site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35351 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

/r/stupidpol is abuzz with news of both NordStream pipelines being damaged, in what mainstream sources openly speculate to be an attack:

Massive drop in pressure – Nord Stream 2 pipeline apparently partially destroyed

There was an incident on the Russian Baltic Sea pipeline, as confirmed by the Danish shipping authority. The operator Gascade speaks of a sharp drop in pressure in the tube. An accident is considered unlikely. The timing of the accident suggests sabotage.

Stupidpol being stupidpol, blames it all on the west (either the US or UK)... but it feels like the kind of have a point? Russian performance in the war doesn't exactly scream competence, so it would be surprising, if they pulled something like this off, so deep in NATOs turf.

When we were discussing the coming winter, some people were saying "the European gas storage is filled up, it'll be fine", but isn't the gas storage more like a buffer, designed to take advantage of the decreased demand over the summer, to even out the increased demand in winter, working on the assumption that there will still be a constant supply of gas coming in? Does this change the calculus at all?

This is obviously an American op. The Poles know:

https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1574800653724966915

Biden made the threat:

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1490791554088321024

The Scandies say it was explosives:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mystery-gas-leaks-hit-major-russian-undersea-gas-pipelines-europe-2022-09-27/

Seismologists in Denmark and Sweden said they had registered two powerful blasts on Monday in the vicinity of the leaks.

"The signals do not resemble signals from earthquakes. They do resemble the signals typically recorded from blasts," the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) said.

And seismologists at Sweden's Uppsala University, which cooperates with GEUS, said the second, bigger explosion "corresponded to more than 100 kilos (kg) of dynamite", adding the blasts were in the water not under the seabed.

And best of all, the US had mine-planting/explosives forces right on Bornholm island in June! The bombs we're talking about detonated just off the coast of Bornholm island!

https://seapowermagazine.org/baltops-22-a-perfect-opportunity-for-research-and-resting-new-technology/

In support of BALTOPS, U.S. Navy 6th Fleet partnered with U.S. Navy research and warfare centers to bring the latest advancements in unmanned underwater vehicle mine hunting technology to the Baltic Sea to demonstrate the vehicle’s effectiveness in operational scenarios.

Experimentation was conducted off the coast of Bornholm, Denmark, with participants from Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport, and Mine Warfare Readiness and Effectiveness Measuring

How much more clear could it be? A few mines were left behind.

With friends like America, Europe doesn't need enemies. The US-initiated war on terror got them targeted for terrorist attacks. The US destabilization of Syria and Libya got them a flood of refugees. Yes, the Europeans were partially complicit in these foreign adventures but they were really just being dragged along. The Prime Mover was Washington. When NATO made that fateful statement that Ukraine and Georgia would one day join the alliance, the French and Germans were trying to tone it down. They didn't want to antagonize Russia. Thanks to the US, Western Europe has been pushed into a proxy war against their energy supplier. Now, the US is making sure Russia can't supply Germany with energy, that it will be dependent upon US puppet states in the Middle East or expensive fuel from America directly.

I don't even think this is a wise strategy for American interests. If you try to weaken your allies so they can't form a viable bloc to oppose you, you're antagonizing them. You're giving them a reason to oppose you and sabotage you. Why should the US expect much help from Europe on the main front against China in the Pacific? 'You're fighting your main industrial supplier? Tough - we'll sell you some overpriced goods. Good luck!'

Why should the US expect much help from Europe on the main front against China in the Pacific?

Who's expecting that? Europe's NATO expenditures speak for themselves, and even those are defensive in nature. Any European participation in a Taiwan defense will be to support a branding of multilateralism, not for their direct material support.

"The signals do not resemble signals from earthquakes. They do resemble the signals typically recorded from blasts,"

Is it possible to determine what type of explosive was used from the seismic data? I'd imagine different types of material would have a different pattern.

And best of all, the US had mine-planting/explosives forces right on Bornholm island in June! The bombs we're talking about detonated just off the coast of Bornholm island!

Which, if we know about, then Russia would have known about it as well. I've read UK ships were in that area, too. This could have been done with an underwater drone filled with explosives. The area could have been chosen because of the activities of the US/UK and others in the area, in order to create doubt.

