This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trump already did cut support for Ukraine?
Yes, europe will be able to handle russia on its own, easy. The politicians are largely dickless and slow to adapt to the new reality, starting with merz. But I think another, already pre-programmed, humiliating session of trump's retarded ideas and insults should do it. You could see european politicians' heads slowly emerging from the sand at Davos, before Trump backed down and Rutte kissed his ass again.
I was thinking more about actual hardware, rather than squabbles over who pays for it. You also seemed to have skipped over the other questions I asked.
They're detached from reality, and the problem is endemic to the entire elite class of Europe.
I think it's very relevant who pays for it. Paying for it is the act of an ally, selling that of a neutral. Refusing to sell is hostile, it's siding with Russia - and we haven't even officially ended our alliance yet.
I don't understand your other question, the argument against appeasement. I have neither desire nor need to appease Russia, none. They are evil and weak and getting weaker every day. They should get kicked harder, bleed some more. We should escalate.
I think it's even more relevant for the physical object that you want to buy to actually exist, and to have a willing seller.
The question was whether or not Europe can defend itself without the US, if the answer is "yes, as long as we're still allied" that doesn't actually answer the "without the US" part.
You said Russia is not a threat. If it's not a threat, than the argument "if we let them take Ukraine, they'll come for us next" makes absolutely no sense. You can say you don't want to give them Ukraine either way, which is fine, but the argument itself makes zero sense, and yet it was quite common for politicians to use it.
Cancelling our alliance makes the US neutral, not an enemy. Why wouldn't they sell? Does the neo-US under Trump hate money? Not that American gear is even necessary to beat a country with a fraction of your GDP, population, military budget.
They can be a nuclear threat, without being an invasion threat - like North Korea to Japan.
Just because they are weak and their loss in a war inevitable, doesn't mean they won't attack. Such people overestimate themselves, their war plans rely on the other's side's morale breaking (Russia in Ukraine, Japan at pearl harbor). We can't let them have ukraine because it would encourage them in their delusion that our morale will break when they attack us.
Neutrality means they can do whatever they want on a whim. Maybe they decide to keep their weapons because they anticipate scuffle with China, or maybe they decide to sell to both Russia and Europe, because why the hell, not? Plenty of neutral countries did that sort of thing.
Either way, it's ridiculous to grandstand about how useless the alliance is, and how Russia is a chihuahua, only for it to turn out it all rests on their willingness to supply Europe with weapons
I don't think anyone was talking about a nuclear threat, and if they were a chihuahua, no one would be worried about scenario 2. You could just repeal them with minimal losses.
It's annoying to have to endure pearl harbor and then go island by island against a fanatical enemy.
I find your position puzzling: you describe eurocrats as detached from reality but agree with their outdated view of Russian military power?
If it's merely annoying, it's not a big deal.
Same. You start off with things like "the alliance is doing less and less for us" and "because it‘s not like we‘d fall to russian conquest if you just leave ; post WWII yes, but the wolf isn‘t at the door anymore. A chihuaha perhaps, or a wounded pygmy bear", only for it to turn out that American arms are absolutely necessary for your defense plan.
My view stems not so much from Russian military strength, as much as European military weakness. Something European leaders were warned about, but chose not to act on - hence "detached from reality".
To be clear, your prediction is that if the americans are out, and Russia invades Poland, Russia will just win?
I'm 99% confident they'd lose, based on the ukrainian precedent, the damage they already took, and various bar graphs of resources available to Europe vs Russia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link