 is not the same as pro-life in 1973. The thing about making hyperbolic, propagandistic statements (abortion is murder!) that are intended to be taken metaphorically is that some among your followers may take them literally. Radical feminists who proclaimed that "gender is a social construct" helped create the transgender movement that would later turn on them. What happens in twenty years when men who today read Scott Greer are sitting in state legislatures and writing bills that would punish women who get abortions with the death penalty?

Conservatives [...] insist the women who get abortion are blameless

This does not match the attitudes of conservatives I know at all.

If this is how the Conservative party has trended, that would be an interesting growing disconnect.

There’s definitely an attitude of ‘the woman as victim’ even if it isn’t universal.

In practice, most bills to treat abortion-seeking women as murderers are not written by greerheads.

I don't know where he picks up that the conservatives think the women are blameless. I think the reason the laws tend to target doctors rather than pregnant women is that the latter are in a situation where they are unlikely to be receptive to the disincentive of punishment, as they would usually percieve being forced to carry to term as an event on the same scale as the end of their current life, as enslavement to a burden they didn't want, etc... As such if you want the laws to actually dissuade the act, targetting the doctors seem like a more efficient path. The doctor has less to gain and more to lose.

The thing about making hyperbolic, propagandistic statements (abortion is murder!) that are intended to be taken metaphorically

I think most firm opponents of abortion would reject the idea that their claim that abortion is murder is meant to be hyperbolic. You could argue that they don't truly believe it because if they did they'd also treat those seeking abortions as they would someone attempting a murder, but that's just arguing that they're insincere or inconsistent, not hyperbolic.

Radical feminists who proclaimed that "gender is a social construct" helped create the transgender movement that would later turn on them.

Radical Feminists believe that the transgender concept of 'changing gender' reinforces the socially constructed gender norms they seek to destroy. A trans woman, from a rad fem perspective, is a man putting on an overt, almost offensive stereotype of what society believes a woman to be. One does not follow from the other, they are actually incompatible ideas.

You could argue that they don't truly believe it because if they did they'd also treat those seeking abortions as they would someone attempting a murder, but that's just arguing that they're insincere or inconsistent, not hyperbolic.

I think most women seeking abortion lack the mens rea to properly call it murder, they've been told all their lives that abortion is "healthcare," "just a clump of cells," and many other slogans that distract from the reality that abortion is ending a human life.

The doctors can be presumed to know better.

Were I writing the laws I would make a distinction between someone in this mental state and someone who knows full well that they're taking actions with the express purpose of killing another human. You'd have to default to treating all offenders as ignorant, letting quite a few off with punishments less than what they deserve, but the "shout your abortion" types could be justly punished as willing murderers.

I think most women seeking abortion lack the mens rea to properly call it murder, they've been told all their lives that abortion is "healthcare," "just a clump of cells," and many other slogans that distract from the reality that abortion is ending a human life.

The doctors can be presumed to know better.

You are assuming here that doctors share your peculiar (and in my opinion, quite absurd) metaphysical beliefs. I am quite certain that a strong majority of them do not.

I think most women seeking abortion lack the mens rea to properly call it murder, they've been told all their lives that abortion is "healthcare," "just a clump of cells," and many other slogans that distract from the reality that abortion is ending a human life.

This is a very weird argument because it's unacceptable in any other circumstance.

Nobody argues that slavers or concentration camp guards were irresponsible because they had been taught by their entire society to not see their victims as human. Well I mean some people try it, but it's not very successful.

Whatever one's stance on abortion is, you're really not going to get anywhere morally with "I was just following orders". Not in the West anyhow. In this civilization we believe that the moral impetus is on the individual to do good even if one's entire society is pledged to evil.

Slavers who engaged in trade that was legal when they did it were generally not prosecuted; lawful slave-owners also were not prosecuted. And the prosecution of camp guards was, indeed, rather controversial and is better seen as vae victis than anything else.