For all we know the mine-planting/explosive force was there because of concerns about explosives being placed on the pipeline, or intelligence about a possible attack on it.

mine hunting technology

Seems plausible that they were there based on intelligence. But it's also possible they did it, released this story, and can now simply say "why would we publicly announce that if we were going to blow the pipeline?" And then pull out some vague, uncorroborated, anonymous, top secret intelligence that suggested a threat on the pipeline. Yellow cake.

Why would the Russians blow up their own pipeline that they control?

The Russians need that pipeline for leverage. They can say 'stop waging proxy war against us and we'll send you gas'.

Why would the Russians blow up their own pipeline that they control?

Because Putin benefits from sowing confusion among Europeans. He also gives a signal that Russia can do the same to any other pipelines or cables in the sea.

What's best for Russia has long been irrelevant here. Putin goes with what's best for his personal aims and nobody in power dares to go against him (at least yet).

Two sequences of events

  1. US officials have long hated this pipeline and publicly threatened to terminate it, regardless of what Germany wishes

  2. US military forces stage a mine-clearing exercise off Bornholm island, testing their snazzy new drones and technologies. They leave a couple of mines or smart torpedoes behind. If they're somehow discovered, it's an accident from the exercises. These are now a method they can use if Germany starts getting antsy about waging proxy war against their energy supplier or if Russia moves more aggressively.

  3. Russia commences partial mobilization, stages referendums on parts of Ukraine joining Russia so it can creep its nuclear umbrella forward into Ukraine

  4. US blows up the pipeline in response, securing profits for its energy exporters, tying Germany's hands and hurting Russian diplomacy in Europe by removing leverage

Alternately

  1. Russia spends billions of dollars building a pipeline to Germany so it can make a great deal of money selling gas

  2. Russian naval forces, not known for their excellence, lay explosives in their own pipeline (which they control the flow of gas to and could turn on or off at any time)

  3. Russian forces blow up their own pipeline to show they can blow up other people's pipelines, like the Norwegian-Poland pipeline that finished just today, which they don't control, didn't pay for and actively harms their interests!

Surely you see that the former approach makes more sense than the latter!

US officials have long hated this pipeline and publicly threatened to terminate it, regardless of what Germany wishes

This is what happens when you are linked to Biden's speech by someone saying "oh he threatened to take out the pipeline no matter what Germany wants" without realizing that he was standing right next to Germany's chancellor answering that question. In the statement "I promise you we'll be able to do it" the "we" includes Germany.

BIDEN: "There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

REPORTER: "How will you do that, exactly? Since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control?"

BIDEN: "I promise you we'll be able to do it."

He didn't say, 'we'll get the Germans to cancel it' or explain anything further. I interpret that as a threat. He made a promise that they'd have the power to make it end, not contingent on what the Germans say.

Other officials like Ned Price said they'd work together with Germany to cancel it. But it's extremely obvious that the Germans want this pipeline more than the Americans do. The Germans were the ones defending it for the past few years because it advances their interests and the Americans hate it because it threatens their interests. They have been putting sanctions on this project, they've been hectoring the Germans to cancel it. Sanctions are not 'we're talking with our allies to get them to agree to cancel this', they're using pressure directly. All you have to do is put two and two together.

Imagine that your rich, influential girlfriend is really into environmentalism and hates that you drive a car. She's begging and threatening you to stop driving. She manipulates the system to make it harder for you to get your license renewed. You give in and stop driving after the petrol store owner throws some molotov cocktails at a rival of his. Suddenly, your car becomes totally inoperable in a way that's only explicable by sabotage. Isn't it natural to assume she's behind it, as opposed to the petrol store?

I interpret that as a threat.

You are free to interpret it however you want. If you start with the assumption that the US is evil, you will quickly find everything they do to be a threat. And it is a free country, so no one will stop you!

That sounds like a pretty clear statement by Biden.

Question: What's special about this particular statement by Biden that leads you to believe it reflects American foreign policy? It's not uncommon for Blinken or unnamed staffers in the White House to issue statements that "American policy in this area remains unchanged" following a Biden statement that is sharply contrary to the status quo.

More comments

Because Putin benefits from sowing confusion among Europeans

This sounds like a line taken from a movie, that I'm supposed to nod along to, because I did it once, while suspending disbelief.

How does it benefit him more, than having a pipeline he can use for negotiations?

