site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10546 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is more geopolitical than culture war. There is a guy with naval experience that has been writing a theory that the US does not want to open the Straight of Hormuz. And Trump has hinted at the thesis. Especially Europe but the rest of the world has depended on the US to keep global shipping open. Europe also looks down on the US as Neanderthals. They do not have the guns to go do things like reopen the Straight and are dependent on the Americans. The US does not directly suffer from the closure as we do Neanderthal things like put little straws in the ground all over Texas sucking oil out of the ground. Europe hurts much more than the modern US today in an energy crisis (US may be net winner).

Besides being a nice FU to Europe it also exposes their geopolitical weaknesses as real. Which hopefully gets them to do things like build big guns, drill for oil, restart nuclear programs, forget Greta ever existed, etc. Which long-term I believe a strong Europe is in Americas interests. America’s relationship with Europe historically and especially Dems has been to go over there and talk nicely to them. Trump has a different philosophy which is basically poke them with a stick. On immigration it does seem like Europe is getting better.

And here is the article. [https://gcaptain.com/the-hormuz-hypothesis-what-if-the-u-s-navy-isnt-in-a-hurry-to-reopen-the-strait] (The Hormuz Hypothesis)

He talks about it more on his twitter. I am mostly posting this to see if he’s crazy or is this a good example of Trump playing 4D chess.

Edit: Based on early comments FU Europe is appropriately culture war

Konrad is a captain but he's not a military or strategy expert... You can tell in the diction these guys use, the difference between amateur and expert. I have no doubt he knows lots about freighters but he overestimates the relevance of shipping. You do not take risks in a major war for 'the SHIPS Act, the Jones Act, the U.S. flag fleet, and CMA CGM’s unfulfilled promise to triple its U.S.-flag vessels or Greenland.' None of that matters much at all in contrast to the huge stakes here. He sees everything through a shipping angle and neglects to take a wider view.

If the US had the power to open the straits they would. Firstly, oil and gas and helium and fertilizer are traded on the world market. High oil prices harm America since the US consumes lots of oil domestically, trades with other countries that use lots of oil! Konrad makes this weird point about prices bifurcating but Brent has still gone up a lot. That hurts the US.

Secondly, not opening the straits shows the US to be weak and incapable of defending the petrodollar.

Thirdly, not opening the straits gives Iran leverage and confidence in victory. To win wars you need to take the other side's cards away from them. Iran will hold out for more favorable peace terms if their primary means of leverage remains. They're even charging fees! Trump certainly wants to win, win bigly like nobody's ever won before. He wants to open the straits, fastly!

The US isn't opening the straits of Hormuz because they can't. An Arleigh Burke only has 96 VLS tubes for missiles. Some of those will be taken up with Tomahawks, already fired. The straits are a very confined space by maritime standards, it's like fighting in a telephone box. The destroyers would have to escort dozens of freighters every single day, under drone and missile attack night and day. Drones and missiles get through, that's just how things go. Not to mention that the destroyers could just get saturated, even if US air defence missiles were magical, perfectly accurate wonder weapons (they aren't). The escort would fail and possibly lose some destroyers too. That's why they haven't tried it.

A more plausible model is that Trump has demanded that the straits be reopened and the navy is deliberately trying to slow things down because they know if they just charge in it'll be a disaster.

IMO you can deal with high domestic oil prices but banning the exportation of oil etc. Producers in US would still make good money but would limit spikes that the rest of the world would deal with.

Iran gaining power would be concerning.

You can find a guy with XYZ experience anywhere. This one doesn’t even advertise double-Ds!

You can also find Trump hinting at anything and everything. In fact, a lot of the early opposition to him came from people convinced he was hinting at various flavors of racism. This is not strong evidence of his actual motivations.

The U.S. does suffer from these things. Maybe Europe has it worse? But then again, they aren’t actually expending munitions and fuel to putter around outside the Straits. That’s got to make them feel at least a little smug.

I think you have to be really motivated to find reasons to come up with shit like this.

After reading John's (clearly partially written by AI) article, and I think him/those calling the current situation "4d chess" are engaging in Vatnik-tier copium. There is so much more downside than upside here for America. His thesis that this could be used to wield leverage over allies for protection isn't wrong, but it's a really, really stupid plan.

Especially Europe but the rest of the world has depended on the US to keep global shipping open.

I really cannot understand why this is constantly pointed out like it's a bad thing. Do you really, genuinely think that the last 100 years of American geopolitical strategy in shaping the entire world order to our advantage and then growing like crazy on top of that was a mistake??!? That every member of the American government up until now was massively deluded and accidentally giving away American prosperity/resources to the rest of the world from a sense of altruism or stupidity? And then of all people, TRUMP and his gang of blatant sycophants are the only ones to notice this. Really?

On immigration it does seem like Europe is getting better.

Because oil got more expensive a month ago? This was already the trend in Europe for the last like 5 years.

That every member of the American government up until now was massively deluded and accidentally giving away American prosperity/resources to the rest of the world from a sense of altruism or stupidity? And then of all people, TRUMP and his gang of blatant sycophants are the only ones to notice this. Really?

Yes

I mean, maybe I didn’t until you write it down and I read it, but yes I believe that the entirety of the last 46 years is cruise control by dummies.

Not the last part however - more of an accidental discovery on there end that they still aren’t aware of, probably.

Take Dillards for instance.

Absolute fucking clowns over at Dillards. Two good ideas (get rid of sales, lower overhead) and all of a sudden everyone is sniffing their own farts.

Dillards is good because everyone else is really bad. Dillards is still very bad, but hey it’s not Macys … even tho Macys is a nicer place to visit and has clean carpet.

Don’t paraphrase unflatteringly.

It’s fine to ask what people are thinking; the problem comes from assuming that you already know.

Fair enough, that was too inflammatory, edited.

I don't think that theory is likely to be true because:

  1. Not opening the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran leverage, and it seems to me from observing their utterances that the people in charge genuinely and emotionally, not just performatively, hate the Iranian government.

  2. Not opening the Strait of Hormuz hurts the Gulf Arab states. Keeping those states dependent on the US is geopolitically important to the US. Also, Saudi Arabia's leadership has personal connections to the Trump family.

The Arab States do get complicated for the hypothesis. Can’t say they are not buying US and participating.

That analysis would have value (and good chance of being true) if Kissinger was alive and in charge. Unfortunately Washington is completely taken over by the IYI class and the MAGA implants are ... not that cunning.

Trump has great instincts in finding problems and opportunities and very bad instincts about finding a solutions and realizing them.

For the Iran situation - all of the 3 big players - US, EU and the gulf know that Iran has to be beaten into compliance once it started. Right now they are just playing a dance because everyone wants the others to pay for the solution.

By the way, if your goal is to reduce immigration, then starting a war which will invariably result in Iranian refugees that the European countries will have to deal with, seems counterproductive to say the least.

Iranian refugees are already a thing with a large overseas diaspora. A functional European state could also deal with them by saying 'No go away', acting as if the majority of refugees are created by actual pitched conflicts as opposed to random economic opportunism in the year 2026 is a circle jerk

All I am saying is that literally bombing people's homes will result in refugees. Not that all refugees come from war.

Although war is correlated with refugee waves, and if a war is ongoing it is very hard to reject the refugee due to the European convention on human rights. The longer the refugees stay, the higher the risk that they are made permanent citizens, as they grow stronger ties to their host country the longer they live there.

Thus, this war will result in more refugees the longer it goes on, and it will be difficult for European governments to reject the refugees without making drastic changes to their laws. If the goal here is to reduce immigration, invading Iran is thus completely counterproductive.