I think what he's missing is that 'it's not the woman's fault' is a rhetorical strategy designed to get around the 'you just want to control women' accusations. Any big movement has to figure out how not to scare the hoes because a) they vote b) they make their boyfriends/husbands vote, and c) they still do most of the political organising. A movement which women perceive as anti-woman is generally going to do badly.

Yes, there's a reason people "simp" and it isn't just a chance with a particular woman. But they're simping.

What drives Zelensky? While surely a mix of motives coalesces into his behavior and decisions, I posit the following are primary candidates:

  • Beneficence of the Ukrainian people
  • Will of the Ukrainian people
  • Hatred of Russia
  • Desire to retain power

The first motive simply states that Zelensky is operating to maximize his country's well-being. This often means making difficult choices, and ones that may appear detrimental in the short-run. I think Zelensky's brave choice to remain in Kiev in the opening weeks of the war was a demonstration of this: risking his own life to inspire and lead his armies as they fought the invading force. However, if he now is truly attempting to maximize his people's well-being, he should have signed the rare-earth agreement with the United States. His childish behavior (inappropriate attire, attempting to alter the deal in front of the press, insolence to a nation responsible for his nation still existing) put the deal at risk, and seems to indicate that his country’s well-being no longer holds paramount sway in Zelensky.

The second frames Zelensky as a conduit for his people's will. In this sense he serves as an ambassador petitioning support for his people and their cause. Again, I think in the early days this objective clearly was a major motivator. He was able to transmute sympathy into aid, keeping his nation afloat with economic and military materiel as patriotic fervor swelled his armies with volunteers. Yet now we are three years into the war, and conscription has replaced volunteerism. The average age of the fighting man is over 40. Zelensky has resisted calls for an election, which while he has the legal right to do still undermines any claim to be operating with the people's mandate.

The third motive has been in the background for the entire war. Yet now it may be moving to the forefront. In his interview with Lex Friedman, Zelensky dismissed any idea of negotiating with Putin. He refused to speak in Russian (despite it being a common language between Friedman and Zelensky) and went out of his way to say Putin would be "forced to pay" for the things he has done. This could certainly be grandstanding, but such a hatred would also explain his recent behavior in Washington. If driven primarily by hatred for Russia, he would risk sacrificing his own people to reduce the probability of a cease fire. In this case, he may well have gone to DC with no intention of signing the rare-earths deal, and intentionally blew it up (though doubtless he didn’t desire the dressing-down he received).

The desire to retain power, while clearly the most damning for Zelensky, also fits the recent facts. If there was a cease fire or a peace agreement, Zelensky would risk deposition. His stature in the world and his ability to remain in quasi-dictatorial power comes from the war. It is in his best interests to keep the war going at all expense.

Many commentators seem to assume Zelensky is operating primarily under one of the first two motivations. Certainly those with Ukrainian flags in their avatars conflate Zelensky with the Ukrainian people. Yet given recent circumstances I can no longer assume the interests of the Ukrainian people and Zelensky are aligned. And the rest of the West shouldn't either.

I don’t see this as about his country’s wellbeing. The war, at this point is doing more harm than good. The infrastructure is in tatters, he’s lost almost all of Donbas, and he’s only maintaining status quo by abducting men and women to send to the front. None of that helps the people of Ukraine.

Two doesn’t work either. Again, almost everyone who could have left is in Eastern European NATO countries. Th3 rest are dodging the press gangs abducting people in the streets. Ukraine hasn’t even had an election since the war started. If you have to kidnap your army, it’s highly unlikely that the people have the will to fight.

Arresting draft dodgers is completely normal behaviour, even in peacetime. And every country has had enough draft dodgers that if Twitter had existed there would have been enough material to make pictures of draft dodgers being arrested go viral.

It is electing draft dodgers President that is the exception, dear Americans. (This isn't a partisan dig - the Dems, GOPe and MAGA are all guilty)

The relevant question is not "Is the number of draft dodgers greater than zero?" It is "Are there significantly more draft dodgers in 2020s Ukraine than in other democracies at war?" And unfortunately any reliable statistics that exist on that point have not been published. But the battlefield performance of the Ukrainian army profoundly doesn't look like the textbook examples of an American client state army who doesn't want to fight (e.g. South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

Are they really abducting women too?

