site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23019 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 12, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So Trump has now not only signed an oil deal with Russia, but also wants to lift sanctions. This seems totally indefensible. Not only does it send a clear signal (if the Greenland debacle was not clear enough) that America no longer gives a shit about the rules-based world order or the stability of the west as a block, by removing sanctions from a country that is fighting an aggressive war and that Europe regards as a serious threat. It also lifts sanctions on an ally of Iran. A country that America is currently fighting and active war against. A country that Russia is providing with military aid. He is trying to lower the high oil prices caused by the war with Iran, but seemingly making Iran stronger in the process by aiding its ally, thus making the war more difficult.

Is there some 5head strategy move I am not seeing here? Or is the man actually that inept? Is this because he is mad that Zelensky called him weak?

It seems stupid and incredibly short sighted, and it is difficult to see how this will even help America.

America no longer gives a shit about the rules-based world order

There's no "rules-based world order". Europe want there to be one, in the way that EU makes up the rules (when and where it pleases), or delegates it to some other bureaucratic orgs, and US pays for it and enforces it. As soon as US steps back from propping it up, turns out the whole thing has always been fakery.

During the Cold War there was something of a rules-based world order. But the rules were always more like guidelines, and the purpose of the rules was pretty much to prevent nuclear war. All sorts of pissing around that didn't risk that was fine.

During the Cold War there was the Red Block, where the rule was "whatever the Politburo says". There was the Western block, where the rule was "contain the commies and not let them take over the world, or at least slow them down". There was opportunist Europe, where the rule was to extract maximum profit from the fight between the two above while trying to commit the least possible resources to help either.

Yes, there were some agreements along the lines of "nobody really wants to start nuking each other, let's not do that for now". But that's pretty much it. Invading other countries happened all the time. Overthrowing other country's government to install a more suitable regime happened all the time. Of course, not to the primary countries of the blocks - nobody had that kind of resources to commit. But that's how it always happens when there are several warring parties which can't outright destroy each other.

I am also somewhat convinced that the rules based order is designed to prevent solutions

It is designed to benefit it's creators - the globalist bureaucrat reptilian mafia - and only them. They define the rules, they define the exceptions, they define who is allowed and not allowed to do what to whom, and they benefit from it, no matter what happens. While American and European taxpayers are paying for all of it.

The US was literally feeding the Soviet Union during the Cold War. That we buy oil from Russia at the same time they're helping one of their enemies is no stranger than business as usual. Russia is not really an ally of Iran; their relationship to Iran is more like our relationship to Ukraine. The US is trying to lower the high diesel prices caused by the Russia/Ukraine war, that's all.

And they stopped feeding them after they invaded Afghanistan.

Nope, they invaded Afghanistan under Carter, they were embargoed, but Reagan lifted the grain embargo and sold them subsidized wheat before they left Afghanistan.

think had trump not done the Liberation Day tariffs in 2025 and not attacked Iran. His approval ratings would probably be at 45% now

It's very normal for the members of the rules-based world order in the West to buy stuff from Russia. Europe has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to Russia since 2022.

I assume the sanctions that you are talking about are the Graham sanctions, aimed at countries that do business with Russia, including in oil, which means that it would plausibly lead to sanctioning European countries if it was not waived to at least some degree. (They were new sanctions.) Curious if you think this would be a good thing or if you would regard the US tariffing European countries as bad for the stability of the west as a bloc.

Well, the Europeans didn't complain when he signed the sanctions bill, but are now complaining that he's waiving it. They were probably confident it wouldn't apply to them.

The Rules Based Order was always a mirage. It had just enough legitimacy and teeth to appear that the strong and weak had certain standards to follow, but it existed in a world of True US hegemony so the US could give crumbs to “rules” while maintaining such thorough dominating power that they could step in with overwhelming force when they want to.

It’s the same thing I say about Free Speech. When it’s no true threat you allow it to happen. A professor at Wesleyan spouting some communists stuff in the 1980’s doesn’t matter. When communists have a legitimate chance of taking your country you executing a bunch of them. Or you end up losing and die yourself. The best recent example that free speech is fake is after Trump 1 and MAGA became a real threat the left tried as hard as they could to end MAGA free speech. They just didn’t have enough political power to kill it. Power is real.

Maybe it's too simplistic to approach the matter like this but I'd say it was the Kosovo War and the Iraq War of 2003 that fatally weakened the legitimacy of the concept of the rule-based international order.

The Rules Based Order was always a mirage.

So how do we get from here to a point where it isn't?

Because if we descend into open kraterocracy, we're never going to reach the stars.

We don’t?

The powerful - US - is never going to sacrifice its interests to the UN or whatever rules the US creates to boost legitimacy. Those rules will only apply 90% of the time, but then be completely ignored the 10% of the time when US interests disagrees with the rules.

So how do we get from here to a point where it isn't?

The fundamental flaw with Rules Based Order today is that it lacks a trusted, fair arbiter to enforce it. Team America, World Police is maybe the closest you we've gotten to it, and almost anyone is going to be able to point out the flaws in that model (they may disagree on specific incidents, but not on the overall conclusion). You'd need to get buy-in and perceived legitimacy in how you make and enforce the rules. And those aren't easy questions: which government has legitimate sovereignty over certain regions or peoples (many such cases)? Who gets independence and who gets subrogated to another state? What sorts of international trade should be allowed, or not — how do you feel about whaling? Carbon emissions? WMD programs? Superintelligence? What army enforces the rules against willful violations?

None of these are easy questions, and I don't propose wholesale answers to them here. But existing attempts at frameworks other than "One Liberal Nation Rules the Waves" [1] have treated these as unimportant or easily settled, devolving into Mean Girls clubs (foreign intervention is okay when we do it) or ineffective stages for international grandstanding (see the UN). One man's terrorist might be another's freedom fighter: how do you convince everyone there you can fairly decide? I certainly don't have a good answer for you to any of these.

  1. While it has its flaws, I will point to Anglo-American hegemony deciding to end the open slave trade largely by fiat on the basis of internal philosophical debate to be one example of how this isn't always bad.

Russia is not a threat to Europe, in fact a hypothetical conservative influence from Russia upon Europe is one of the few things that could save it from an impending migrant-driven extinction. The idea that Russia is a threat to Europe is (funny enough) something America has wanted Europeans to believe for decades, because a German-Russian bloc could threaten our global hegemony per STRATFOR. Our propaganda may have gotten out of control and now our Frankenstein believes the invention more than its creator. Imagining a German taking off his headset after a long day of playing CS2 with Russian teammates, walking past a German Christmas market playing Tchaikovsky, picking up a Kabab from the local Muslim-owned restaurant operated by Salafis who want to ban music, then returning home to complain about the Russian threat to Europe… I don’t know, I don’t get it. Europe is out of gas right now because the Jewish lobby in America pressured our President into a war in Iran. Are European Jews more European than actual Christian Europeans creating good classical art? It boggles me. A friend of mine is an opera singer in Germany, there are all sorts of Slavs in the arts, not so many Salafis though yet you’ve made the latter citizens.