Iran isn't Syria. It's really not clear that an Iran war causes Iranian refugee waves. Iran is a big place with a more middle income economy, so far we've been seeing internal migration to more rural areas

All I am saying is that literally bombing people's homes will result in refugees. Not that all refugees come from war.

No one except Iran is bombing people's homes.

No one except Iran

and Israel

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/24/israel-kills-two-in-beirut-as-it-intensifies-attacks-across-lebanon

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260315-hamas-official-said-killed-by-israeli-strike-in-lebanon

Officials, functionaries and so on are not people. For the civilians that are not living right next to them - they are not in danger.

No, not really.

For one, the whole "Europe freerider reeeeee-" screeching is stupid personal projection onto international relationships; the US would need to have all that thang on 'im no matter what, given that all our shit comes from across two oceans so we need the ability to police the oceans. Given that we needed to have the tools of the hegemon, using them to do hegemon shit came free with our navy, so to speak.

In exchange, we get the consent of europe to do pretty much whatever we want outside their backyard, basing rights, a voting block, an economic ally, the ability to impose our idea of commercial law across most of the world by fiat, and a financial backstop (at least until the cheeto in the Whitehouse and his retard hangers-on started dynamiting the careful work of decades like Hong Xi burning the fleet)

For two, anyone who gives a shit about being looked down on as a Neanderthal is an emotional weakling and deserves to be metaphorically swirlied until they disappear down the drain, never to trouble me with their squeaky voice and bitchy tears again.

It's not even true, on top of that! Yeah, America was looked down on as boorish and uncultured, as a component of (formerly at least) being admired as vigorous, strong, cunning, and forward thinking! (Less so now, unfortunately. We've proven to everyone that no, we are that fucking stupid. It's gonna take another 8 years of an Obama tier genteel speechmaking lawyerly type to wash the stink off.)

Also the irrational personal antipathy toward Greta and not being petro-dependent is crazy to me. You're gonna turn down +/-infinity energy at below market rate because it's woke to not inhale carcinogens and die on average 2 years earlier than you would otherwise?

Just shut up, eat the bug, and install solar panels and a heat pump. It was cheaper for me to wire my tool shed with panels and batteries suitable for a home server, a heat pump, networking gear, resin printer, and a bunch of 240v shop tools than it was to extend new service to it, and I did it with no rebates and after the incentives got cancelled. (admittedly I had a decent amount of the materials just laying around and did all the labor myself and I do need to have a light hand with the bandsaw, allow me my point though)

For one, the whole "Europe freerider reeeeee-" screeching is stupid personal projection onto international relationships [...] It's gonna take another 8 years of an Obama tier genteel speechmaking lawyerly type to wash the stink off.)

Robert Gates, Obama's SecDef, specifically warned that European free-riding in NATO was causing serious problems back in 2010, during Obama's first term - more than 15 years ago, before Russia invaded Crimea or President Trump was even considered a serious possibility.

Despite this (and the subsequent deterioration of the European defense situation) it was not until 2024 that more than half of NATO countries met their 2% GDP defense spending benchmarks.

The trend is definitely much better now, but US defense thinkers have been warning about European allies free riding for decades, since the Clinton administration. Just accepting for the sake of argument that this has all been "stupid personal projection onto international relations," a wise strategist understands that in a democracy, it is quite possible for there to be a certain amount of such personal projection onto international relations and one should avoid doing things like "failing to meet mutual defense spending targets" specifically to avoid such wrongly-placed personal feelings.

Solar panels are popular because it's giving stuff to middle class people(homeowners). Heat pumps are probably more red-coded than blue at this point, for climate(not change) related reasons, but Americans will eat rice and beans before embracing bugs as food.

I don't know where you're getting 'infinite energy' from though. Solar has serious drawbacks that make it a not-infinite energy source.

Just shut up, eat the bug, and install solar panels and a heat pump.

Heat pumps are ubiquitous in new American construction in red states: most don't get cold enough to need a dedicated gas furnace, and already needed air conditioning. Residential solar isn't ubiquitous, but seems popular on all political sides where it's practical: reds like the off-grid resilience. Combustion-based fuels are powering only about 30% of the grid in Texas today, per ERCOT.

Bugs, though, are probably a bridge too far.

Don't knock bugs till you've tried them. I've had crickets and ants in mexico that were delicious, and some sort of beetle and what I'm pretty sure were deep fried silkworms in thailand that were incredible. Like a more meaty peanut.

Remember, shrimps is bugs.

I agree and I’ll note that Utah (a red state) has by far the most liberal laws about setting up your own pv systems without having to contract with your utility company (in contrast with states like California where a solar system can easily cost 20-30 k, largely driven by regulatory burden)

I own a home in another state and I’ve looked into replacing the AC (all of which are in great condition) with heat pumps but I haven’t heavily researched the long-term, household upside to them apart from the general environmental benefits to the community. Same with SP’s. The problem with that though is the slope of my roof is very steep and unless a modification or minor construction to it was able to plateau a ledge out for it to absorb the sunlight, I don’t know how much of a gain I’d get from it; but I haven’t done the math on that yet.

I haven't bothered with solar for my house, I have the grid tie already. Maybe when the roof finally gives up.

re heat pumps, if you are a modern softie who runs the heat when it gets below 60 and the ac when it gets above 80, you will see returns in a couple years IF you install it yourself. I don't even know what they cost to install because they are so easy; only the really complicated multihead setups are hard enough I would consider paying someone to do it.

CAVEAT: I would install heads in at most two rooms of a house at most, one bedroom and one office. I feel cooling your whole house defeats the purpose of the efficiency gains.

The issue is getting electrical service to the unit, and getting ahold of an hvac tech that won't rob you blind for to charge it with refrigerant.

I know they sell precharged units somehow, but I don't trust it. Seems like magic.

Heat pumps will save you money over electric heat, but perhaps not over gas. They may not be able to keep up in the depths of winter, depending on local climate- of course, if this is a vacation house you use only in the summer, that doesn't matter very much. That's about the tradeoff- gas works better and the cost advantage could go either way depending on circumstances, electric furnaces are much more expensive(but do work better) to operate.

No, if you combine them with solar and install them correctly they will for sure.

Worst comes worse, you can do a ground source heat pump, but even as I say that I realize that not everyone is as handy with the shovel and pipe flarer as me, so I should extend some grace.

They may not be able to keep up in the depths of winter, depending on local climate

This is solved if you just buy the right heat pump.

According to IRC § N1108.2.2(14) (part of a complicated section where you have several options for earning 10 "additional energy-efficiency credits"), the recommendation (worth up to 16 credits by itself, depending on your climate zone!) is to buy a heat pump that, at 5 °F (−15 °C), maintains at least 70 percent of the heating capacity that it has at 47 °F (8 °C). You can read the heat pump's specifications to determine whether it meets that requirement. For example:

  • This heat pump has rated capacity of 24 kBTU/h at 47 °F and 19.2 kBTU/h at 5 °F, for a ratio of 80 percent.

  • This heat pump cheats with a backup electric-heating system to maintain 70 percent of rated capacity all the way down to −5 °F (−21 °C).

Combustion-based fuels are powering only about 30% of the grid in Texas today, per ERCOT

Not sure why you are emphasizing this in Texas. It's not that they're using little gas, it's that Texas has had an enormous solar buildout (based) for reasons of having good solar resource and being generally pro-building-stuff (based). In any case Trump himself, and his crew, are not representative of the entire population of Red Tribe or Conservatives but more a culture war caricature thereof, and seem to be solidly in the pocket of Big Fossil, so express only marginally less skepticism of solar than they do for wind (cf. Trump's repeated appeals to Chynese windmills that are a scam which Chyna supposedly doesn't use domestically).