Here's another motive. Zelensky might be surrounded by people who are anti-Russia and they might just make him "a devastating mistake made in the chaos of war."

However, if he now is truly attempting to maximize his people's well-being, he should have signed the rare-earth agreement with the United States. His childish behavior (inappropriate attire, attempting to alter the deal in front of the press, insolence to a nation responsible for his nation still existing) put the deal at risk, and seems to indicate that his country’s well-being no longer holds paramount sway in Zelensky.

I generally found this post remarkably insightful, but I found this particular section of the analysis very weak, in a way speaking to heavy consumption of propaganda - and your overall point rests on it. I know that I'm going right for the weakest point made, but still - inappropriate attire, really? He's the leader of a country in the midst of an existential war; his presentation was as expected.

Like a woman showing her cleavage, he knew what he was doing.

I disagree. I assure you that even if the war caused a shortage of suits in Ukraine, there'd still be more than a few left for the President, and I'm pretty sure even leaders of countries that got steamrolled by the Nazis during WWII were still wearing proper attire.

It was clear from day one what he's doing, his entire getup screams "I'd be wearing a uniform if I could get away with it".

I think there is a world of a difference between the plain military fatigues he is wearing and some generalissimo uniform (which Trump would doubtlessly have found more acceptable).

Every politician performs in part for the people at home. I guess the message he wants to convey to his soldiers in the trenches is "Like you, I had this war forced upon me. Like you, I am at the risk of Russian bombings. We are fighting for the same thing."

As every political messaging, it is a bit silly, but it is a brand which has worked for him so far. Zelensky decided that it is more important to stay on-brand for his people than to appease Trump by being his dress-up doll. I think he was correct.

'his dress-up doll'? That's some serious spin for being asked to wear a suit like a grown up instead of larping as Nick Fury.

Churchill came to America dressed in war fatigues didn't he?

Once, or to the point you couldn't make him wear anything else? And didn't Churchill actually have a military career?

I thought his attire was no big deal at first. Then I read that trumps aids informed him that Trump would prefer he wear a suit. This is basically a slap in the face. And Trump seemed to even take it in stride joking “all dressed up today?” I’m guessing it didn’t help him though when he continued to be an asshole by continually bringing up security grantees in front of the press - when he clearly had been told that’s not on the table.

Maybe security guarantees could be provided in exchange for a besuited Zelenskyy.

That but seriously! I don't think he's likely to suit up until the war is over at least on paper.

His childish behavior (inappropriate attire, attempting to alter the deal in front of the press, insolence to a nation responsible for his nation still existing) put the deal at risk, and seems to indicate that his country’s well-being no longer holds paramount sway in Zelensky.

I guess not everyone is the kind of respectable elder statesman that Trump is.

It has been said that the west will defend Ukraine to the last Ukrainian soldier, and there is some truth in that. For NATO, Ukraine is a great geostrategic investment. We pay peanuts (compared to the NATO military budget) to weaken the primary opponent of NATO and get someone else to do all the dying for us. As a bonus, the country we support is much more sympathetic than the mujaheddin were back in the old days and seem much less likely to disrupt the NYC real estate market.

Obviously, Ukraine is going to take NATO aid as long as they want to resist Putin. But expecting them to be more grateful to NATO than the mujaheddin were would be unrealistic.

Now enter Trump. This dude starts "peace talks" with Russia, immediately makes big concessions to Putin while calling Zelensky a dictator. Then he invites him to the White House and expects him to grovel. Even if Zelensky did everything Trump wanted, signed the deal, wore whatever Trump felt was appropriate, rolled over on command and so on, Trump will not be satisfied and keep the military aid flowing. In the end, he expects Ukraine to accept some peace deal he is negotiating with Putin.