He also gives a signal that Russia can do the same to any other pipelines or cables in the sea.

Except no one feels threatened by that, and that signal means people will now be paying attention to make sure no one is trying to damage their pipelines.

Except no one feels threatened by that

The Irish are as there are apparently some important undersea internet cables connecting Europe and America off the Irish coast which Ireland doesn't have the naval capacity to protect (the US, UK, and France have been patrolling the area but that still leaves Ireland's territorial waters).

Russian vessels were in the area a few months back. I'm not saying that's what they were there for, but that's what people here are saying.

Which, if we know about, then Russia would have known about it as well. I've read UK ships were in that area, too. This could have been done with an underwater drone filled with explosives. The area could have been chosen because of the activities of the US/UK and others in the area, in order to create doubt.

Also Russia had a naval vessel there a week after the Americans. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-warship-violated-danish-territorial-waters-baltic-danish-military-2022-06-17/

There's evidence pointing in many directions. It's completely inconclusive.

Except US insiders (NRO, Sikorski) are chortling. The threats were made on record by the US president.

It's completely inconclusive.

If chortling is not enough, you have to look at who profits. Not Russia, which was expecting Germans to crumble after some weeks of Africa-tier 'load shedding' by the power utilities.

No, US benefits here by making it impossible for EU to renew gas supplies even if Russia were to win or there was some peace treaty.

The link you posted is a short post, mostly speculation by a NR political correspondent, who appears to be mostly a regular journo. His analysis substantially equal to what we have here on the Motte already (it would serve the US interests to blow it up); he doesn't cite any named or anonymous insiders. Did you intend to post something else? Sikorski you refer to, in turn appears to be ex-Finance minister of Poland, which again doesn't sound like a credible insider. (IIRC there is an Israeli ex- minister of defense who proclaims aliens are visiting Earth on regular basis: showcases the quality of ex-ministers.)

making it impossible

Do we have any estimates how much time and money it would take to repair the damaged portion to the pipeline? Only thing I have seen is an estimate that will take up to couple of weeks before the area is safe and clear for investigation. It certainly does not appear impossible, by googling I can find companies that advertise case studies of providing gas pipeline repairs at depths of several thousands ft, though usually it is smaller scale leaks in production.

Do we have any estimates how much time and money it would take to repair the damaged portion to the pipeline?

Assuming it holds up to saltwater fairly well probably several months, at the very least.

Thanks to the US, Western Europe has been pushed into a proxy war against their energy supplier.

No this is still very much thanks to Russia, the US may benefit from this, but Russia chose to launch this utterly idiotic and needless invasion in the first place.

I do love watching the shift from "the US would never do that, it's too risky, it was probably literally anybody else" to "LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!" in real time.

I saw "the US did not blow up the pipeline." But I do not see anyone saying "yes the US did blow up the pipeline and Russia made them do it."

Oh, did I extrapolate too much? I thought that was the point made in the comment I replied to.

But for the encroachment, coup, and 8 years of shelling rebel oblasts, the invasion probably wouldn't have happened.

Like most wars, this one is not mono-causal. We can certainly blame Hitler for invading the Sudetenland, but we can also blame the Allies for creating the conditions that would lead the Germans to rally behind a strongman.

But for the encroachment, coup, and 8 years of shelling rebel oblasts, the invasion probably wouldn't have happened.

Like most wars, this one is not mono-causal

This one absolutely is, it stems entirely from a Russian inability to face reality and accept that it is no longer a great power and that Ukraine is no longer inside its orbit. If Russia was serious about the whole "multi-polar world" thing they would have recognised that their best bet was becoming part of Europe, instead they launched a war that will impoverish Russia and Europe, strengthening China and the US.

You think that Russia would've invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022 if Yanukovych had never been deposed?

Why would they bother?

Without the coup, there would have been no rebel oblasts. With those oblasts continuing to participate in elections there probably would have been no government elected that would seriously entertain the idea that Ukraine join an anti-Russian military alliance.

On Russia and Europe: Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin have all floated the idea of Russia joining NATO. No one in NATO has ever appeared to like that idea, with American Presidents and Secretaries of State dismissing it. It was the Americans that pledged there would be no NATO expansion into former Soviet states after the fall of the Soviet Union, "not one inch eastward." That was obviously a pledge broken, and not even in response to any Russian hostilities.