First off your link is broken and is pointing to this article when I think this article was your intention.

is this a good example of Trump playing 4D chess.

It's never "4D chess" when it comes to Trump. The 4D chess argument is cope MAGAs use when Trump does something blatantly foolish or contrary to MAGA principles. That's not to say the actions Trump takes never have beneficial second-order effects. But Trump is clearly flying by the seat of his pants, as basically all leaders have done, even the greatest ones you can think of. At most they have 1 or 2 major priorities that they angle towards.

a strong Europe is in Americas interests

Agreed, but this would be a lot less true if Trump shreds the US alliance system. Also, it must contend with Trump promoting pro-Russian political parties like AfD and Fidesz that tend to naturally be anti-American (though that may be becoming less true these days), and which try to sabotage the EU. Without the EU individual European countries just won't matter that much in the modern world. It'd be like if every US state was independent. The EU has problems, but the only solution that would keep Europe relevant is reform, not obliteration.

Europeans claimed the Ukraine war woke them up, and to some extent it did, but 4+ years after Russian tanks rolled across the border it's pretty clear that the awakening was only moderate at best. It's not clear if much of anything could shake them out of their preference for welfare over weapons, but each reminder driving home the current state of the world is not a bad thing.

As to whether the US needs to open the straits, the answer is probably "no" as long as the US is willing to lose some face and perhaps abandon the Middle East entirely, the latter of which is something I've been advocating for for like a decade.

To your point, the opposite was true historically and the US played a strong role that worked to sabotage good relations between Europe and Russia.

For a long time the US accused Russia of weaponizing its energy sales to Western Europe as a means to conduct war against their neighbors and also Ukraine specifically. And that’s true if you rely on omitted facts, distortions of real events and outright fabrications. This reality of this account though is actually a much more easy one to unravel.

The standard accusation against Russia for a long time was they weaponize and leverage the flows and sales of natural gas to exercise political primacy over Western Europe. This actually isn't a new line. It's one that's existed ever since the the Cold War. But to really understand where this comes in and how it all fits together, you have to go back to the 1960's. One of the things US Cold War policymakers found out was that any conflict that had the potential to involve nuclear weapons against the Soviets then would likely take place in Europe, rather than the US mainland. So the US feared the potential possibility that at some point in the future, European public opinion would turn against their battlefield designs for the region, and they were fearful that closer ties between Europe and Russia would negatively impact US strategy. Because of that the US has, all the way up until today, aggressively sought to avoid 'any' reconciliation or peaceable relationship between Europe and Russia; and that's where you see the US accusation of Russia seeking to divide the west card always getting played. It's basic geopolitical self-interest and hypocrisy at work. Accuse the other side of what you yourself are guilty of.

The US naturally tries at every turn to convince the public that Putin isn't a reliable actor. But that was always a false notion about Russia generally speaking, even going back to the Cold War; Russia very much respected it's contracts and arrangements and never tried to use them to politically sway their neighbors. Russia had consistently been supplying gas to Western Europe all the way back since 1960. There were turbulent times, but Russia always delivered on those arrangements. In 1982 Russia was making a pipeline between Siberia that stretched into Ukraine as a way to increase its supplies to Europe. When the oil crisis happened back in the 1970’s, Europe became worried about their energy supplies and deepened their relationship with the Soviets to keep their supplies. That was as a result of the unpredictable nature of Arab politics. That increased the US worry that a greater dependence of Europe on Russia would have bad effects and alter the support against American policy in the region.

In the 1980's demonstrations and protests were actually increasing in Europe against the US deployment of the Pershing II missiles, and they were afraid that Europe's improvement of relations with Russia would stop that deployment from happening. So then Russia had to be presented as an unreliable supplier. So what we did was we sabotaged the pipeline under the Reagan’s presidency. Not a long of people know that. But that didn't stop Russia from ultimately completing the pipeline anyway. So in response, the US declared an embargo on Russian gas to force the Europeans to quit buying it. We said we'd compensate Europe for how they might be affected by it by increasing our coal supplies to them, but our production and shipping capacity wasn’t good enough to be able to keep up with demand. Eventually the embargo was forced to end and Russian gas deliveries to Europe resumed as normal.

So it's pretty reasonable to think that if there was some kind of armed conflict that happened at that time, then Russia would've cut it's hydrocarbon supplies. But during the entirety of the Cold War, they never did. The US on the other hand, fought tooth and nail in every way it could think of to prevent any strengthening of ties or good rapport between Europe and Russia. And that's where you see the hand of US foreign policy's "You're either with us or against us," mentality at work. And you don’t have to be a partisan to see this.

Now go back to Ukraine in 2014. After the crisis happened, the US imposed sanctions which stopped western companies from delivering ‘any’ hydrocarbon related equipment to Russia. The idea was that Russia was clearly dependent on western technology to continue their energy operations, so if we restrict the transfer of technology, that will stop their energy production. What happened in reality was that it stopped Exxon and Shell from cooperating with Russian energy companies. Because of the delay in production, Russia simply developed the technology domestically instead. And today in 2026, they no longer needs western technology. This is exactly the reason why the discussion of US policy began to shift to sanctioning US allies like Germany over Nord Stream 2. Because Germany simply sees the Europe-Russia trade as a commercial bridge between the two, the US seeks it as a division in the western camp of things. As it relates to Nord Stream 2 more generally. The US doesn't care one damn bit about European dependence on Russia. What it does care about is Europe fostering good relations with Russia, which the US is opposed to.

It isn't Russia that's an unreliable seller. It's the Europeans who are unreliable buyers. I think it's very likely that Russia will continue it's contractual obligations with Europe. But it'll be less willing to take on any new obligations. Because of the US meddling, pounding it's hands and stomping it's feet to terrorize Europe into following it's policies, it's making the European market less attractive to Russia and more attractive to Asia. This is where things really began to pivot to the strengthening of diplomatic relations between Putin and Xi, and that's where things stand at today. That's how we got where we are currently.

European dependence on Russian energy was an obvious vulnerability. The Soviets never cut off supplies during the Cold War since there was never a conflict as divisive as Ukraine is today, while when Russia invaded Ukraine it did weaponize energy flows. The US was right to oppose gas dependence and stuff like the Nordstream pipeline, in terms of both liberal idealism and simple power politics.

Most of what you've written here isn't wrong, but it's mixed with a lot of rhetoric implying the US is a uniquely evil, conniving nation that wanted to sabotage Good Guy Russia from living in peace and harmony with the rest of Europe.

The problem is that we don’t have undisputed control of two continents and loads of homeland shale. The closest we can get to energy security is diversifying our in-flows and buying from people who don’t like each other to keep prices down and make it hard to cut us off and this is what the US has been determined to prevent.

Personally I am cynical enough to think that the US is quite happy with gas dependence as long as we’re dependent on the right country, viz. the US, but that’s by the by.

Diversification is good, but really it's just "don't become dependent on Russia" specifically. I bet the US would probably be upset if Europe became dependent on Chinese hydrocarbons too, but they don't export much of that so it's not an issue. Buying from Azerbaijan or Kuwait or KSA is all mostly fine. They're authoritarian, but have much less leverage to blackmail large concessions compared to Russia, and also far less likely to have diverging core interests. Buying from nations other than Russia will be a little bit more expensive but it's worth it in the long run.

EU countries could also put a bigger emphasis on renewables and nuclear too. They're better than the US there, but still haven't pursued it nearly as far as they could have.