When you are fighting a war, national pride (however much I might detest the concept) is an asset. Zelensky getting humiliated by Trump would definitely affect the fighting spirit of Ukrainians, and is likely not worth the few extra bombs Trump might deliver before cutting their flow to force Ukraine to accept a deal he has made with his best buddy Putin.

Swallowing your pride to keep US intelligence assets feeding you information and some level of payment for your entire civilian infrastructure doesn't seem that bad a deal.

Everyone forgets that this mineral deal was Zelensky's idea. So on some level he was okay with it.

But it looks like he thought he could get security guarantees out of it, and when Trump told him no, he forced the issue despite having no leverage. Or simply misspoke his way into a diplomatic insult. (Seriously, who tells any head of state "you will soon feel [consequences]" to their face in front of the whole world and expects to get away with it?)

Either way, Ukraine is barely holding on as it is despite the immense bravery and sacrifice of its soldiery, if the US cuts support, even if the EU doesn't, it's over.

The third motive has been in the background for the entire war. Yet now it may be moving to the forefront. In his interview with Lex Friedman, Zelensky dismissed any idea of negotiating with Putin. He refused to speak in Russian (despite it being a common language between Friedman and Zelensky) and went out of his way to say Putin would be "forced to pay" for the things he has done. This could certainly be grandstanding, but such a hatred would also explain his recent behavior in Washington. If driven primarily by hatred for Russia, he would risk sacrificing his own people to reduce the probability of a cease fire. In this case, he may well have gone to DC with no intention of signing the rare-earths deal, and intentionally blew it up (though doubtless he didn’t desire the dressing-down he received).

Zelensky was elected to reconcile with Russia, ran on that platform and had many close contacts and business partners in Russia before entering politics. I would guess he hates Russia was than the average Ukrainian, although maybe that’s changed depending on what you believe about assassination attempts etc.

I think that

  1. He thinks that what he does is in Ukraine best interest
  2. He is corrupt as fuck (being eastern european politician is proof of corruption, just like being politician from Chicago)
  3. The adoration and adulation he has been getting from the EU has gotten to his head. They threat him like he is above them, like the leader of Europe, yada yada.
  4. He is weak - he doesn't have the strength to sign the best realistically possible deal for Ukraine even if it is bad.
  5. He cares about political survival.

I'm not sure this analysis can be complete without mentioning another possible motive:

Secondly, I would add that part of a desire to maintain power at this point might be out of a sense of self-preservation.

Now, people are generally complex, and I am not saying that greed is what motivates Zelensky, I don't claim to know his heart. I think it's quite possible that Zelenskyy disagrees with you, for instance, about what is best for Ukraine, and your analysis does not seem to give this possibility any of the weight it deserves. But whatever drives him, it's probably more than just one thing.

Yeah agree. Surprised you don’t see this mentioned more. Ukraine used to be ranked one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and now we are sending them hundreds of billions of aid dollars?

Surely Z and his top guys have hundreds of millions to billions stashed away in offshore accts by now

The kolomoisky thing is interesting. Guy basically bankrolled his run to president and then Z-man turns on him and jails him. Wonder what happened there.

Happens a loooot with patrons who don't keep enough leverage over a pawn they underestimated (or who got new patrons). And sometimes even what you thought was solid gold leverage disintegrates mysteriously when enough powerful people feel threatened by it, as Mr Epstein found out.

I don’t think Epstein ever had large numbers of tapes / hard evidence. If he had, he would have been smart enough to have backed them up with a dead man’s switch, this was 2019 not 1967 when it was conceivable to have kompromat all stored in hard copy in one location on tape. If you have material on some of the most influential people in the world you don’t store it with zero duplicates / backups in the basement of your New York townhouse that can be raided by 3 professional burglars you hire for $4000 from Staten Island and which everyone knows the location of. Epstein’s relationship with intelligence was tangential or limited rather than planned, if he assisted in exchange for the authorities turning a blind eye it was conditional and case-based, not an elaborate program. And he almost certainly did kill himself, as many people would in that situation facing guaranteed life in solitary confinement with no possibility of parole.