I'm American and I can't make any sense of our foreign policy strategy in regards to Russia. It all seems like dick-waving with potential nuclear consequences. What do we even get if we "win?"

The Soviets talked about joining NATO as early as around the time of its foundation. Their idea though was to either exclude the US from NATO or to require unanimous agreement for any NATO action, either way gutting NATO.

Putin did indeed at one point talk about joining NATO. He asked when they would be invited to NATO. Was told that it didn't work that way that countries applied to join. Then Putin said "Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

In addition to not wanting to follow the process, I'm not sure Russia would really want to be in an alliance where another country was the dominate member (Russia would be 2nd in population, and military strength, 3rd in PPP GDP, and 7th in nominal GDP).

And I'm not so sure it would have qualified for membership -

While there is no membership checklist for interested nations, NATO has made clear that candidates for membership must meet the following criteria. Interested nations must:

Uphold democracy, including tolerance for diversity;

Be progressing toward a market economy;

Have their military forces under firm civilian control;

Be good neighbors and respect the sovereignty of other nations; and

Work toward interoperability with NATO forces.

https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_970815members.html

The first and 2nd to last points have been questionable at best for years and has become more so lately. And I'm not sure Russian leadership would care to change the way their military operates to fit with the last point.

Uphold democracy, including tolerance for diversity;

Be good neighbors and respect the sovereignty of other nations

It's a relief to know Ukraine and the United States will never join NATO.

Some sort of argument can be made about the US. I don't think its as strong as the people normally making the argument would claim, but on respecting sovereignty it isn't nonsense, there is a real argument there. Less so on the democracy question.

Ukraine? Maybe its just because they haven't had a lot of time or a lot of power as an independent country but they haven't done much in the way of infringing on anyone's sovereignty. As for democracy they are far more democratic than Russia, corrupt maybe but a solid democracy, at least until after they were invaded and large sections of their country occupied by a foreign power (when they outlawed pro-Russian parties as traitorous)

More comments

I'm American and I can't make any sense of our foreign policy strategy in regards to Russia. It all seems like dick-waving with potential nuclear consequences. What do we even get if we "win?"

It doesn't seem so hard to understand to me. Russia is openly defiant of the Western order and props up our military adversaries like North Korea, Syria and Iran. Even Turkey, ostensibly a NATO member, became a patron of Russian defense systems. Adding insult to injury, Western Europe voluntarily made themselves dependent on Russian energy and starved their own militaries of funding and capabilities necessary to pull their weight in furthering the US's foreign policy goals.

Now, Russia is isolated, its military has been revealed as an underperforming anachronism, its brand has suffered in the arms marketplace, the Russian energy link to Western Europe has been perhaps permanently severed, Europe is committing to nuclear energy and US LNG imports as fast as it can, Putin is facing domestic political troubles, NATO is expanding to include wealthy Nordic nations that have resisted membership for decades, China has distanced itself from Russia and is probably rethinking its ability to take Taiwan by force, Russia's ability to maintain its support of its military client states (e.g. Azerbaijan) is faltering, and all of this has been achieved with no more cost to the US than a few hundred billion dollars of military equipment and some intensive military consulting with Ukraine. Europeans will shiver through the winter and Ukraine's streets are red with blood, but those are other people's (and peoples') problems. Even if Putin uses nuclear weapons, it seems unlikely that he'd target US territory, it's an open question how effective they would be, and he'd open the door for a much firmer response that would further accelerate all of the above.

If you're an unsentimental partisan of US interests, what's not to like?

That doesn't seem like there's any material benefit except perhaps to LNG suppliers, am I missing anything?

The status quo already greatly favored the United States. Neither Russia nor China were posing any threat to American interests. If it's all about posturing and letting everyone know who's the big dog, I don't think anyone could have forecast with any certainty that Russia could be held off by Ukrainian forces. We'd just been defeated by the Taliban and to sink billions into Ukraine and be defeated there as well would further the idea that America isn't such a formidable opponent.

A prosperous Russia seems far better for Europe and the world than a Russia with serious fears of collapse. Mutually assured destruction doesn't work if one party's destruction is already a foregone conclusion. At that point you're relying on Putin to care about American lives, and why would he?

A collapsed Russia also greatly increases the likelihood that someone spirits away a nuclear weapon and later detonates in an American city.