Their preference for welfare over weapons can be seen as rational, since the only country they have any realistic chance of fighting a major war with in the foreseeable future is Russia, and Russia is not strong enough to seriously endanger anything more than the Baltic states. I'm not sure that the Russia of January 1, 2022 could have even conquered Poland in a 1-on-1 war, and now Russia is bogged down on another front. Essentially, the EU is already militarily strong enough to effectively deter Russia even without increasing military sizes or spending. Despite the occasional claims by EU politicians that Russia is an existential threat, the reality is that the current war in Ukraine is not an existential war for the EU, it is a war that is being fought for ideological, moral, and sphere-of-influence reasons. Even if Russia conquered all of Ukraine, it still would not have the power to existentially threaten the EU.

Their preference for welfare over weapons can be seen as rational, since the only country they have any realistic chance of fighting a major war with in the foreseeable future is Russia, and Russia is not strong enough to seriously endanger anything more than the Baltic states.

I mean, you're not wrong. There's not much of a European identity, so nations are happy to treat every nation to their east as a buffer state against Russia. And if the buffers haven't fallen yet then there's no need to really worry.

As a (classical) liberal I had hoped that Europe would rise to the call of a changing world order, but it seems they're happy enough to rest on their laurels as 2, or really 3, illiberal powers run roughshod over the planet.

I'm not sure that the Russia of January 1, 2022 could have even conquered Poland in a 1-on-1 war

It's actually so crazy to me how they were seen as debatably the 2nd or 3rd strongest military power on planet earth and how wrong we all were. And how obvious it feels in retrospect lol.

That being said they might still be top 3 just based on how shit everyone else is (doesn't matter if you mog Russia in gear quality and training if you only have 2 days worth of munitions and don't have the factories to make a metric fuckton more on short notice).

It also should be noted that Ukraine has a way better military than anyone gave them credit for, given their Soviet inheritance.

Vast and deep pools of gear, most notably the second largest fleet of GBAD in Europe (and by proxy, one of the largest in the world). Poland definitely punches harder per capita, but idk if it would have been able to achieve the same level of air denial Ukraine has. Although I don't know anything about the pre 2022 polish army.

Presumably we would be getting similar amount of support that Ukraine is getting now.

As a NATO member, almost certainly much more, including the entirety of NATO actively joining the conflict rather than just providing intelligence and materiel.

Ok I think this works.

https://gcaptain.com/the-hormuz-hypothesis-what-if-the-u-s-navy-isnt-in-a-hurry-to-reopen-the-strait/

Personally love the AFD. First thing Germany needs to do is massive deportations and they are the most into it.

The US needs to re-open the strait for several reasons.

  1. Having Iran in control makes a case for Iran having won.

  2. The US's Gulf allies need the strait open. Saudi Arabia can redirect most, but not all of its oil elsewhere, but Kuwait cannot.

  3. Iran tolling the strait helps Iran rebuild its weapons programs, which means the job isn't done.

  4. Sustained high oil prices will hurt Trump domestically, despite the US being a net exporter; there's a lot more gasoline buyers than oil company workers.

The hypothesis that the US would destroy the Iranian regime but leave the strait closed or tolled doesn't make sense. Either the new Iranian regime would have to keep the strait closed by force (in which case it's the enemy), or Oman (in coalition with the rest of the GCC, probably) and the new Iranian regime and the US would have to agree to do so in violation of long-standing treaties, which seems unlikely. That would throw freedom of navigation worldwide into utter chaos, which the US has long considered against its interests.

There's one way of threading the needle, which is that the US beats back the Iranian regime but they can still fire a few missiles or drones from a distance (which can be shot down with high probability). In that case the P&I cartel might decide to continue their effective blockade, at which point the US can probably spin up and certify a new insurer, effectively collecting the same "toll" the P&I clubs used to. This would require utter stupidity on the part of the cartel, but given what Europe has been doing lately, it's not impossible.

Counterplan: Stop the war, and abandon US involvement in the Middle East more broadly.

  1. Doesn't matter much politically since Trump can just emphasize how much destruction was wrought on Iran and MAGA will buy it while the Dems would never buy any explanation he would ever give anyways. MAGA has been very accommodating to Trump in this war, and the isolationist excuse of "we're not the world police any more" is right there.
  2. Doesn't matter much if the US abandons the Middle East.
  3. Doesn't matter much if the US abandons the Middle East.
  4. Higher oil prices hurt a little bit in the short term, but in the medium term more oil producers will come online if oil prices remain high, and the US can more efficiently deal with high oil prices through electrification subsidies, which would be a far more efficient use of money than everything we've spent on Middle East adventures in the past few decades.

All this assumes a relatively worst-case scenario of Iran remaining ascendant afterwards and other countries not reacting. In practical terms it's likely that a coalition of Gulf nations come in and try to deal with Iran tolling the straits if it's clear the US won't. They're just free-riding now because they think the US will spend the blood and treasure so they don't need to.

Doesn't matter much politically since Trump can just emphasize how much destruction was wrought on Iran and MAGA will buy it while the Dems would never buy any explanation he would ever give anyways. MAGA has been very accommodating to Trump in this war, and the isolationist excuse of "we're not the world police any more" is right there.

It's not the MAGA that's the issue, it's the neocon elites that would be cause trouble here. We'd probably see the home front revert into Trump-I state, possibly worse.

IMO it doesn't make sense long term for other Gulf states to accept Iran unilaterally defecting and seizing control of Hormuz shipping. They are at least as capable of blocking traffic and there is no reason to let Iran's ships through unless theirs do too, unless they're accepting it for short-term reasons (international relations on oil prices, expecting long-term gains via regime change, maybe others).

Investments in alternate routes make sense, but even without them, defecting back (closing Hormuz and Iranian ports to the rest of the traffic) seems easy enough and a viable response. I'm sure US ROE won't allow naval mining in this conflict ("free navigation", you say), but it's less clear that this would bind KSA or UAE.

But maybe it does seem like the entire conflict was poorly-thought-out.

Investments in alternate routes make sense, but even without them, defecting back (closing Hormuz and Iranian ports to the rest of the traffic) seems easy enough and a viable response.

Except that Iran could then respond by destroying most of the oil infrastructure of the GCC. This is MAD, of course, but MAD doesn't work against an actually-fanatic opponent.

But maybe it does seem like the entire conflict was poorly-thought-out.

Maybe. Won't know until it concludes.

What's strange here is the degree of distance from what's obviously reasonable and necessary to do, and what's been said by the Trump admin in the last day or so. More troops and planes (A-10) have been moved into position. "Watch the feet" is a sports term that tells you to weight actions/movements a lot higher than cheap words and appearances.

However the communications are totally different from what you'd expect before a major escalation. And no one can put it past Trump to declare victory when he has achieved no such thing and has effectively left the rest of the world in the lurch, and strengthened Russia by pretty much announcing the end of the US in NATO...

The communications from Trump are almost 100% market manipulation. Like, what on Earth is he even talking about here?

Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE! We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!

Iran’s president is Masoud Pezeshkian. He has been in office since 2024. He is still alive. Did he mean the new Supreme Leader Khamenei? It doesn’t really sound like it. He’s just making shit up.

The bull case for Trump here (and I have a bridge for sale if you take his words at full face value) seems to be that they've, uh, "replaced" enough political-side leadership that the current folks there are willing to make a viable deal (details unclear), but the IRGC isn't willing to go along with that and intends to keep fighting, which is why all the recently announced targets are it's leadership. Some sort of civil war or standoff between domestic powers sounds plausible there. I don't claim to know any specifics, but it does seem they're trying to avoid destroying economic assets that would be valuable for a future regime (Kharg, as one example).