If he had, he would have been smart enough to have backed them up with a dead man’s switch

Why? Those tapes are still very useful to the intelligence services he was working for.

Of course, so why did they turn on him? He was an old man and his main ambition was to keep doing what he was doing and have 100 kids via IVF. The theory has a lot of holes.

Did they turn on him, or weren't able to bail him out this time? The material he gathered is probably more valuable than his life, so why waste it to save him?

I don’t think the idea that the FBI said “fuck you” to the CIA is unreasonable, it’s happened before. But there’s no evidence for the centrality of the CIA or Mossad to Epstein’s trafficking scheme other than the throwaway comment that he “belonged” to intelligence.

For example, imagine this (in my view much more likely) scenario. Epstein had longstanding connections to Western intelligence because he was tangentially a bit-player in the Khashoggi arms sale game in the 1980s (as has been relatively widely reported). He always had a thing for teen girls (going back at least to his time as a prep school teacher) and indulged increasingly in sexual trafficking and coercion as he got richer after he cut (again) a deal over the Towers financial scheme. While he was seducing notoriously confirmed bachelor Les Wexner to the tune of billions of dollars, he then set about becoming a socialite because social recognition and society status was his other great love, and relentlessly climbed the manhattan and then greater American social scene. All the while, he was increasingly procuring girls for himselves and his friends, since that is a great way to ingratiate oneself with powerful and famous men. At times (again, as Epstein himself said in life) he brokered intelligence and other under the table deals between agencies as a side hustle and to protect himself. His additional interest, though, was being seen as a really smart guy, which is why he did things like hang around with physics professors and philosophers with no real hard power as well as the Clintons and Gateses of the world.

Eventually, public pressure and endless Reddit posting about the 2005 deal he had cut with friendly local Florida officials led to the FBI reopening the investigation and the subsequent arrest. The CIA is the senior agency and could certainly have shut it down if it perceived him as actually vital to national security, but the reality is that billionaires fucking 17 year old teen prostitutes really isn’t very exciting to them, Epstein’s support had been situational at best (ie he wasn’t a plant or an agent, just a broker), and so there was no reason to stop them.

More comments

I thought it was fairly well established that he was originally given a sweetheart deal retiring to the Virgin Islands because he did have a network of backups. And over the next few years the people he was relying on as his dead-mans-switches were either turned or otherwise taken out of the picture.

Taken out of the picture why? Dershowitz, the Clintons, Gates, Black, Trump and plenty of other high profile allies certainly weren’t taken out of the picture. If they were turned, that begs the question of why? Is the deep state CIA really so moral, so ethical that they decided that they really ought to have him face real justice? That would appear unlikely. His longtime closest friend and confidante was free for a substantial period of time after his arrest herself, as were key alleged procurers or very close allies like the Dubins. In any case, the key with a dead man’s switch is obviously that your ‘friends’ (and or intelligence) have no idea how many copies there are or who has them.

you have omitted the fact that he said he would resign in exchange for security guarantees, and giving away half of ukraines mineral resources doesnt exactly scream "wellbeing for the ukrainian people" either especially when trump insists the deal does not even bring security guarantees with it

I don't believe Zelensky's current position is enviable. It's fun to be a corrupt dictator of some backwater no one cares about; less so when your country's being bombed, including occasional shots at the capital, while your job requires you to scramble around Europe and USA playing beggar-slash-hero, and the ultranationalists within your power structure allegedly aim guns at your back in case you have any thoughs of defecting.

That sorta falls into the “do what you can for self preservation” which is understandable motivation even if not exactly noble

the ultranationalists within your power structure allegedly aim guns at your back in case you have any thoughs of defecting.

I think 'hold on to power' can be equivocated with 'hold onto life'. If he takes a bad peace deal (even if necessary or forced to do so) there's a good chance he'll be dead within a year.

I think 'hold on to power' can be equivocated with 'hold onto life'. If he takes a bad peace deal (even if necessary or forced to do so) there's a good chance he'll be dead within a year.