If it's all about posturing and letting everyone know who's the big dog, I don't think anyone could have forecast with any certainty that Russia could be held off by Ukrainian forces. We'd just been defeated by the Taliban and to sink billions into Ukraine and be defeated there as well would further the idea that America isn't such a formidable opponent.

If your best argument is that we were right for the wrong reasons, I'll take that any day of the week.

A prosperous Russia seems far better for Europe and the world than a Russia with serious fears of collapse.

A prosperous Russia would have gone right back to reassembling the Warsaw Pact and threatening the West. A collaborative and friendly Russia hasn't been in the cards for at least the past couple of decades, and it's categorically better to have a weak geopolitical adversary than a strong one.

A collapsed Russia also greatly increases the likelihood that someone spirits away a nuclear weapon and later detonates in an American city.

This very much depends on the manner of its collapse. Anyway, it proves too much. Was the fall of the USSR also lamentable for the same reason?

More comments

If you're an unsentimental partisan of US interests, what's not to like?

The ever-present risk of nuclear escalation for middling gains. Russia has been inflated as a geopolitical enemy for decades; they were not a serious thorn in our side or a yoke holding us back before the war with Ukraine, and they won't be after, but maybe there's a big ol' fireball along the way and that'll suck.

Like, yeah, undeniably, this has weakened Russia. From where I'm standing Russia was already very weak compared to us.

I think the US foreign policy establishment is actually doing a pretty good job of threading the needle and avoiding the risk of nuclear escalation. It is possible that Putin will resort to a tactical nuke, but (1) I suspect it'll be less effective than the conventional wisdom has it, and may actually deflate some of the mystique around nuclear weapons and lower the odds that they're used in the future, (2) I'm sure we'll have a very sharp response but will avoid retaliating with nuclear weapons of our own, and if NATO is not directly kinetic on (actual) Russian territory and Ukraine constrains its kinetics only to military resources on Russian territory, then Russia will have every incentive not to use nukes outside of Ukraine, and (3) breaking the nuclear taboo will make it even harder for Russia to come back from its isolation even after this has all blown over.

Sure, a fireball in Ukraine would suck, and the mountains of rubble and shattered bones in Ukraine already sucks, but neither really damages US interests.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with both-sidesism (often called "centrism", "moderation" or "nuance")

Even if everything you're saying is true, a) Russian actions are obscenely beyond the pale which excuses anything that can be plausibly framed as counterattack, and b) Americans have won cultural victory, so economic elites of those European states are of no consequence against their own populace (and media elites).

The game is played masterfully, I can't really even object to the sentence. Europeans are in no position to compromise with the plainly irrational Kremlin, and they're in no position to sustain their economy, and they can't blame anyone but themselves, same as Russians.

On the other hand, I can call out Europeans who are still pretending that this is fine. The EU will survive, but it will fall rather far behind without cheap energy, in the crucial period where everyone has to maintain a stake in high-tech economy. The entire fucking continent is going to become irrelevant.

A translation from a biased pro-Russian souce. It's not very insightful, catastrophizes the situation and frames it as an unprovable conspiracy but, I think, is directionally correct with regards to the consequences:

Chronicles of the Death of the EU.

Carthage delenda est.

The real U.S. goals in Ukraine are the destruction of Europe and its economic leader: Germany.

Why?

So let's describe the global situation at the beginning of 2022 (I note right away that the numbers are imprecise, go to MMI and @Spydell_finance for accuracy, but the approximate numbers do not distort either the layout itself or the conclusions):

China. GDP: 16.9 trillion USD. Industrial sector ≈30.5% or 5.1 trillion USD. Export economy 15.3% with an export sophistication rate [here and below actually economic complexity, Export Complexity is another measure but correlated] of 1.35 (easily replaceable, not technologically intensive, but produced at scale, elastic prices, requires small producer margins and inexpensive labor, as well as agglomeration of producers).

Germany. GDP 4.2 trillion USD. Industrial sector ≈27-30% or 1.1-1.3 trillion USD. Export-heavy economy of 35% with almost the highest sophistication on the planet of 2.07 (only Japan is above with 2.49. That is, exports are not replaceable, technologically complex, and therefore VERY MARGINAL).