Is there some 5head strategy move I am not seeing here

I think he wants to starve out Iranians with a long embargo. This helps prolong the duration of the ridiculous war in Iran.

Coffee, people pointed out before how totally insane your take of: "Russians are actually based and trad" is, but I guess it's my turn, again:

You remember that Moscow has an official Muslim population in the 1-2 million range, comparable with Paris, and rising, plus many more unofficial migrants push it much higher. Relations are not great, with many past terrorist attacks. You might say the same about the west, but this is the same story, not a solution by the Russians.

Russia's elite is wildly corrupt, stealing from its own population rampantly in a way that would make Alex Jones' theories of elite misbehavior look tame. Their model has kept Ukraine and Belarus edit poor versus their more west leaning compatriots, and only oil revenues sustain them - they have no economic theory or model for flourishing worth exporting, and everyone knows it. Ukrainians knew this well before Maidan, but that is what pushed them over the edge, they aspire to be Poland or the Baltics, not a vassal of a shitty larp of a rotting pretend trad state.

Don't let yourself be ruled over those who hate you is the best red tribe advice I've read on here, and it cut to my heart. The Ukrainians know it, I'm confused how you miss it? They seem pretty based to me.

We also have many war crime incidents in the war, both by and inflicted onto Russians - who immediately upon entering Ukraine killed civilians and looted almost at random. Remember, this while they were told Ukrainians would fold, welcome them and it would be over in weeks - why can't you see these people are not in any way people you want near your family or those you love, and I would pay serious blood and treasure to keep that it way?

Once again (as you did not reply before), possibly the incident most be interested in was the Russian soldier raped by Kadyrov's troops who are used as barrier troops and left to run rampant over their Christian charges, who then hung himself. Not sure if you read Russian, but a rough translation is: "Goodbye. love, in the time that I am here I have seen hell. There were not so many deaths in Chechnya or even Afganistan. seas of human meat. but that is not why i depart. We here, Russian people, are nobody, and Chechens rule. They drink, are lawless and rape, they despise everyone and no ones doing anything about it. Kitty, they took all the money you sent and they did a thing to me. This is to let you know that I resisted. Remember that you and me owe nothing to anyone. This is the only way out. See you after death". That's your positive influence for resisting Muslim influence?

I'd point out here as well that Russian society does not normalize/enforce white/native ethnomasochism and also does not capitulate to every demand of the Israel lobby. This is a rather palpable difference from the West, isn't it? It also appears to me that Western European elites like to extensively talk about the merits of the ideal that is multiculturalism while not showing any aptitude or willingness to actually practise it whereas Russians claim to renounce the Western ideal of multiculturalism while practising de facto multiculturalism everyday.

The numbers I’m finding are that Moscow is 3% Muslim. Eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Russia ; https://social.hse.ru/socialogia/duxovenstvo

comparable with Paris

The one currently on fire, as I write this reply to you, because Muslims are setting a handful of beautiful buildings on fire? I mean, to be fair to the “ummah”, I don’t think a Kazakh or Uzbek is going to set anything on fire even though they’re Muslim, which is where Russia’s migrants come from. But France seems to have a terrible batch and the neo-European neo-“value” of letting them riot is not-based and not-trad. It’s very anti-European and demoralizing. Its very unaesthetic As is what Spain is doing with their migrant “regularization”, saying this as someone with blood from Spain and not the Slavs.

Russia's elite is wildly corrupt

This is no longer a tenable objection given Trump the past couple years, Germany’s spy chief being arrested…

We also have many war crime incidents in the war

Nothing approaching the horror of bombing 100 schoolchildren or morally-defending the starvation of 1,000,000 children by a Eurovision contestant. And I remain skeptical of Bucha because a militant Neo-Nazi batallion decked out in swastikas is probably not the most trustworthy org in the world, yet it’s where Ukraine sources some of their top officials from.

the Russian soldier raped by Kadyrov's troops

Meduza says that was fabricated, do you have a better source?

Coffee, I really like some of your writing, which is why I write all this and why your denial of Bucha is so strange, it makes me question everything else you say, and so it’s worth focusing on.

The timeline makes the Ukrainian-perpetrator theory physically impossible. Russia’s Defense Ministry of course claimed the bodies had been placed on the streets after Russian units fully withdrew from Bucha around March 30, but commercial satellite imagery shows otherwise. In addition, a video filmed by a local council member on April 1 shows multiple bodies along Yablonska Street, and Maxar imagery shows at least 11 of them had been there since March 11, when Russia, by its own account, occupied the town. Many bodies in the satellite images also sit in the exact positions seen in the street-level footage, it literally cannot be faked. We also have signal intercepts, identified Russians, eye witness accounts that match the above, and Ukraine flew in independent forensics teams to avoid exactly this denial, but that’s just flogging a dead horse.

Russian soldiers raped mothers in front of their kids and killed them, shot people in the street and hung them from lampposts, and all without much caring to hide it. The fact that you persist in believing Ukraine somehow did it instead suggests that either your priors are to accept whatever Russia says, no matter how incredible, or that you wish others to. That may seem uncharitable, but it is the only conclusion I am left with given the strength of the evidence.

However, on your other points quickly:

the Russian soldier raped by Kadyrov's troops

Meduza says that was fabricated, do you have a better source?

The evidence we have is a Russian telegram chat from a soldier group, a photo of a dead body, and a note saying all of the above. I do not see any Meduza debunking, maybe they have more information but it seems hard to know what other evidence could surface other than the above. It seems perfectly believable given the endemic rape in the Russian military (as we discussed before), the use of Chechens as barrier troops and to cow their Christian charges, and the hatred Chechens have of Russians, but I guess your priors vary.

Nothing approaching the horror of bombing 100 schoolchildren

I am not sure what this refers to? I see Russia claimed there was a single strike that killed 21 schoolchildren in Luhansk, without the evidence like names, interviews etc that Ukraine provides for similar cases (but its possible) while Ukraine claimed it hit a school building being used for training by the Rubicon drone unit. I see no claims of 100 schoolgirls? This may actually have killed schoolchildren and been a mistaken target. Russia by contrast has definitely killed at least 760+ confirmed Ukrainian schoolchildren, and raped, kidnapped and abused many more. So, again, nothing Ukraine has done this war comes close to approaching the horror of common Russian actions, the worst case is well below a Tuesday for them, your point is perfectly inverted and really weird.

Zelensky supporting the UPA was retarded, and he's not a great politician in some regards, agree with you there. However, those deaths don't carry forwards from the 40s to invalidate Ukraine fighting Russia today.

In terms of Muslims in Moscow, your own sources say the lower bound is 300,000, but that has to be an underestimate as it's a 2010 figure of only permanent residency. The real number probably exceeds 2 million using your own source there, but also ones like this. Paris is burning, Russia had many terrorist attacks (including in 2024), and I would be surprised if the base rate of attacks in Moscow is lower than in similar cities with similar muslim populations, it's more of the same rather than Russia finding some solution.