But I'm certainly not the expert to listen to on this topic.

I think the point is to delegitimize the regime, he will declare soon who that "New Regime President" is and the hope is that iranians are going to go along with it.

I suppose Grand Ayatollah Shmeza Pahlavian is being loaded onto a sealed train car in Yrevan as we speak.

"Watching the feet" tells me there's going to be a major escalation in the near future -- I actually suspect it's been delayed by the problems with the Ford. I expect an invasion of the strait islands (everyone talks about Kharg, but Kharg is useless without the strait and un-needed with it, so if Iran has actually reinforced it as they claim, I would guess they just get more bombing) and maybe the coastline near Bandar Abbas. If this succeeds the US will (after doing minesweeping and patrolling the coast for hidden marine drones and such) declare the strait open, and the next move will belong to the P&I cartel.

everyone talks about Kharg, but Kharg is useless without the strait and un-needed with it

Kharg is a bargaining chip. It's only useful to Iran, iw basically vital to their long-term economy, and can be visibly taken and returned in a way "the strait" cannot.

There's no gain to taking it. If we want to stop Iranian oil we can do a blockade of Iran and stop the (defenseless) tankers in the Gulf of Oman with much less trouble. If we don't want to stop Iranian oil, we don't need to take Kharg. It's important to Iran, but it's not vital long-term; they could build other export facilities. Anyway, the regime obviously isn't interested in bargaining.

Maybe I'm underestimating you guys, but Kharg seems a bit dangerous. Even the strait Islands feel risky. I've seen someone make the argument they're likely to go for the coast just before the strait. It apparently is inhabited mostly by some Persian-unfriendly ethnic minority, so should be easier to hold.

It is never 4D chess.

The article itself says, "The strongest version of this thesis is not “Trump is playing 4D chess.” It is that the administration holds more options than anyone realizes, and the insurance mechanism, not the Navy, is the real lever of power."

Am I being paranoid in thinking this quote smells strongly of AI?

Everything Konrad publishes sounds like AI. Even things that I'm 100% certain cannot be AI, like this article.

Edit: or this one published before Generative AI: https://gcaptain.com/what-the-sea-has-taught-me-about-covid-19/

Though I would not be surprised in the least if he writes a few paragraphs and asks AI to expand it and make it snappy.

My pessimistic hypothesis is that people use AI much more rarely, and less intensely, than paranoiacs think. I'm sometimes accused of AI use for allowing something of a purple prose aspect to my writing, and strongly suspect that the general tastelessness of AI and specific quirks like "it's not A — it's B" is downstream of cocksure, overwrought, incisive, journalistic op-ed prose having been used for RLHF as positive examples, because somewhere in 2022-23 someone a) had built a reranker for High Quality Data and b) had commissioned a lot of "powerful persuasive essays to make you think"/"dashing intelligent opinions" on MTurk/Fiverr. See this debate between two South Asians. They both write "like AI". I'm pretty sure that Human's posts at this point are an amalgamation of human text, AI text and human-interiorized AI-patterns, and Count even describes his workflow. Not being native speakers nor bearers of layman Anglophone culture, they know not what they do; and they never saw the issue with this manner of unnatural writing before the widespread hatred for "AI". And Konrad, well, Konrad is a dramatic Internet personality, he writes to persuade and to show off, he is another source of this pattern rot.

That said, to an extent it's just good, product-grade writing. Less abrasive than most human work on contentious topics (imagine the hissy fit Claude would throw over an offhand appeal to "South Asians" here), well-proportioned, avoiding too-rare words and concepts that readers might stumble upon, and almost too perfect, devoid of glaring ESLisms or identifying personal blemishes.

human-interiorized AI-patterns,

I can feel LLM-isms creeping into my 100% OG human writing.

The "LLM style" is still very (I think) detectable, but that signal is going to decrease, even if LLM writing doesn't change styles, as humans start to unintentionally mimic the LLM text they constantly read.

Explain the 4d chess behind "Canada 51st state" or "Annex Greenland".

Global warming will turn the arctic permafrost of Canada and Greenland into prime real estate.

No it won't

A huge % of northern Canada is occupied by the "Canadian Shield" and has minimal to literally 0 soil depth.

Unless you're obsessed with hardy pine trees and bogs, northern Canada has very little "alpha" lying on the table

tbf he could both be crazy and sometimes playing 4d chess. That's part of 5D chess, not letting people know which is which!

(I'm kidding. Mostly.)

Who came up with the idea that having Europe be dependent on the US for geopolitical security was this generous gift that the US did out of the kindness of its heart, which somehow only benefited Europeans and that Americans got nothing out of?

Alienating your allies, threatening to invade them when they were already giving you everything you needed, cutting off their resources, having them see your primary geopolitical as a more trustworthy trading partner and having them refuse to come to your aid in your latest Middle Eastern regime change adventure that will totally work this time (pinky promise), those are genius 4D chess moves, yes.

To be honest, I think it’s more likely that the EU will double down on renewables as a result. There’s not enough oil in the North Sea for the whole continent, but there is plenty of wind and solar to drastically reduce demand.

Historically it was not US dependency. It was both sides provided what they could. Neither Europe nor US wanted the USSR to become more powerful. We contributed most of the naval power, nukes, tech. Germany was always a continental power. They contributed a massive tank led ground army. Europe broke the deal.

But wasn't deal to fight the USSR together, not for Europe to support American geopolitics all over the world?

As far as that goes the Iranian War is just another front in the current European War. Iran is a top 2 Russian ally and weapons supplier to Russia.

During the Cold War basically any war anywhere would have been a war against Russia.

Interesting for this war Ukraine is the only weapons supplier to the US side in Iran due to the drone technology they have developed.

forget Greta ever existed

The world already forgot about Greta, in one of most rapid deplatformings and cancellations in history.

All after Oct 7. From world famous celebrity invited by presidents and speaking in UN, to nonperson, because Greta chose to stand with Gaza.

This was the rare moment when astroturfed controlled movement became thing of its own.

because Greta chose to stand with Gaza.

I doubt that's the reason. I think it's more likely that (1) her appearance has gone downhill; and (2) in any event, it's pretty normal for peoples' stars to fade over time.

She became a generic omnicause protestor instead of The Climate Child.

She became a generic omnicause protestor instead of The Climate Child.

Sure, but I would guess she was basically just changing her schtick to try to stay relevant.

Anyway, the fact is that most child stars don't grow up to become adult stars. Popular musicians, authors, influencers, etc. typically have their 15 minutes of fame and then fade away. For every Mick Jagger there are 100 guys (and girls) who are washed up and forgotten.

What makes yoiu think the world forgot about Greta?

A search shows quite a few articles on, for instance, the BBC after October 7.

Besides being a nice FU to Europe it also exposes their geopolitical weaknesses as real. Which hopefully gets them to do things like build big guns, drill for oil, restart nuclear programs, forget Greta ever existed, etc.

Europe has been doing all of that (expect for drilling for oil, which Europe would do if we had oil) ever since 2022 without this being prompted by US belligerence. (Yes, including plans or initialization of new nuclear projects, like this and this - Germany isn't all of Europe, which frequently seems to be forgotten in discussions like this). All that stuff like this, or the tariff debacle, or the senseless Greenland affair, does is make EU distance itself from the US. Of course building big guns and restarting nuclear programs becomes quite a bit harder if we are suffering from an economic crisis, such as one caused by an extended shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz.