EU as a whole. GDP 17 trillion USD (suddenly !!! more than China, or at least equal). Industrial sector ~25% or 4.1 trillion USD. (suddenly a little less than China).

Except this industry, as written above, is high-tech, and therefore marginal, giving rapid positive capital growth.

U.S.. GDP of 22.9 trillion USD. But the industrial sector is only 18% or 4.1 trillion USD. (Suddenly less than China and the same as the EU)!!! And the financial sector is over 20%, as is the total services sector at 77% of the economy.

But even this industrial sector, giving only 7.7% of exports, has ECI of only 1.57 (so, like China).

Now, if we look to the beginning of the year, the accumulated imbalances in QE are accelerating inflation and could bury the entire dollar system [lol no].

Stopping QE and the start of the Fed's balance sheet reduction guarantees the decline of the service sector, the de facto death of the financial sector, as well as much of the venture capital IT that's zombie companies with negative turnover margins or no cache-flow.

In order to survive, the States need to urgently develop the real economy, i.e. industry.

However, since the world has gone global, no new markets are expected, the system cannot take over Mars with the Martians, which means it must grow in the intensive mode, which means negative capital work, since the total venture capital investment on intensives does not pay off, this has been obvious since 2009.

So what to do?

We have to kill the competition.

Option 1: China.

However, first of all China is a subject, secondly the economy of China and the U.S. are [still] too connected, and thirdly, the development of industry similar to the Chinese means low margin, long payback period and a drop in personal income. And the drop in personal income means revolution in the U.S. This is not an option.

Option 2: EU.

It fits perfectly, no subjectivity and high-margin business.

But the business is high-margin because it is very technological, that is, it has a high and long threshold for entry. It takes decades of development, thousands of patents, and cultivating a team of specialists.

But the patents, specialists and companies do not belong to the EU.

We need to force these companies to move to the US in their entirety, just as, for example, low-margin manufacturing moved to China in the 90s.

To do this, you have to create unbearable conditions for business: war, hunger and cold.

Now look at the EU!

News 1:

Germany's industrial production fell 1.8% in the first 8 months of 2022 amid sanctions against Russia, and Germany's chemical-pharmaceutical sector (high dependence on gas) saw a 10.7% decline.

News 2:

The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 21 published a story about big German businesses relocating en masse to the New World.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-natural-gas-prices-push-european-manufacturers-to-shift-to-the-u-s-11663707594

News 3:

Explosion on the North Stream 1 and 2 branches.

I connect the last news story into the same single chain of events.

Carthage (the EU) must be destroyed. At any cost.

This is the main goal of the U.S. in Ukraine.

The entire fucking continent is going to become irrelevant.

The continent has been irrelevant since it lost WW2. Economically EU could never compete on account of not being energy independent and not having the scale or more friendly business environment of the US.

EU itself is a fucking joke, with cargo-cult education policies, inability to keep out unproductive riff-raff such as North Africans and blacks, inability to have a solid energy policy, etc. It's been a joke since it came into existence, because the same cretins were in charge. Any university teacher not in pedagogy could have told you that the 'Lisbon strategy' and 'Bologna process' which herded everyone with IQ above room temperature into universities, were just pure BS.

Maybe as a west-slobbering Russian you had some rosy glasses on, but in all metrics that mattered EU and Germany specifically was coasting on past accomplishments. Apart from former WP countries it can't even claim it's safe.

a west-slobbering Russian

sorry I'm not English native. Does "west-sloberring" here mean same as "west-sycophant" or some kind of bias toward west?

Slobbering all over the edifices of lies & delusion that is characteristic of post 1945 Western 'liberal democracies'.

I don't really like Russia, and China even less. But petty statist evil or the psychopathic lawful evil of Chinese Communist Party pale in comparison to the sheer Joker-esque insanity of western PMCs.

E.g. did you know how flashmobs looting shops came to also happen in the UK ?

10 years ago, their 'conservatives' decided to prosecute fewer juveniles.

And you find this pattern everywhere. Energy policy. Schooling. Immigration. Trade. Etc. It's all just plain crazy, done by people more in tune with feelings than figures.

Maybe as a west-slobbering Russian

You really need to chill out and start expressing yourself in less belligerent terms, rather than searching for the keenest way to express your dripping contempt. Make your arguments passionately and forcefully, if that so moves you, but try using facts, sources, and civility.