Let’s consider it super carefully, starting with a few steps back.

  • Atrocity propaganda is used by every country, in every conflict, since at least the 1800s. Atrocity propaganda is omnipresent even in the culture war. There is atrocity propaganda about racial violence in America, about residential schools in Canada, about antisemitic incidents, about gender relations. Benjamin Franklin used atrocity propaganda against the British, we used it with the Nayirah testimony in the Gulf War, there was an entire tome published in the 1920s detailing the 20+ atrocity hoaxes employed by the Allies in WW1. I believe Trump has recently said that the IRGC killed 70,000 of their own citizens (lol). In every conflict, the gullible masses have their reflexive opinion shaped by atrocity propaganda, because they always fall for it, every single time. So, at least outside of Reddit, this should factor into a serious person’s willingness to believe in an atrocity story, especially one occurring in as geopolitically-sensitive a conflict as Ukraine. Another way to put this: every serious power, and even unserious powers, will be employing atrocity propaganda, and so where are Ukraine’s attempts? Each incident has to be nitpicked in an especially nitpicky way because there is a motivated actor who really, really wants to fabricate an atrocity, and it’s his job to do this, and he probably has a higher IQ than us, and in fact it’s not one guy but a team of a dozen spending 60 hours weeks considering how to fabricate an atrocity. The normal assessment and skepticism of evidence simply doesn’t apply in wartime. We should assume he gets a holiday bonus and a free trip to Thailand if his fabrication is a success upon the normie heart. I’m not even against atrocity propaganda itself, I just think believing it is beneath this particular forum; gone are the days I would quibble with the redditor about Michael Brown or whoever (such conversations are worse than hopeless).

  • The Bucha event was publicized at the height of diplomatic talks between Russia and Ukraine, literally just days after the March 28 Istanbul talks, and the failure of diplomacy was blamed on Bucha. “Bucha” bears phonetic similarity to a relevant viscerally negative-valence word, which makes it highly fitting for an atrocity propaganda campaign. There are few phonetic connotations more apt to associate with your event than “butcher” (he definitely earned that Thailand vacation). These two points should slightly raise your suspicions, because the paid team of motivated actors looking to establish a false atrocity are going to pounce on these opportunities. It’s literally the perfect time a place to stage something. Like, were you to plug all the information into some AtrocityPropagandaAI, it would likely choose Bucha out of all eligible options to stage something.

  • The town had many Azov members deployed, and in fact, some of the “civilians” Ukraine claims were killed in Bucha were Azov soldiers! Now, that Ukraine lies shouldn’t be surprising, and it doesn’t disprove that a real atrocity occurred. But we have to remember what Azov is. It’s a group that has many convictions for killing civilians: 1, 2, 3. We have cases of the SBU + Azov threatening and killing civilians in UN reports (Volodymyr Lobach). There are cases reported by the UN of Azov raping the mentally handicapped. From the testimony of Marianna Vyshemirskaya we know that Azov has used active hospitals as cover. This is not a good group, and it’s the group that (1) was in Bucha, (2) died in Bucha, (3) is highly influential in the upper strata of the Ukrainian military. This is who you trust? Why?

  • Out of the 150 streets in Bucha, the central claim involves a satellite image of Yablonska Street, one of the two streets with the heaviest fighting between Azov / Ukrainian forces and Russians. Ukrainians have been known to place their soldiers in domestic houses with civilians in adjacent dwellings

You believe a neonazi battalion with a long track record of killing civilians and putting other civilians in harm’s way. But it would be a trivial challenge for them to stage this event. A satellite image can be altered or its date misapplied, but even more importantly, civilians placed on the street is what you would expect if Russian forces were fighting Azov hiding in homes with civilians in it. (If these buildings were your base, you would not keep a dead civilian beside you for a week, you would place the deceased away from the building, ie the street). Something like 2,000 settlements were taken by Russians and subsequently recaptured and the supposed evidence of atrocities is less than the evidence of Azov atrocities. In the era of smartphones!

Muslim population

Wikipedia says 3% in Moscow (see the table entry for Moscow), and my other link says 3% from a rigorous June 2026 poll. Do you have better evidence?

Chechen rape hoax

See Meduza: https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/09/28/newly-surfaced-document-alleges-that-chechen-soldiers-raped-conscripts-from-dnr

History teaches us that such atrocities usually occur immediately after a place is taken after heavy fighting in a combat situation that is altogether hectic and fluid. It makes sense to assume that the Ukrainian units that retook the town immediately killed a bunch of civilians they considered to be traitors, collaborators, looters etc.

Apparently one of the deceased in Bucha was Oleksandr Rzhavskyy, an important pro-Russian politician who served in Ukraine’s parliament, and Russia may have recordings where he mentions to Russian troops the possibility that he will be brutalized by Ukrainians when Ukrainians retake the town. The Ukrainian position on his death is that he was shot by Russian troops for not paying a ransom (?????), which is the sort of plotline I’d write if worked at Activision.

Coffee, I come back to this, because you are absolutely better than this. As I see your points, and please do others jump in if I have lacked charity or understanding:

  • Your first point is that atrocities make for good propaganda, to the point it may be worth falsifying them. True, but obviously doesn't provide information here, or mean that real atrocities do not occur.
  • Your second point - Bucha was evocative, made the Ukrainians furious, and collapsed any chance at peace, making it really dumb for Russia - True, but still doesn't change any of the evidence that Russia did it, and we know Russia has made deeply retarded choices in this war
  • Your third point - Russia put out a lot of propaganda that it was actually somehow Azov, days afterwards, with massive video, satellite and signal intelligence. This is to be expected, but provides no information useful to update on as they do this for every atrocity they actually do, like shooting down the Malaysian Airliner (impossibly blamed on an SU25 with hilariously bad evidence) or the poisonings in Salisbury. Instead, this is so that a motivated reasoner can argue that it was Azov, not to be credible. The fact you quote it makes me more confident that your priors are to accept whatever Russia says, no matter how incredible, or that you wish others to do so. In what sense does this convince any reasonable skeptic on the Motte? So why post it?
  • Your fourth point - there might have been fighting at some point on that street where the civilians were visibly lined up during the occupation, raped and shot in cold blood. That has no bearing on anything related to the massacre, which happened outside of combat and to people restrained and executed one by own. Plus, that amnesty report was correctly clowned upon as insane, and also, has no relation to systemic executions and rape outside of combat.

I do not believe Azov, who are not load bearing to any of this. I believe the evidence provided in my reply to you, primarily the satellite footage released days in advance of Ukraine retaking Bucha and can date the executions to post any early fighting, and also matches footage taken prior to the retaking of the city and exactly matches the patterns of bodies found once it was retaken. That's a hilariously high bar of evidence, and if it was the other way around for Azov you would correctly be calling it out, and you have claimed events prior on far far shakier evidence. Russian soldiers ran rampant over civilians they had power over, none of which is built upon needing to believe a single word of Azov.