Zelensky has had numerous opportunities to bug out, starting on day 1 of the invasion. If he wanted to bug out and surrender tomorrow, the Trump administration would help him do it, because that achieves their goals in Ukraine. He could just have told a suitably senior aide that he didn't want to go back to Ukraine.

I do not think the ultranationalist opposition in Ukraine is powerful enough to whack Zelensky outside Ukraine. OTOH the Russians are, and might be daft enough to try.

Russia started this with a failed attempt at a decapitation strike on the Ukrainian government. Starting from that point, I see why Zelensky doesn't want "peace in our time".

You're also missing - the need to appease various institutional interests in his own government; the desire to not be seen to back down or "lose"; epistemic closure brought on by only interacting with friendly media; and others.

My image, as someone who had followed Ukrainian politics close enough to not have a particularly positive image of Zelensky before the invasion, is that when he was woken up and told that the Russians had started a full-scale invasion instead of a more limited op that they had probably been expecting, he probably freaked out a bit and then finally went "Ahh, shit, I have to 100 % commit to an image of a great wartime leader now, don't I?" and then did exactly that. Since he's an actor he found this relatively easy, and obviously when you act as something long enough there's less and less difference to being one, though it still doesn't make him a master tactician when he's committed to some military course of action instead of what the generals are suggesting.

Largely agree with this. In light of it, I wonder if something like that blowup wasnt inevitable. The image of the great wartime leader doesnt exactly gel with taking a deal where you accept you lost - and realistically, he will have to take territorial losses.

The second frames Zelensky as a conduit for his people's will. ... The average age of the fighting man is over 40.

What's with the way people use this point? Ukraine is engaging in a deliberate policy of recruiting older people because they don't want to kill off their younger generation. The minimum age for conscription was 27 until they lowered it to 25 in 2024. This is bad enough when people are using it make some "Ukraine is running out of manpower" point, which true or false is not supported by them recruiting people of the ages they are deliberately trying to recruit. However it seems even more ill-suited to make your current argument: if it's a mistaken policy, then it is one that if anything panders too hard towards the will of the people.

Because of demographic declines that happened before the war, the 16-18 demographic of Ukraine is tiny compared to the older ones. Drafting 18 year olds isn’t going to open vast new reserves of troops.

I think this analysis misses the fundamental character of human beings. The Zelensky that acquiesces to this is the kind of Zelensky that flees Kiev.

Beneficence of the Ukrainian people

Will of the Ukrainian people

Hatred of Russia

Desire to retain power

Why do you not posit Fear of Russia as a primary candidate?

Particularly since it can overlap and even supersede the framing of any of the other categories you do posit.

For an attempt to psycho-analyze a leader, or even discuss what a 'will of the people' would entail, it's odd to not address the role 'fear,' both collective and individual, would have in driving decisions. Particular for a war that will quite possibly qualify as a cultural-generational trauma event, if you believe such things can exist.

Is it so hard to imagine that it might be the first one, and he simply fumbled? One thing that it is easy to forget, or might get lost in translation, is that Zelenskiy is not a strong politician. I still remember when I saw his address to the Russian people, which he released when Russia first invaded, and realised just how little he fit the mold of any successful or competitive politician archetype in the Eastern Bloc (or elsewhere). He does not have the cold judgmental mien of old-school apparatchik types like Putin or Mishustin, nor the artificial boorish anger of the People's Tribune types like Zhirinovsky, nor the slick scammy '90s businessman aura of Medvedev or Poroshenko; instead, in that particular moment, I really couldn't see him as anything other than a tired middle-aged Slav who got interrupted during a shirtless solo grilling session at his dacha by a bunch of thugs with baseball bats. Next to hawkish Russian Telegram channels gleefully posting mugshots of gentle-faced Ukrainian pilots to declare them "annihilated", this was probably the saddest moment of the early days of the war for me.