Of course none of that matters, does it? It's all just Trump suppporters trying to figure out some way, any way, in which the Iran affair makes sense or how it would make sense for EU to participate in enabling idiotic American policy in this particular matter.

Germany isn't all of Europe, which frequently seems to be forgotten in discussions like this

Germany's one of the biggest gorillas of Europe and willingly cut off its own arm (to extend the metaphor gruesomely), so it's not totally unfair to focus on that. Major self-inflicted damage to the biggest European economy!

Very cool for Sweden and Poland though!

There is an assumption here, that if the EU hurts more than the US from this, then the US "wins". I would think, that if both sides suffer otherwise avoidable losses without directly gaining anything in return (the idea that the EU would become more aligned with America from this is uncertain to say the least), then both have lost. The populations of both are worse off than they otherwise would have been, and their standing relative to other powers (Russia and China) has weakened considerably. And this is assuming there are sides to begin with. The very notion assumes an adversarial relationship between the EU and the US. Something that has largely not been the case before Trump.

I would also like to point out, that Europeans looking down on Americans is a fairly recent development. Until around 2016 (rhetoric around the culture war also looks bad. The left is not exempt from this), many Europeans looked up to America and dreamed of traveling or living there. Trump specifically looks like an idiot from a European perspective, and the fact that you elected him twice and that he continues to enjoy widespread support makes your entire population look bad by proxy.

many Europeans looked up to America and dreamed of traveling or living there. Trump specifically looks like an idiot from a European perspective

Starmer looks like an idiot. Merkel screwed the whole European pooch.

And yet, I still want to visit (parts of) the UK and Germany!

Neither Starmer nor Merkel started a trade war with the US nor threatened to invade the country just for the lulz.

Trump specifically looks like an idiot from a European perspective

I'm old enough to remember very similar comments about the Bush administration. The Internet wasn't quite as culturally ubiquitous, but every phpBB forum, mailing list, or similar seemed to have a smug European or two (usually German, it seemed) that made everything about the Culture War: Iraq, per capita carbon emissions, then-current issues like stem cell research, state surveillance, or the war on drugs.

Bush was certainly not the best president, but the degree to which these folks prostrated themselves at the beginning of the Obama administration was almost laughable, especially given how little actually changed: from my seat in the US here, none of those changed drastically, but the smug commentary on it certainly did. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if an Internet forum like that turned out to be part of the JD Vance origin story.

I'm old enough to remember very similar comments about the Bush administration.

Every republican administration prompts them.

Americans have a slightly mythological view of Europeans as a separate and independent culture, when in reality the European consensus is just what's on American TV told back to you in an exotic accent.

In hindsight, a lot of European commentary of the era was almost certainly heavily filtered to competent English speakers, which may have skewed it heavily towards certain countries (UK, NL, DE) and education levels.

Long-term I'd expect those filters to start fading (see Twitter and auto-translating Japanese recently), but the above bias is probably true still today in places like this one. I'm curious if our LLM rules apply to pure translations, but it doesn't immediately impact me.

Well, the EU really really wants to be on good terms with the US. Do not underestimate the delusional capabilities of people who desperately want a certain narrative to be true. I am not even sure if this time is different. Maybe in four years, with the election of a charismatic democrat, the EU countries will have blissfully forgotten about everything and returned to being America's lapdogs.

the degree to which these folks prostrated themselves at the beginning of the Obama administration was almost laughable

Not almost laughable, it was laughable. He got the Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.

Until around 2016 (rhetoric around the culture war also looks bad. The left is not exempt from this), many Europeans looked up to America and dreamed of traveling or living there.

Ehh I dunno, the way I remember it any such European admiration for America ended much earlier, with the Iraq War.

I have no first-hand experience of Europe in the 90s, but growing up in America in the 90s, that Europeans looked down on America and Americans for being backwards religious conservative hyper-capitalists without basic human decency like universal healthcare was pretty much cliche in my experience. Obviously this was strongly a function of the environment in which I grew up, but I don't think it was purely a function of that. So, at the very least, Americans admiring Europeans based on the belief that those Europeans have disdain and contempt for America for its American qualities has been around for 30+.

It's intermittent at least since the Reagan administration -- and corresponds to whether the President has a (D) or an (R) after his name.

IDK, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I was abroad back in the Before times when a D was indeed president and I still got called a bum a lot and heard plenty of "Stupid American™," stories--present company excepted, of course!

There is still widespread admiration for America across Europe. Almost everyone admires aspects of US culture/politics but not others – you could find different fault lines of debate around freedom, race, globalism, middle eastern wars etc depending on who you're talking to, even if there was a lot of disagreement on where America is superior and where it's not.

But Trump has been a great unifier because the majority of people, even those who might be naturally allied to some of his views and who in the past have said things like 'We need a Trump of our own', have come to the conclusion he is mad. The fact he was voted for a second time served as confirmation that there is something going on in many American minds that we find hard to understand, and to the extent we can't understand it we can't trust it either.

I remember that was around when the advice for American tourists was to put Canadian flag patches on your backpack, so you wouldn't be hated for being American.

The Iraq war definitely harmed the relationship, but the Obama administration did a lot to salvage it. Before 2016, and really until about 2020, I met several people who had either been or dreamed of going to the US. It was not uncommon for political parties to associate with American ones. Now, everyone I know caveats their wishes to go with a "I will wait until the situation improves. Any party with a positive view of Trump risks losing voters.

The people opposed to the US have historically been limited to extreme leftists (communists and the like), as well as refugees from the countries America invaded. With the second Trump administration, this opinion is now mainstream. The harm this administration has inflicted upon the American reputation is honestly ridiculous.

The Iraq war definitely harmed the relationship, but the Obama administration did a lot to salvage it.

No, Obama being elected and having that all-important (D) after his name did a lot to salvage it. Obama bombed the shit out of brown people with the best of them.

There is an assumption here, that if the EU hurts more than the US from this, then the US "wins". I would think, that if both sides suffer otherwise avoidable losses without directly gaining anything in return (the idea that the EU would become more aligned with America from this is uncertain to say the least), then both have lost. The populations of both are worse off than they otherwise would have been, and their standing relative to other powers (Russia and China) has weakened considerably. And this is assuming there are sides to begin with. The very notion assumes an adversarial relationship between the EU and the US. Something that has largely not been the case before Trump.

Precisely. Personally, reading this comment makes me want to ally with China. "Ha! I burned down your house! That'll teach you not to build with wood!" is not the kind of relationship with my hegemon that I want.

We are not burning your house down, but possibly we aren't going to put out the fire out of deference to you any more.

we aren't going to put out the fire out of deference to you any more.

In this metaphor America started the fire against literally everyone else's (well, except bibi) wishes though

So it's not like the fire happened spontaneously and Europe is coming to America "once again" to ask for help putting it out (that's Russia v Ukraine)

It's not a fire. It's Iran. They have agency. They chose to harm Europe (and China and India and Pakistan and even Thailand) in response to the US and Israel harming it.

While I don't condone Iran's actions, fighting back is an incredibly human response and "why don't you just shut up and take it" is incredibly naive (and lowkey pretty un-American, 1776 is based because they didn't)

Fighting BACK is utterly reasonable and should be no reason for Europe to intervene. Shooting at the US and Israel, and US and Israeli merchant traffic even. Smashing neutrals is another thing entirely. What did Gibraltar (UK), Malta, Palau, the Bahamas, Thailand, Japan, and Liberia have to do with it? Iran hit ships with all those flags, owned by companies from various uninvolved nations. And they threatened any vessel transiting the strait regardless of involvement. That was their choice.