Why do you even like the Russians here? Why can't Bucha be a terrible failure and a mistake by units gone rogue for you?

Anyway, on our other notes:

Your Meduza link shows that there are other allegations versus mine that Chechens raped, DNR soldiers this time, but that neither of them have been disproven? Are you agreeing with me?

And your source that 3% of the respondents were muslim, in line with the lower bound i mentioned, but that 65% of residents express that religion is important and 36% of them Islam is the most important? In a city of like 13 million? Do you see a slight pickle even in the narrow survey that the massive irregular population is not going to be well covered by? That there may be quite a few Muslims in Moscow isn't some weird conspiracy, who do you think is launching all the terrorist attacks?

My first point is larger than that: atrocity propaganda is the norm in modern psyops. We should expect a lot of atrocity propaganda coming from both sides. It would be improbable for a modern war to occur without atrocity propaganda. Which again, I’m not mad about, but for a question like “is Russia a threat to Europe”, this should be treated seriously (at least here), not by reciting events that may be propaganda planted by three letter agencies and highly motivated neonazis battalions.

Russia put out a lot of propaganda that it was actually somehow Azov, days afterwards, with massive video, satellite and signal intelligence

Did you read that Russian MFA report? What part of it do you dispute or consider erroneous? You should address the specific evidence presented by the official government of the nation you’re accusing of an atrocity. It was published last month, not days afterward. Ukraine claims that those particular men were civilians. Ukraine etched their names upon a memorial. Russia provided evidence that they were members of an armed extremist neonazi battalion with a long history of killing civilians, an outfit condemned by the UN and who traffics in extremist literature. Who do we believe? Ukraine or Russia? Neither? Thank you for reminding me of Bucha by the way; had you not mentioned if I would have never found this report.

I do not believe Azov, who are not load bearing to any of this

Azov is the armed and extremist neonazi brigade from which Ukraine sources some of their key positions. They are highly influential in Ukraine. Some of the highest-ranked Ukrainian military personnel are former members of this neonazi battalion. Russia claims that Azov, this batallion decking themselves in swastikas, was in Bucha. This is very problematic if true. They attach photos of the men in uniforms, name them, and name the specific unit of Azov they were affiliated with. How can we determine who is telling the truth? If Azov was in Bucha, then no sane person should believe what is claimed about Bucha, given the long history of Azov’s crimes against civilians and extremist leanings.

You know, I think when the typical European thinks “threat to Europe”, they imagine Nazis. Doesn’t it seem like Ukraine is a threat to Europe, if they have neo-Nazis praising Hitler going wild with weapons? The commander of Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps of the Ukrainian Ground Forces has published screeds like “Ukrainian Racial Social-Nationalism in the Ideology of Patriot of Ukraine”. I’m starting to really question your motivations here, because your name (the golem) has a long history of being used by Nazis, and here you are defending a neonazi outfit. If you don’t mind answering a few questions about this:

  1. Do you deny that Azov is a neo-Nazi brigade with a long history of crimes against civilians?

  2. Do you deny that the Ukrainians select former Azov members for important positions in Ukraine? Biletsky as I mentioned, but also Serhii Velichko and Kostiantyn Nemichev, members of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine.

  3. Why should I trust a nation that permits, and selects for important promotions, members of an extremist neonazi brigade?

I believe the evidence provided in my reply to you, primarily the satellite footage

Okay, but follow this line of argument: (1) if Azov were in the homes, they would have used those homes as defense while civilians were nearby or in those homes; (2) Azov themselves may have killed civilians, as they have before; (3a) the placement of the deceased on a street are what we would expect if Russians made a base out of homes where civilians were killed by crossfire or Azov, because you don’t live next to a dead person for a week, you’d drag them away from you; (3b) it is profoundly improbable that all 2500 Russians in Bucha saw nothing wrong with leaving the civilians they supposedly killed in the middle of a street, especially when they had two weeks of little fighting. Not a single one of the 2500 soldiers in Bucha thought “hey, let’s hide this civilians we just killed”? (They had full control from March 5 to March 30).

Why do you even like the Russians here

I want Ukraine to stop self-harming themselves, and I want Europe to stop needless brother wars. You can focus on inter-nicene squabbles after you’ve kicked out the last Salafi and minimized the global threat posed by China. Otherwise it’s just ridiculous.

Your Meduza link shows that there are other allegations

If they fabricated a letter, why should I believe the other allegations?

your source that 3% of the respondents were muslim, in line with the lower bound i mentioned, but that 65% of residents express that religion is important and 36% of them Islam is the most important

I don’t see a source for 36% say Islam is the most important.

In a city of like 13 million

In a city or 13 million there are 12 to 24 mosques

Russia's elite is wildly corrupt, stealing from its own population rampantly in a way that would make Alex Jones' theories of elite misbehavior look tame. Their model has kept Ukraine and Belarus at a similar level of poverty

I don't think Russia is a trad state paragon, but as far as I can tell on a quick Google trip, you're a little confused about this.

In 1995 Belarus and Ukraine had similar GDP per capita (PPP) of around $4000 - in fact, Ukraine's was slightly higher. By 2021, Belarus had completely outstripped Ukraine, rising to about $27k versus nearly $18K.

Meahwhile Russia started off in 1995 with a significant lead at about $18K, down from the 1990's $30K. By 2021 it had risen back to nearly $39K GDP per capita (PPP).

To me, this indicates substantial Ukrainian economic mismanagement compared to Russia and Belarus.

If you have better sources I am all ears.

Hi Shrike -

Possibly a bit clumsy wording by me there. I didn't mean that Belarus and Ukraine are literally at the same level of income, rather that there is a clear bifurcation in the post Soviet states - those who moved into a Western, EU orbit became much more wealthy, those who stayed stuck in a Russian orbit were much poorer, while those like Hungary that went one way then moved towards a Russian type patronage model for a protracted time saw their growth collapse versus neighbors.

Ukraine is poorer than Russia, and Belarus - stuck in the Russian orbit without significant hydrocarbon revenues or Russia's heavy subsidies of Belraus and Ukraine's post Soviet heavy industry had a much harder job adapting than Belarus' agriculture. Plus, all three have a deep oligarch problem, which Ukraine will have to deal with.

My contention is that a future Ukraine in the western system has no reason why it can't achieve something like Poland or the Baltics, and they know it - that was the literal trigger for Maidan. Honestly, they could probably have a higher HDI/GDP per capita than Russia, even without any hydrocarbons, that's what Poland proved as a reference class.

There's actually a lot of really good publications and papers on how Russia's economy functions - I really like those on the rent management system and they were super useful when I did economics over there. I think Gaddy and Ickes are really readable too, but there are others!

This makes more sense!

It's pretty extraordinary to think that a country currently invading a European country, that has within living memory occupied other European countries like Estonia, leaving deep psychological scars, and that constantly operates military sorties, assassinations and influence operations across Europe, and that often talks about its grand ambitions to regain territory and influence in Europe, is not a threat to Europe.

