Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 18
- 1
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
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Some recent diplomatic news from Ukraine: a bunch of EU country leaders have endorsed Zelensky's offer of an unconditional 30-day ceasefire and are trying to convince Putin to agree by painting him as a warmonger and threatening him with additional sanctions.
The counteroffer from Putin is that he's willing to start direct peace talks instead. It's easy to see why he's reluctant to agree to an unconditional ceasefire: he hasn't secured any strategic objectives since the land bridge to Crimea and his current approach is to keep pummeling Ukraine until it runs out of men first and the front buckles. An unconditional ceasefire clearly benefits the defender: Ukraine gets a month to rotate its troops, resupply the frontline, build additional defensive lines.
Now, there are several ways in which the situation could evolve. I think a lot depends on the outcome of Xi-Putin talks. If Xi endorses Putin's direct peace talks offer, this will be a major signal to Trump that he also has to support Putin and not Starmer/Macron/Merz.
I don't know in what world Xi would not endorse his ally's peace talks offer. Also why trump would be swung by Xi's endorsement in putin's favour.
An offer to talk is worth zilch, as the tariff talks clownshow has demonstrated. I like kasparov’s take of calling the americans chicken, Ukraine's best hope is that Trump throws a fit at Putin's refusal. Someone tell him heavily subventioned arms exports lead to trade surplus, it's like chinese EVs.
In the world where he thinks Russia is firmly in China's orbit no matter what the outcome of the war is.
Because peeling Russia away from China to further isolate the latter is one of Trump's goals.
In that scenario, Xi doesn’t care enough to even pay lip service to his ally, and to the idea of peace? For what, trying to humiliate Putin for his domestic audience (“have you even said thank you once?”)?
That’s a stupid idea that will never work, so it would be a normal day at the golf course for TRUMP. But it would be one more reason why Xi wouldn't snub Putin in the first place. Personally I think the americans would be better off (re)-peeling peaceful China away from global nuclear threat Russia. They're like Pakistan, they threaten to destroy the world every time things don't go their way ("what's the use of a world without Russia?" - Vlad P., Moscow).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link