Everything he has done seems consistent with having the best intentions at every turn while fate takes improbable turns from bad to worse, but not having the cunning or foresight to plan further than one step ahead, nor the latitude to assert himself over the multitude of forces that are constraining and threatening him, nor even the people skills to see through or even just resist all the natural politicians* that he is forced to play ball with, nor any superhuman mental fortitude. Unfortunately, almost everyone either subscribes to the Western propaganda picture of him as a brilliant Churchillian leader, or the Russian propaganda picture of him as a wily actor wrapping people around his finger. He is not the former, and even though he is a former actor, the quality waterline of acting in the Eastern Bloc is very low (and Russians are probably blind to this). In this light, I would propose that he simply misjudged - everybody probably told him that Trump tests your mettle but ultimately respects nobody more than a tough negotiator, and between 8 hours of jetlag and three years of ducking around in bunkers and not knowing when you will be hit by a Russian missile or shot in the back by your underlings, he just may have been understandably too out of it to read any warning signs that this was not working out after all and stop himself from digging in deeper.

*Western politicians are scary. Almost every real-life interaction I had with one felt like a Voice of Saruman moment.

*Western politicians are scary. Almost every real-life interaction I had with one felt like a Voice of Saruman moment.

Can you give more detail on an example? I havent met any top-brass, but so far thats not my impression.

Hard to do more recent ones for opsec reasons, but as a schoolkid on a school newspaper I once somehow (fun story in itself, but unfortunately also an opsec issue) got to interview Otto Schily, then-minister of interior of Germany. Being your run-of-the-mill vaguely anarchy-sympathising student, I considered him a natural enemy, and he spouted nothing but the tritest platitudes on the subject of the interview, but I was enthralled in more or less exactly the LotR way (Wow. This kindly old man is so likeable. Surely he has $problem under control. I should just listen and thank him. Everything will be all right.) and completely failed to even try to question the non-answers. After it ended, I looked over my notes, reflected on the incongruous feeling that can only be described as afterglow, and wondered wtf just happened.

Hm. Any theories on why it happens in person, but not hearing them otherwise?

Apart from some really out-there ones like unusually agreeable pheromones, my best guess would be that it involves rapport-building body language. There are at least two schools of analysing and optimising microexpressions to control another person's impression of you (police interrogators and pick-up artists), starting with trickery like "mimic their posture" or "cross your legs so that the upper of the legs points towards them" that is not particularly subtle but already below the level of what someone not deliberately paying attention would notice. If any of this is effective, it would make sense to me if top politicians are pretty heavily selected for natural aptitude at it. As with the two "trickery" examples, the most effective tricks may require physical presence and attuning to an individual target.

I guess Im surprised that this worked on someone like you. Im a bit unsure if my own weirdness is more autistic or sociopathic, maybe that has something to do with it.

If any of this is effective, it would make sense to me if top politicians are pretty heavily selected for natural aptitude at it.

It would certainly help, but a lot of politics is also about doing well in impersonal interactions, more so the higher you go. Where you would really expect a lot of this is someone who sells things, but at a high enough level that you wouldnt just call him a salesman. Maybe someone like Trump.

I was very good friends with a girl who was a die hard, life-long Democrat. Like, door-to-door campaigning in middle school, joking about how much she'd like to be Bill Clinton's intern in the mid-00s, etc. I went to college with her and she spent her days preparing to be Leslie Knope and tangling with [famous conservative firebrand]. Her first real job in politics was somehow as an intern for a red state Republican senator, and she came back absolutely gushing about him. They had fun chats and he gave her a cute pet name and everything!

I was just flabbergasted. "Senator [recognizable name]? Neocon, evangelical fundamentalist, anti-gay, anti-abortion, Iraq War-supporting Senator [recognizable name]? I'm not mixing him up with some other Senator [recognizable name]?"

And she'd just cheerfully go "Yeah, him! Great guy."

Voice of Saurman is a solid analogy.

Even famously poor charisma politicians like Al Gore will totally eat the ego of an average person, especially if the meeting is accompanied by the accoutrements.

Western politicians are scary. Almost every real-life interaction I had with one felt like a Voice of Saruman moment.

Every normie that I've heard talk about interacting with politicians seems to have had that experience.


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