America has also invaded Europe, Europe has also invaded Europe, America has even invaded America before. How many wars were fought between European powers between 1600 and 1900? 80? How many wars were fought where the nobles on opposing sides treated each other with honor befitting Europeans? How many Europeans today admire Napoleon and what did he do and how was he treated after his first defeat? I mean, if we’re talking about defending Europe, we should consider what that means: the norms, the arts, the virtues, the blood? Or, like, gay marriage and foreigners and the wholecloth invention of the sanctity of democracy?

influence operations across Europe

Have you read about America’s influence operation in Ukraine? America being a rival power 9000km away and (checks map) definitely not in Europe?

Is there some 5head strategy move I am not seeing here? Or is the man actually that inept? Is this because he is mad that Zelensky called him weak?

Trump in general just likes dictators. He loves the idea of strong men in extreme power and it's why he continues to suck up to Putin, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping. And Trump doesn't really have an ideology beyond his own ego so unless you as a dictator personally piss him off like Maduro or Khamanei, he'll side with you.

Putin is literally what Trump wishes to be, a powerful authoritarian in control of a expansionist government.

no longer gives a shit about the rules-based world order or the stability of the west as a block

US does care about stability of the block. Americans just seem to think the arrangement will hold no matter how extractive, how dishonourable, how hostile they are. Stability is in fact improved if Europe is sabotaged, given as little breathing room as possible.

Funny to see the american attitudes evolve. Various shades of "You are delusional, US is not the enemy of Europe. You do deserve it though, you were ripping us off, coasting as we risked for your security." Indignation Europe is weak and so a failure as an "ally". Resurgence of appreciation for predatory behaviour.

You do deserve it though, you were ripping us off, coasting as we risked for your security." Indignation Europe is weak and so a failure as an "ally".

I endorse some version of this. We have a real free rider problem and even rhetorically going against it is denounced as throwing away our precious soft power.

It is a matter of nuance. You can believe that pressuring the NATO members to increase spending was a good thing, while also thinking that what Trump is currently doing is bad.

What lesser, gentler measure do you think would have worked?

For one it is not at all clear what his current goals are, or what specific problem he has with Europe that he wants to solve. He just does and says stuff all the time. It is impossible to know what is serious and what is blustering.

Overall I think he should be more clear about what his boundaries actually are and what the consequences for breaking them will be. Instead he makes vague, aggressive statements on Twitter that could be interpreted in multiple ways. He also needs to make it clear that the US will reward those who adhere to his demands. And once he has made an agreement with his allies, such as sanctions on Russia, he should actually hold up his side of the deal instead of going back on it.

For one it is not at all clear what his current goals are, or what specific problem he has with Europe that he wants to solve.

You literally cited his specific criticism and goal in your previous post. What lesser, gentler measure do you think would have gotten European NATO countries to meet their spending commitments?

Overall I think he should be more clear about what his boundaries actually are and what the consequences for breaking them will be.

Obama and Biden did this. The results were the 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The process of getting NATO members to increase their spending is an example of what I want him to do, at least for a time. However, most of what he does isn't that. He still threathened an invasion of Greenland, and thus the dissolution of the alliance. Once again an example that he is a poor ally and incapable of keeping his end of a deal.

The process of getting NATO members to increase their spending is an example of what I want him to do, at least for a time.

And again, I'm asking what method you think would have worked? Most of Europe clearly doesn't want to do anything of the sort. I understand that the "Get a job or you're out of this house" feels like fascism to a lot of people, though it does fall directly in line with my "Boomer Common Sense" analysis of Trump. But again, what lesser, gentler, more diplomatic measures do you think would suffice to get Europe to meet treaty obligations and generally return to being allies worth having?

He still threathened an invasion of Greenland, and thus the dissolution of the alliance.

For which we got a better strategic position in Greenland that isn't dependent on an increasingly unreliable NATO.

He may not know, himself. He seems to just vent his spleen, randomly, at random targets, whenever the mood takes him. I've gotten into the habit of just ignoring every Trump tweet.

US does care about stability of the block.

Do you think the US increasing tariffs on Europe is good for the stability of the bloc?

If not, why do you think that it is bad for Trump to waive sanctions that would increase tariffs on Europe?

From the AP:

Trump personally signed the legislation just last month and his move came just two days before a deadline set in the law itself for its implementation.

Trump said Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.”

Beyond any commentary about Europe's role in the world order, the interesting to me is how immediate of a backtrack this is. I can't interpret this as anything other than a cynical Hail Mary to lower fuel prices before the midterms.

It's not even a consequential amount diesel - a few days of domestic US consumption. I wouldn't want to impugn Trump's reputation as a brilliant dealmaker, but one might suspect this is yet another example of him making wildly uneven trades on behalf of the country for the sake of producing a headline win.

Are you willing to make the same arguments about China? It hasn't exactly been loafing around doing nothing when it comes to Iran.

If America tried cozying up to China by signing gas deals and lifting tariffs and sanctions, yes I would consider that a mistake. I consider what Trump is doing here worse since it is another way to stab supposed allies in the back, but generally going out of your way to aid geopolitical rivals is not a good thing. America can supply itself with gas. Things may get more expensive, but no one is going to freeze to death.

No. It is a basic 1d move. You just can't see the board because ideology and priors.

Ukraine is important for Russia, the foaming at the mouth Brussels and UK elite that have bet a big chunk of their prestige on it, and I guess is also important for the Ukrainians - at least what is left of them.

But it is not important for the USA. After the end of the cold war Russia is so weak that it no longer needs to be contained. Case in point - the war in Ukraine. Actually devastated Ukraine that drains Europe treasure and prevents even the meager chance of Europe getting its shit together and threatening the US economic dominance is even preferrable.

The geopolitical balance won't shift too much no matter who controls that wreck of a country now. And Europe is on declining trajectory. So why bother with it. If the "new Europeans" we are importing start to dominate it will turn into shithole, if they don't - Europe will have enough internal strife to not be able to project much power outside of its border. The only challenge for USA is potentially China. And you can see that US see it that way by the comparatively better way it treats Korea, Japan and Vietnam (and well Russia).

Russia is not providing much military assistance to Iran and in the mind of Trump intelligence sharing is fair game. Trump prefers to trade with Russia than to sanction it. And because Ukraine is local problem, there is no need to get too involved with it. On the other hand Putin has hydrocarbons that are lately in something of a crunch. So aside from public's opinion, there is no real downside of giving some sanctions relief to Russia when it aligns with US interests.

USA is the seed of Albion, and by the time said Albion still played the great game competently it was known as the Perfidious Albion. And the UK had no friends only interests. Same is with USA. Although the British had more class about it.

And lastly - Zelensky thinks of himself as equal to the west, when in fact he is the west's bitch. And while some European leaders prefer the girlfriend experience and the other prefer the dominatrix one, in the case with Trump -as the brass brute that he is - seems he doesn't like his bitches talking back instead of sucking - as Ivana Trump can no longer confirm.

