This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You're entirely relying on FUD. These two things aren't equivalent, and unless you have a good reason to believe that the US is seriously upset with Germany, why would you assume we'd pull something like this? What's so serious about Nordstream that we'd "need" to risk a huge PR backlash and shut it down violently?
If things get tough for Germany, it's a big temptation for them. Doesn't cost you anything to take it off the table.
What risk? Why would there be any backlash?
It does cost!
That state-actor diplomacy is going to have opinions if evidence gets out that the US is actively blowing up Russian investments. We don't need to give Russia any more reason for saber rattling, and we don't want to give the German domestic politics any reason to give more slack to Russia.
That's aside from the potential gas-price consequences from any reduction in supply. Actions taken by Biden are going to be viewed, in a midterm year, as the exclusive cause if (when) prices go up again.
You just gave them the pretext to blow up the North sea pipelines that supply quite a lot of gas to EU,though.
Breaking precedents hath its consequences.
I will maintain that no, we didn't.
Please do prove me wrong if you can find anyone more reliable than he said/she said Twitter.
Potus swearing that it's going to be wrecked, not enough?
I assume you mean this quote?
Alright, that’s stronger than I expected to see. Still not a claim of responsibility or a smoking gun, but I guess it does make it more likely.
The official WH transcript is here https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/07/remarks-by-president-biden-and-chancellor-scholz-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-at-press-conference/ and I assume not literally lying (although they use two spaces after a full stop so who knows what other humanitarian disasters they support).
When specifically pressed, Scholz does not say he will shut down Nord Stream, only that the US and Germany will be united. As for not explicitly saying it, Sholz openly and repeatedly says he wants ambiguity. (As comparison, Biden is Biden and Bidens it by saying exactly what he thinks.)
Everything below here is a quote.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Chancellor Scholz. Mr. President, I have wanted to ask you about this Nord Stream project that you’ve long opposed. You didn’t mention it just now by name, nor did Chancellor Scholz. Did you receive assurances from Chancellor Scholz today that Germany will, in fact, pull the plug on this project if Russia invades Ukraine? And did you discuss what the definition of “invasion” could be?
And then, Chancellor Scholz:
(Speaks German.) (As interpreted.) If I may ask you, Chancellor Scholz — you said there was some strategic ambiguity that was needed in terms of sanctions. I just wanted to know whether the sanctions you are envisaging and the EU is working on — and the U.S. as well — are already finished, finalized, or is there still work ongoing?
And you’re not really saying what the details are. Is that just an excuse for Germany, maybe, to not support the SWIFT measures?
PRESIDENT BIDEN: The first question first. If Germany — if Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the — the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — we — there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.
Q But how will you — how will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?
PRESIDENT BIDEN: We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.
CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ: (As interpreted.) Thank you very much for your question. I want to be absolutely clear: We have intensively prepared everything to be ready with the necessary sanctions if there is a military aggression against Ukraine.
And this is necessary. It is necessary that we do this in advance so that Russia can clearly understand that these are far-reaching, severe measures.
It is part of this process that we do not spell out everything in public because Russia could understand that there might be even more to come. And, at the same time, it is very clear we are well prepared with far-reaching measures. We will take these measures together with our Allies, with our partners, with the U.S., and we will take all necessary steps. You can be sure that there won’t be any measures in which we have a differing approach. We will act together jointly.
(Speaks in English.) And possibly this is a good idea to say to our American friends: We will be united, we will act together, and we will take all the necessary steps. And all the necessary steps will be done by all of us together.
Q And will you commit today — will you commit today to turning off and pulling the plug on Nord Stream 2? You didn’t mention it, and you haven’t mentioned it.
CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ: As I’ve already said, we are acting together, we are absolutely united, and we will not be taking different steps. We will do the same steps, and they will be very, very hard to Russia, and they should understand.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is silly. His argument is obvious - you did it first, so they can now do it too. You can't dismiss it with a simple "nuh-uh".
Also, there are no reliable people on these matters, because everyone just pushes their interest.
His argument is fine if and only if we actually did bomb the pipelines. I’m expressing my disbelief in that premise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
First, they have to be able to pin it on you, which right off the bat is doubtful.
Then, they have to go through their own calculus of whether going public with it will bring them anything, which I doubt again. A few headlines, that no one will remember in a few years, are not going to rebuild your pipeline.
As for the rest, I really don't see how that amounts to much. Russia saber rattling is to US advantage, the opinions anyone else don't matter much, and the NS pipelines will have 0 impact on energy prices in the US, at least in the short term.
This isn't a fucking court of law.
They don't need to 'pin it on you'. They only need to know they didn't do it themselves to get really pissed off. This was way beyond petty sabotage, delivering fairly big bombs to a precise spot on the seabed requires a navy or an extremely foolhardy private company.
I know it's not a court of law, but if you're the Germans, and you know you didn't do it, but the Russians are pointing at the Americans, and the Americans at the Russians, who do you get pissed off at?
The ones who had motivation to blow it up. Russians control one end of it, Germans control the other. They have no reason to blow it up because they control the pumping stations.
Ukraine or USA has reason to blow it up and doesn't control the pumping stations.
Ok, I think the conversation went a bit off track.
The original question was why would it be risky for the US to blow it up? My opinion is Biden could basically call Scholz and say "I hope none of your folks are working on these pipelines of yours, because we're blowing them up tomorrow".
If the Germans know who did it, even if they are explicitly told (but off record), what can they do about it?
By the way, what do you make of the theory that it could be the Germans themselves? Turning the pipeline back on would be the obvious demand of any winter-time protestors, and now they can say "gosh darn it, we'd love to, but someone blew both of them up!"
Yes. It's a questionable assumption Germans, no matter how much humiliation and suffering they're forced to endure are going to tolerate American influence and military presence until the very end.
They could do a number of things. Possible lists includes fucking with US installations by legal means, leak secrets, tell police to not go easy on US troops, etc, mandate that pension funds not invest in US markets.
More options
Context Copy link
Because if it gets out that the US blew up the pipelines, the risk is that NATO falls apart. If it gets out that the US blew up the pipelines and the German government were complicit, the risk is that the German government falls AND NATO falls apart. The motive you mention is certainly real, but the risks are very high and it would take either desperation or extreme hubris to do it. The US isn't that desperate; the war isn't going well for Russia anyway. Hubris is a possibility, certainly, but I'd say a fairly outside one. Note also that whatever Biden's flaws, "warmonger" does not appear to be among them.
More options
Context Copy link
I prefer to live in an absurd timeline so it is my hope this is what happened and Germany is keeping it quiet because it would be too embarrassing to admit it. Thank you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link