Because its the only leverage they have. I see your point, I'm not endorsing their actions at all.

But their response is fairly rational, and also quite predictable. So while Iran is responsible for shitting up the world, I also hold the USA somewhat responsible for putting them in this situation.

As they say on that karma farming story subreddit , "everyone is the asshole here"

A month ago, Europe had an energy problem. Now, thanks to America going in without even the slightest thought for the rest of the world and setting fire to everything, we have a looming energy catastrophe.

OP is arguing that this is good, akshually. I think not. Nobody asked for this. Nobody wanted this. Even most Americans didn’t want this!

I am prepared to believe that America has a 50 year feud against Iran after the hostage crisis, but somebody who thoughtlessly gets in fights and wrecks all your stuff is not a good friend and him saying, “well, why’d you put your stuff there?,” afterwards will not make him so.

But Iran's wrecking your stuff. The US isn't mining the strait, Iran is. It turns out Iran thinks you're their enemy too!

If China bombed Pearl Harbor, and in response the US bombed the merchant ships of every nation in the Pacific regardless of where they were going or who they were selling to, you would say, "The US is not our friends here. The US is our enemy now." And act accordingly. You wouldn't blame China for the US's actions, especially if they had a half-decent reason to bomb Pearl Harbor (say we were in a fight over Taiwan or take-your-pick.)

Iran is telling you , "I am your enemy! I will do whatever is in my power to cause you pain!"

Europe's response is, "America, control Iran better!" When the response should be, "Oh geez, these Iran fellas are harming our interests. I should protect our national interests better."

America isn't going to keep the seas safe on its own. Other countries that like having a global ship trade need to step up and protect their interests on the waters.

If China bombed Pearl Harbor, and in response the US bombed the merchant ships of every nation in the Pacific regardless of where they were going or who they were selling to, you would say, "The US is not our friends here. The US is our enemy now." And act accordingly. You wouldn't blame China for the US's actions, especially if they had a half-decent reason to bomb Pearl Harbor (say we were in a fight over Taiwan or take-your-pick.)

If China bombed Pearl Habor (...and the White House, and wherever else half of the command chain went, and your key industries...), and the US decided to block... uh the Panama Channel? (I know it doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it screws up the world economy), and proceeds to bomb Chinese-aligned countries, and their ships attempting to go through the channel, I would absolutely blame the American response on China.

Iran is telling you , "I am your enemy! I will do whatever is in my power to cause you pain!"

It's so weird then that they didn't do that until you bombed them.

It's so weird then that they didn't do that until you bombed them.

It's so weird America didn't block the Panama canal before China bombed us! But you rightfully recognize that it would be our fault if we did.

No? I said I'd blame China.

More comments

But Iran's wrecking your stuff. The US isn't mining the strait, Iran is. It turns out Iran thinks you're their enemy too!

Why do you expect this simplistic rhetoric to work? Does it actually work internally? I guess it does. But at some point, if everyone disagrees, maybe it's you who's wrong, ever thought about that?

Even stalwart Anglosphere allies positively obsessed with being friendly to the US and pitching in in its wars whenever possible, Australia and the UK, have just had their leaders deliver a rare national address and specifically say that they don't want any part of this shitshow, and would rather have austerity than go help Reopen The Straight; joining with Canada in a polite de facto withdrawal from the American reality distortion field. The causality of the current crisis is too painfully obvious to all — Iran had a defensive posture, your guys wanted a regime change or state collapse, attacked mid-negotiations with apparent maximalist goals, and Iran retaliated in the most predictable manner, indeed the manner that's been predicted for decades.
So you defected, both against Iran and more importantly against your allies and other economies, this is your mess of choice, and you shan't get to offload it on anyone else. This is a repeated game; irrespective of the EV of reopening the strait in the short term, in the long term the question is what kind of hegemon is bearable, deserving of cooperation and deference in matters such as war. A reckless and indifferent one has been deemed undeserving.

Europe's response is, "America, control Iran better!"

You might not be up to speed, but that's not the response anymore.

Iran retaliated in the most predictable manner, indeed the manner that's been predicted for decades.

You mean, they retaliated with war crimes. And there's just no desire from the rest of the world to punish them for it. Ok then, enjoy the world you're making.

Spare me this charade. You have forfeited the moral high ground, you're doing realpolitik, building a defensive sphere, taking over oil and such (or at least offering such justifications for otherwise pointless actions). So everyone else will also do realpolitik; enough freeriding on the world's sentimentality and wishful thinking. Besides, closing a water passage in a war is only a war crime in a rather non-central sense. Meanwhile you've killed scores of civilians, support displacement of millions, bomb population centers with impunity, and your president is threatening to escalate to committing large scale war crimes with childlike glee, as a Tough Negotiation tactic that he finds very clever. Let me cite it in full:

The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran. Great progress has been made but, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately “Open for Business,” we will conclude our lovely “stay” in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet “touched.” This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime’s 47 year “Reign of Terror.” Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

Nevermind the amount of bullshit here (starting with "serious discussions" which apparently don't happen and definitely the "new regime") and the charming bit with "desalinization". The US is consistently electing a person unequipped for knowledge work or politics at any level, and cannot be treated as a serious rational actor capable of even self-interested cooperation with other nations. In two words, it's a rogue state. Whether we will enjoy the new world or not, it'll have to be built on the basis of this undeniable fact. I'm not moralizing, just stating what everyone has accepted by now or is in the process of accepting.

When it comes right down to it, America is the one who went in and started killing people and blowing things up. Without consulting anyone, without giving a shit about the rest of the world, Trump just decided 'I'mma kill these guys now.' Months after he made noises about attacking Europe to steal Greenland.

America isn't going to keep the seas safe on its own.

In my lived experience as of this month, the safest thing for the seas is for America to stay far, far away from the Middle East, or at least to give Trump some sleepy pills.

It's not that I don't get what you're saying, it's just that this is after a barrage of contempt and thoughtlessness from America and I'm tired of being friends with the big aggressive guy who keeps getting into fights with the people who make the stuff my civilisation needs to stay alive. The massive cope that it's secretly some kind of 4D chess to teach us a lesson makes it 10x worse. If America were actually in really serious trouble as a result of outside aggression, we would do what we could to help our ally if asked, and I hope the reverse is also true. But right now Europe is in very serious difficulties that can't be overcome by just 'getting a clue', we need time and space to find the will and the means to recover, and being friends with America is giving us the opposite of that. I'm quite happy to kiss and make up with Iran, and get some oil in return, and I don't see what UK interests are threatened by that.

In general, we would prefer to get American 'help' when we ask for it. As a wise man once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

the people who make the stuff my civilisation needs to stay alive.

The point is you created a civilization that needs these things to stay alive, created this reliance and dependency, without putting in any effort to ensure its protection. The default human condition is lack. The default is for things to fall apart if they are not maintained.

If the response to that situation is to kiss up to Iran, then that is at least a rational response. If the response was to kiss up to the US to encourage us to protect your boats, that would be preferred. If the response was to come in with a super-awesome EU Fleet of anti-mine drones and clear the strait yourselves, that would be amazing.

But the situation you are in is that you have leaders decrying the US, who have no power of their own to fix the mess, but recognize the hazard of showing your belly to Iran. They can't have all three.

Now because I can tell it's sounding harsh, I really like Europe. In some part of my heart I view Europe as a museum. A precious, amazing museum. To the extent that Europe deviates from that perception, it creates dissonance. The rational part of my mind recognizes that Europe is not a museum, it is a whole continent of people who are obviously changing and doing commerce and living lives. But there is some level where I expect Paris, London, Berlin, Vienna to be static, for the French to be stereotypical, for the Italian coffee to be great. This is my own personal failing.