Ukraine was always going to end this way, and if I were in charge I would have told Zelenskyy to get stuffed in 2022 when this all started. Its just not in our strategic interests to prop up the independence of a small unimportant bit of farmland at the cost of using up our strategic reserves, making us more dependent on Muslim energy, and placing us in a terrible position of showing weakness to the globe and not being able to defend actually important Taiwan and its high end chips from China.

Zelenskyy was brilliant at quipping about not needing a ride, but that’s a shitty reason to arm them and ultimately proved Europe to be mostly too weak to worry about.

The best case scenario (other than a clear Ukrainian victory) would have been a Russian victory in 2023. By then, they would have taken enough damage to dissuade them from further adventures, but hundreds of thousands of men wouldn't have been slaughtered.

The longer this war goes on, the more screwed Ukraine is demographically.

The people who I hate the most are those who view this war as a way to test new drone technology with real live meat puppets, or who put the strategic goal of "weakening Russia" above the lives of real people.

Yes, it's all Russia's fault, but at this point the Ukrainian state is an active impediment to the happiness of the Ukrainian people. Conscription in this forever war is little better than slavery. And the women who fled to Germany are going to find husbands there and never come back. Who is being saved?

The longer this war goes on, the more screwed Ukraine is demographically.

France in WWI had a population roughly equivalent to Ukraine in 2022 and suffered 1.3 million military deaths throughout the war compared to 200,000 Ukrainians in a similar amount of time. You can argue that the Ukrainian numbers are underestimates, that the overall demographic picture is different, etc., but that's not going to be anywhere near enough to account for a 6.5x difference. And France was not demographically screwed in the long-term; in fact, they managed to lose a Ukraine war's worth of military deaths a generation later and still turned out no more worse for wear.

they managed to lose a Ukraine war's worth of military deaths a generation later and still turned out no more worse for wear.

Well, 1920 France didn't have a population pyramid like 2020 China (looking at the 18-34 set). Indeed, there were more women than men, because the country just went through some event that killed a bunch of said men.

Ukraine's gender imbalance is worse than China's, and it was normal before. This is not meaningfully distinguishable from genocide.

At this point I'm pretty sure every Ukrainian man, especially those who didn't instantly flee the country on invasion, are just actively suicidal, perhaps even more than the Finns are. No actual organized resistance to being sent to war, nothing awaiting you when you return except for a smoking hole in the ground, and a convenient enemy to kill yourself fighting.

The way the men behave in the drone footage is compatible with this conclusion.

France had a real population of about 40 million (plus substantial colonies) in WW1. Ukraine had a fake population of 40 million because they claim Crimea and pre-2014 borders as part of Ukraine, whereas some of the soldiers they were fighting came from these parts.

Ukraine has also suffered very high casualties. France or Germany never resorted to roving forcible conscription squads running and chasing after men in the street, there was no equivalent of vanning (except until the end of WW2 with the Volksturm).

Maybe a majority of the men who died were higher quality leading to the now weak France today

Im not sure the evidence bears this out. You don’t really see a correlation between deaths in the early 20th century wars and, for lack of a better term, nationalism and martial vigor. The Brits and French aren’t meaningfully more nationalistic than Austrians, and both are less nationalistic than most of Eastern Europe who suffered more.

And a weak Europe more generally. Their neutral nations haven't fared any better, though.

If there are HBD implications of killing everyone who cared enough about the country to commit ritual suicide by Maxim go to war to defend it, it should be visible here. (And the other half that were smart enough to stay home proceeded to emigrate to the US for the same reasons Ukrainian women left at the start of the war.)

Half of France's population didn't flee to Germany with no intention of return.

Looks at French demographics... recoils in horror.

It's funny you should mention France because they are the first country to have undergone the demographic transition. Supposedly if, starting in 1700, France and England had the same fertility, there would be 500 million Frenchmen alive today, and we'd all be speaking French.

French people in 1700 composed about 3% of the world's population. Today, it's about 0.7%.

And yes, France really suffered demographically in WWI and didn't recover. There are probably around 50-60 million ethnic French people alive today, not really much more than 1914. And that's despite a baby-boom following WWII where the fertility rate was 3. It helps that they didn't send all their women to a different, better country to wait out the war.

Ukraine's fertility rate is closer to 1. There isn't going to be a baby boom waiting for the brave soldiers when they return. The ones who can will emigrate. Millions of women already have. So the situation in Ukraine is fundamentally different and worse than France's, which is itself quite bad.

To be fair France is very demographically screwed right now. I'm guessing there will be barely any white frenchmen in a few generations.

To be fair, "right now" is approximately 100 years later than World War I, and the effects of that war on anything in the present have probably almost completely dissolved.

If there's one thing in geopolitics that has compounding effects that increase over time, it's gotta be massive population loss (directly via killing, or indirectly via missed births).

No, massive population loss is relatively easily and quickly overcome by a corresponding baby boom.

More comments

The people who I hate the most are those who view this war as a way to test new drone technology with real live meat puppets, or who put the strategic goal of "weakening Russia" above the lives of real people.

Funny, the people I hate the most are those who started the war.

Although Americans whining about Ukraine not giving up faster as if they cared about the Ukranians, come a close second.

A person who would sacrifice every Ukrainian for the sake of Ukraine is no friend.

Ukrainians: I would like to fight.

Allies: We can support you in that effort

Porkpiehat: EXCUSE ME, isn't there someone you forgot to ask?

My brother, the Ukrainians have, with a massive majority, chosen to fight. The only opposition to Zelensky comes from a position of wanting more efforts to fight, based around those who have other ideas on how to fight. They really, honestly, truly, want to do it, I promise you from personal experience. Zelensky isn't forcing them to against their will, he's riding a tiger and likely to be voted out post war for his failings here. Some have left the country, some will return, but those who remain strongly think the best future for Ukraine is by breaking Russia, and truly think they can.

Kind of based. I'm confused by those who can't see that.

My brother, the Ukrainians have, with a massive majority, chosen to fight.

They are so massively majority willing to fight that TCC needs 5 or 6 people to drag them into the vans.

There is a draft and obviously some people don't want to. But polling and Ukrainian politics show high support for the war. Armies which actually don't want to fight tend to disintegrate. See Afghanistan.

I'm confused by those who can't see that.

Probably the people being packed off to die by a nation that is wholly incapable of offering them a viable future even if they win. I'm familiar with the WW1 literature that explains this in great detail.

I don't give a damn about "how the people of that nation voted" for that reason; you rule well, and the treasure's good enough, maybe I'll consider it. If you bring war to my door without those things...

You're confused because you're not living in reality.

The generally accepted number is that 75% of Ukraine's soldiers are conscripts, although we'll never know the exact number because it's a state secret.

Pork, I know Ukrainians, I have relatives fighting, and the poem "The beginnings" applies to all of them. I'm British but the force of the Ukrainian's fury would impress Kipling, and I would not want to be a Russian over the next few decades after their sowing of the wind.

As per reality, I can strongly predict reality based upon all of what I posted, for example the pro/anti war/Russia direction of Zelensky's future challenger. Would you make a prediction there?

The UK had a similar level of conscription in WW2, what does that prove? Did you think that after Coventry and London that we wanted peace? Gently, where is any of what you are saying coming from other than vibes?

More comments

Where do you get that number from? I have never heard it before.

More comments

I’m fine with saying I don’t care that much about Ukraine as a country. It’s not in our strategic interest to care about Ukraine and frankly a lot of other countries like them.

It’s a matter of practicality. We cannot and should not twist ourselves in knots and waste lives and treasure unless it’s good for the West in general. We don’t have the capacity to intervene everywhere and even if we did, the results would be perpetual warfare that serves no one. What serves the cause of peace and global security is a predictable globe in which there are no wars. Prolonging a war because you don’t want one side or the other to win is not merciful, it’s cruel. More people die and even if you get to a stalemate, that’s just rearming for the next war.

Again, Galicia is going to be fine demographically- as a region they're a viable contender for the highest fertility rate in Europe- and that's who's going to be ruling over what's left of Ukraine after the war. The rest of ukraine was basically a giant nursing home anyways.

I didn't know that. I was only able to find numbers suggesting fertility around 1.1, comparable to the rest of Ukraine.

Those numbers are from 2021. I suppose that fewer men could lead to a higher birth rate, but that would require women. Are the women in Galicia also not taking the opportunity to leave?

I'm wondering where you're getting this information. It's interesting and I'd like to know more.

The people who I hate the most are those who view this war as a way to test new drone technology with real live meat puppets, or who put the strategic goal of "weakening Russia" above the lives of real people.

I have seen this goal be poorly worded enough, mentioning wiping out demographics, that it becomes genocidal. It is not something you should be setting as a war aim.

I would say it’s mostly Russias fault since they were the ones who decided to make this a lot more kinetic. But of course, the low key war that was happening for years before it turning the heat up had problems on both sides.

America no longer gives a shit about the rules-based world order

You mean the world order where one country gets to blow up neutral ships as much as they want, and not a single country lifts a finger? Or the one where one country builds hundreds of artificial islands in the ocean and harasses anyone who gets close, and not a single country lifts a finger? Or maybe it's the one where one country gets to turn another into a giant open-air prison, and not a single country lifts a finger?

Or I think the world order you are thinking of is the one where America plays world police, pays for everything, always wins, and always follows the rules, and never abuses its position. One where the rest of the world just gets to enjoy the security. That one is definitely over.

You mean the world order where one country gets to blow up neutral ships as much as they want, and not a single country lifts a finger?

The Houthis? Yes arguably the US doesn't give enough of a shit about the Houthis. This is compounded by the far-more-affected Europe inexplicably giving even less of a shit.

You mean the world order where one country gets to blow up neutral ships as much as they want, and not a single country lifts a finger?

Well, per the laws of the sea, it's the responsibility of the flag nations (and only the flag nations) to respond. So flagless ships have no recourse. Or are you referring to Iran striking shipping?

Or the one where one country builds hundreds of artificial islands in the ocean and harasses anyone who gets close, and not a single country lifts a finger?

Yeah, I really wish there'd be a ton more pushback here, but there's sadly pretty much zero political will. Or public knowledge.

Or maybe it's the one where one country gets to turn another into a giant open-air prison, and not a single country lifts a finger?

Which one is this? I've heard people refer to Gaza that way, but it's a pretty false description.

it's the responsibility of the flag nations (and only the flag nations) to respond.

In any case the flag of convenience nations aren't going to do shit. I guess the whole fact of flags of convenience existing already means the rule based order is over, because it implies the existence of someone protecting your ships unilaterally without any international law obligations to do so.

(By neutral I mean ships not a party to any known conflict, not stateless)

For actual countries with some military power and a decent flagged fleet like maybe china india japan greece, haven't done much to protect their ships anywhere away from their own waters.

America no longer gives a shit about the rules-based world order

Can you explain what exactly you mean by this term and in what sense it was giving a shit about it before? I find its use quite vexatious, since it forces you to either accept a highly tendentious framing of the goals and practice of US foreign policy or get bogged down arguing about terminology where the other party has a plethora of official sources to legitimise their usage. Compare perhaps to the labelling of leftist street violence as "anti-fascism".

Iran

The alliance between Russia and Iran has always been transactional and ridden with mutual distrust. It is not unsound policy for the US to try to pry them apart (and indeed, I fully expect that any agreements they make with either include secret addenda stipulating to betray the other). Manifestly, any Russian support for Iran so far has fallen far short of the theoretical possibilities.

Can you explain what exactly you mean by this term and in what sense it was giving a shit about it before?

In this case it is about how military landgrabs are supposed to be a breach of rules enforced by western countries.

Manifestly, any Russian support for Iran so far has fallen far short of the theoretical possibilities.

Likely because most equipment is being used in Ukraine. If Trump gets his way and Russia wins, equipment will be freed up that could be handed to their allies.

In this case it is about how military landgrabs are supposed to be a breach of rules enforced by western countries.

This is omitting a pretty important part about who the "rules" actually apply to (evidently Western countries and allies are not subject to them with respect to targets who are not). Between Israel, Kosovo and North Cyprus, and dozens of smaller examples (Pakistan/Afghanistan, China/India...) that simply don't matter, it's clear that there were never any uncircumscribed rules; beyond that it's just a matter of putting the wordcels (or, perhaps nowadays, LLMs) to work to convince the general public that all is kosher.

Likely because most equipment is being used in Ukraine. If Trump gets his way and Russia wins, equipment will be freed up that could be handed to their allies.

Since Ukrainian tolerance for casualties is much higher than American or Israeli, the same piece of gear would go further in Iranian hands (and thereby allow the Russians to extract concessions from the Americans). It is in fact conceivable that something like this happened.

This is omitting a pretty important part about who the "rules" actually apply to

Even if the rules in practice were more like "protect the stability of the western block using all means necessary", Trump's actions still mark a drastic shift away from this. And considering how the west, America included, has flourished under the old order it seems strange to brake it up.

His supporters claim that they have moved to only protecting American interests, and that helping Europe has too long been a drain on the American economy. I think that throwing away alliances seem short sighted. Fighting China economically would surely be much easier if the US took coordinated action with the EU. But the more that the EU is pushed away, the harder such coordination becomes, as the EU has to look towards their own immediate interests.

Even if the rules in practice were more like "protect the stability of the western block using all means necessary",

A somewhat fair criticism of the "rules based international order" is that it was always kind of a real-countries-only club. Practically speaking, this meant democratic states and their key allies. The flip side of this is that most of the objectors were/are autocratic states complaining that they're denied the legitimacy accorded to democracies. They could have that status in an instant by reforming into actual democracies, but unsurprisingly their autocratic governments are not terribly interested in the proposition that only democracies (and their client states) get to have real sovereignty.