Europe has a privileged position in America. You're our foil. We didn't create a government in opposition to Chinese governance, or Ottoman governance. We were Europeans trying to improve upon European political theory. We think we succeeded, or at least wound up with something better than what was there in the 18th century.

But man, the World Wars followed by the Cold War did something to you guys and not all of it was good. It's a continent with self-righteous PTSD. I don't view Europe as "Just like America, but better in every way!" the way some Americans and Europeans do.

But then when I talk to Europeans for work, I often slip into a, "I"m trying to impress you guys because I'm not like other Americans! I'm cultured enough to realize that you think that my willingness to get up at 5 AM to talk to you guys as a form of unpaid overtime is ridiculous, so I will poke fun at my willing self-enslavement to my boss." I'm totally the younger sibling with something to prove, "Look, Ma! Be proud of me!"

My father was born on a US Airbase in West Germany. I hold our historical partnership in high regard and would find it worthwhile to give my life for you. I don't actually believe Europe would fight for the US if we were attacked directly, especially if someone with (R) next to their name was president at the time. I know you guys pulled through after 9/11 but I think that soured Europe on the concept as well.

I actually like your comment a lot but this part seems silly to me

The point is you created a civilization that needs these things to stay alive

  1. the modern world and industrial human society is a massive chain of interdependence. The USA is not autarkic either and depends on inputs from around the world. Definitely less than other nations, but it doesn't do it all in house either. China is grinding to accomplish this if that's your speed.

  2. up until the serendipitous invention of fracking/ability to exploit shale (quite recently too in the grand scheme of it all), the USA was also an oil importer, so getting smug about this seems really ignorant and unhelpful

More comments

America, under its president, just recently just pointed at Greenland, a territory held by an European government, and basically went "Me want! Me take!", up to hinting to using military force for taking it. There was zero provocation by Denmark - one of the most consistent and reliable American allies in Europe - or the rest of Europe that caused this to happen. It wasn't just Trump's idea, as soon as it was thrown out not only did the Republicans enthusiastically line up to support it but even some lib commentators went "well... it's not completely stupid..." and the Dem response can be described as lukewarm at best. It was justified as a continuation of Manifest Destiny and what have you. The whole of European establishment understandably went absolutely hogshit and then Trump's mind wandered off to the next thing and the Americans just dropped it for now and are now expecting Europe to line up for the next adventure like nothing had happened.

You don't need highfaluting theories about history and Cold War and 18th century or endless anecdotes about snooty snippy Europeans (with the main part of the anecdote often seeming to be some personal psychodrama by the American telling it with moderate to minimal actual European participation). You can just look at this one thing! It's not the only recent thing America has done to basically teabag Europe out of nowhere but it's pretty damn big! It's a very justified reason for Europe to distance itself from America!

More comments

When it comes right down to it, America is the one who went in and started killing people and blowing things up.

Where was Europe's plan for preventing Iranian nuclearization? Did they care at all or accept it as a fait accompli?

If America were actually in really serious trouble as a result of outside aggression, we would do what we could to help our ally if asked, and I hope the reverse is also true.

Nobody I know honestly believes this, or at best, believes "what we could do" would amount to fuck all.

I much prefer Iran doesn't get nukes, but to be contrarian, why should Europe care? Iran isn't threatening to nuke Berlin or Rome.

North Korea having nukes hasn't impacted European security

More comments

Where was Europe's plan for preventing Iranian nuclearization? Did they care at all or accept it as a fait accompli?

No idea. Personally, I think it's both a fait accompli and very much not my problem. Sooner or later every country that can will have nukes, because it's the only way to make sure that people like Trump don't roll over you. This invasion may have pushed Iran nuclear weapons back 10 years, 20 years, or maybe not, but between them America and Russia have guaranteed that in a hundred years there will be nukes all over IMO.

Nobody I know honestly believes this, or at best, believes "what we could do" would amount to fuck all.

Believe what you like, but I believe we'd do what we could in good faith. If 'what we can' isn't enough for you, please stop crashing our economy.

More comments

When it comes right down to it, America is the one who went in and started killing people and blowing things up.

Yes.

Without consulting anyone, without giving a shit about the rest of the world, Trump just decided 'I'mma kill these guys now.'

No, actually. Many parties were consulted -- Israel and the Gulf states.

But, as I said earlier:

And the Europeans aren't willing to lift a finger to defend themselves against damage caused by Iran's war crimes (yes, attacking neutral shipping is a war crime), and instead blame America for provoking Iran into doing it.

Europe consists of Neville Chamberlain's children, the lot of them.

I'm tired of being friends with the big aggressive guy who keeps getting into fights with the people who make the stuff my civilisation needs to stay alive.

You know who else makes the stuff Iran makes to keep your civilization alive? Russia. It's OK to get into fights there, apparently.

instead blame America for provoking Iran into doing it

Because America did.

Many parties were consulted -- Israel and the Gulf states.

I'm sure. Israel is the only ally America actually treats like an ally.

As far as I'm aware, the Gulf states were not consulted and were previously against war with Iran, though they are now more worried about Trump pulling out than keeping going. "AP reports that Gulf leaders have become discontent with the United States’ handling of the conflict and have expressed anger over the absence of prior notice of the operation."

You know who else makes the stuff Iran makes to keep your civilization alive? Russia. It's OK to get into fights there, apparently.

I don't think that. I'm British. The chances of Russia getting anywhere near threatening us are tiny, whereas the economic shock from the American-led sanctions crippled our economy for the foreseeable future. I'm not going to argue that we were doing well before that, but I saw the change from being an okay-ish country to a poor one in real time. We are now simply incapable of meaningfully militarising.

"I burned down your house! That'll teach you not to build with wood!"

Tangentially, "why do Americans build houses out of wood?" always seems like one of the perinneal Transatlantic questions.

  1. It's cheap.
  2. It's easy to insulate. The US is at similar latitudes to Europe but has far more extreme temperatures, so insulation is much more important.
  3. It's got good performance in earthquakes strong enough for tropical cyclones (with good framing practices) and nothing survives a strong enough tornado so there's little point in building for tornado strength.

Because there's so much of it, I guess, and you have enough room that houses can be spaced apart and fire doesn't spread. The Nordics and the Swiss do it too, in the countryside.

We do it in the suburbs as well. Almost all 1-2 story houses are made from wood once you get north of the Scania region, and I think it's something like 95% of Swedish single family homes are made from wood. A fairly recent developments has also seen non-negligible amount of new apartment buildings being constructed from wood as well. I

Why do we build by water? It looks better. Why does having a pool or lake look good to humans? It was evolutionary advantage to develop instincts to like being near freshwater. Wood I am guessing we also evolved to like trees because it was easy to build with and make tools.

Why do we build by water? It looks better.

That and it's the best way to move heavy shit around+you can harness it to power stuff so it's natural to build the industry and trade infrastructure there and then it's natural to live nearby where the jobs are and then oops we have a city

It's actually a fun game on Google maps. Zoom in on random cities basically anywhere on earth, and they're either on a coast or on a river. It's extremely hard to find cities that break this trend. If I remember correctly the sunbelt cities in the USA was like the only place I could find them reliably, i assume because they're some of the few urban agglomerations started post the invention of big rig trucking so never needed water to import/export.

Also true. Humans like natural, fractal patterns. I'd like to make a 'living' ubuntu desktop where all your windows are carved in foliate / acanthus patterns.

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