I think that throwing away alliances seem short sighted.

It is short-sighted, but one of the (many) flaws of Trumpist thought processes is that they are extremely concrete thinkers. They don't understand benefits that are not literal, material transfers. The US receives massive financial/material benefits from its international position, but that takes the form of things like access to cheap credit and deference to American preferences in allied policymaking, but these benefits are all too abstract for the populist mind. They're not tribute checks or retinues contributed to American military expeditions, so they might as well not exist. Instead, they live in a world where the US is being relentlessly exploited by its allies because it doesn't get everything it wants immediately for free.

They could have that status in an instant by reforming into actual democracies

Explain what actual democracy is. Please. Any case recently in the democracies where the vox populi was heard and not implemented in a way that perverted it. Especially in immigration. Brexit being one of the worst offenders.

Azerbaijan is the most important other recent example. Western countries didn't kick up much of a fuss because the victim, Armenia, was a Russian ally.

Western countries didn’t kick up a fuss because Azerbaijan is an Israeli ally. It’s the only Muslim country Israel sells military equipment to.

It being a Turkish protectorate surely played a role too. The Turks previously got away with North Cyprus as well, and have even been getting away with shamelessly whopping the arses of America's Kurdish girlboss proxies, because they are too important to let flip and have too well-developed national consciousness to subvert. (Honestly, I'm surprised there isn't more of a chorus of "based" cries cheering them from the Right.)

Tfw no Kurdish girlboss gf 😔

Western countries didn't kick up a fuss because they can't locate either country on the map. To the extent they can, Azerbaijan is more brown-coded than Armenia so it was merely evicting a colonial power.

Theories are fun.

He’s probably trying to get Ukraine to stop bombing diesel refineries. For someone dependent on US military aid, Zelenskyy sure doesn’t do us any favors.

Next week, when Trump says he’s not going to end sanctions after all, his critics will then call it a TACO.

I feel like the framing of your question needs some reconsideration. Countries always claim to care about rules based international order, and then never actually do if they need something. This is not new. Our ties to Europe are deep except the Europeans don't care for their treaty obligations, are lately nearly useless allies, and claim that our relationship with them is now over because Trump is bad. Why spend American effort on helping them?

The impact on the conflict with Iran is uncertain. You could easily make this deal with hidden concessions involving that.

In the moment right now the US needs to loosen restrictions to help our economy and everyone else's. We can put it back later.

People are going to scream and blame America and Trump no matter what we and he does. That further incentivizes doing this, especially as a temporary measure.

It's also a fantastic move if you want to punish Ukraine for not following Trump's requests. You might not like that strategy but it is a good implementation of it.

Yeah, Europe is hopeless. They spend all their energy worrying about Russia and the US while their countries crumble under the weight of mass migration and their industrial capacity is destroyed by Chinese imports.

In France, something like 25 percent of births are to Muslims.

It’s probably past the point of no return.

Given their waning cultural, economic, and military power it’s best to view European countries more transactionally going forward, instead of viewing them as core parts of the empire which we should make sacrifices to protect. It will probably improve relations too. Europe doesn’t seem to care about China, for instance. If American aid is seen as conditional, it will be appreciated. If it’s seen as a right, it will be taken with contempt.

If American aid is seen as conditional, it will be appreciated.

Do you, as a question of fact, believe that Europe appreciates American... aid more now than it did five years ago?

Europe got to this point in large part due to the erroneous assumption that they would be in a dominant position in the world forever. You can afford to spend infinite resources on immigrants if you are always going to be on top.

I think it would be prudent to question if America is making a similar mistake here. Can you actually afford to stand alone with no allies?

Can you actually afford to stand alone with no allies?

I believe European cultural suicide has most likely already foreclosed the possibility of "standing with allies." Fortress America may in fact be doomed, but is has a better chance of success without committing its blood and treasure to the glory of a Europe undergoing MAID.

I think it would be prudent to question if America is making a similar mistake here. Can you actually afford to stand alone with no allies?

No, I don't think we can. I also think Europe and America are natural allies and that Trump's rhetoric worsens relations unnecessarily.

That said, it's hard to be allies with Europe when they fundamentally don't address the shared concerns they have with the US. In my mind these are:

#1. Migration

#2. Chinese trade displacing native economic capacity

Russia is a threat, but it's like the 10th biggest threat.

How can you help someone who won't be helped? What point is there in deterring Russia when France and Belgium will likely be majority Muslim in our lifetime? Why should we care if they speak Russian or Arabic?

France and Belgium are not the only countries in Europe. If the reason for America to turn its back is immigration, I would expect that they still support the Baltics, the Nordics (minus Sweden), and some of the central European countries like Poland. Notably these groups do view Russia as an enemy, and of course the Greenland issue shows little care for homogenously white Denmark.

Chinese trade is something a that EU is taking seriously. It would be much easier for both blocks to win this economic battles if the EU and US could stand together on matters of trade. But due to the actions of the current administration, there is very little trust left. The EU would be foolish to give any more leverage to the US, and so such an alliance looks incredibly shaky.

For the record, the US is still supporting Europe and Ukraine in a big way. The only difference is that Trump's rhetoric makes it appear that support is no longer unconditional.

On the other hand, Europe has nothing but hate and contempt for the US. It's not great.

The only difference is that Trump's rhetoric makes it appear that support is no longer unconditional.

This implies that Trump is proposing a kind of deal. "I will help you like this if you help me like that". With the follow through of actually committing to help the ones that agree to his terms. Instead what we are seeing is a series of seemingly impulsive decisions and demands. Crucially, Trump does not credibly state what the consequences of breaking his demands will be, nor what it will take to reliably secure his support long term. Instead, his opinions change on a monthly basis and he seems to improvise based on what he considers an appropriate response in the moment.

"I will back out of NATO if you don't increase your spending to 5% GDP" is a statement that support is not unconditional. "Stop fighting" with no reward for doing so, and no sign that Russia will stop its aggression is not. Rate limiting Starlink out of the blue with no prior warning and dropping sanctions on Russia is not a negotiation tactic. At best, it simply shows impulsive and unreliable decision making with zero room for negotiations. At worst it is a sign that America is considering a friendly relationship with Russia while leaving Europe out in the cold.

Is the rate limiting Starlink real? This one pattern matches my hoax detector.

More comments

Europeans generally understand themselves as allies of something like "the US minus Trump+supporters", thinking, whether rightly or wrongly, that this makes them allies of the essential part of the country. Indeed, it's easy to forget now but before the multiple-year-long media campaign, the cause of post-Maidan Ukraine was understood to be a geopolitical concession to/imposition by the Americans (see Victoria Nuland, Biden's constant threats and pressure to suspend Nord Stream in favour of US LNG, etc.). If Trump is now visibly reluctant or obstructive towards Ukraine, this reinforces that European understanding: Ukraine is a proxy war between Trump+Russia and Dems+US deep state+Europe.

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