Surely the US shouldn't be attacking it's allies? You're arguing and I agree that the US is sabotaging Europe. They could have compromised with the Kremlin if it weren't for the US and UK sabotaging them, time and time again. France and Germany were always more Russophilic.

Furthermore, I don't think there is a cultural victory. If someone is sabotaging you, they're your enemy. Look what the US did to the UK in Suez and so on. So much for the special relationship and Anglo-Saxon solidarity.

The EU is pretty stupid, sluggish and incompetent (see their nuclear/regulatory fiasco). But they won't permanently let the US sabotage them. Maybe the coming recession will shake them out of their myopia. Maybe they're inwardly seething, hiding their hatred until the moment the US's back is turned. You have to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back. Unlike Britain, the EU is big and could theoretically compete with America, if they got their act together.

We don't live in the realpolitik era to expect Europeans to compromise with that. Putin has only himself to blame for having become a cartoon villain. Tolerating a little sabotage comes to people much easier than excusing Bucha because of muh economy.

Furthermore, I don't think there is a cultural victory. If someone is sabotaging you, they're your enemy. Look what the US did to the UK in Suez and so on. So much for the special relationship and Anglo-Saxon solidarity.

Not sure what you're arguing here: obviously the US has lent a hand to the dismantling of British empire, but individual Brits think very warmly of America.

The EU is pretty stupid, sluggish and incompetent (see their nuclear/regulatory fiasco). But they won't permanently let the US sabotage them.

If Russians can permanently let Putin sacrifice them for geopolitics, certainly the EU can keep coping with some economic costs.

Unlike Britain, the EU is big and could theoretically compete with America, if they got their act together.

20 years ago this looked almost like a real possibility.

Now it's a joke. People should just think of themselves, pack their bags and families and go to the US.

While true in a technical sense, this is softened a great deal by:

  • Germany already rhetorically committing to wean themselves off Russian Gas within a couple of years

  • The pipelines currently being turned off by Russian shenanigans (so the official projections for the winter are unimpacted)

  • A difficult political problem (see: protests to open NS2) no longer is theirs to make and defend

Messy enough to demand something covert, but no military could get away with literally burning their boats now, even if it was actually the right thing to do

If you think people are going to be less mad when a solution to the energy problem is off the table, think again. Germans may be cucks but after some weeks of freezing their asses off Africa style (few know that most cold-related deaths happen in the tropics) that may change. Banks in western EU have been preparing for riots since summer started.

If we're talking predictions, I'd say with 80% confidence that nothing of political consequence (leadership changes, notable policy backflips) will happen in Germany as a result of energy-related popular unrest that remains salient or has otherwise lasting effects into the following summer. Similar 80% prediction that winter protests or riots don't noticeably exceed the impotency of the covid ones.

notable policy backflips

Yes, who could possibly predict, that protests won't have impact on resuming gas delivery from Russia.

https://seapowermagazine.org/baltops-22-a-perfect-opportunity-for-research-and-resting-new-technology/

The US literally had mine warfare forces training in the exact part of the Baltic Sea where the explosions happened, 3 months later! Polish officials thanked America, Biden threatened to make the pipeline stop regardless of German opinions, they have all the means and motive to do it. There's no question about this, it's an open and shut case.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'true in a technical sentence' or 'no military could get away with literally burning their boats'. What I mean to say is that the US literally and physically blew up $30 billion worth of pipeline that supplied about 58% of Germany's gas. Even if some genuine liberal democrat (as opposed to the megalomaniacal Russian liberal democratic party) somehow got into power, the pipeline is still destroyed. No matter the context it's done, not just for this winter but for years to come. Whilst politicians often don't follow through on their rhetorical commitments, the Germans will now be forced to.

I'm no undersea pipeline engineer but it seems pretty permanently wrecked. The gash is apparently hundreds of metres wide, the whole thing has been filling with water.

This is possibly the least covert attack on an ally since Operation Barbarossa.

The US literally had mine warfare forces training in the exact part of the Baltic Sea where the explosions happened, 3 months later!

Yes? And? So what?

This is a 'correlation is causation' argument. It provides not temporal relevance, since it does not address why the three months is relevant. If- as seems implied- the argument is that 3 months ago the US used a highly publicized, visible mine warfare excercise as the pretext for laying mines to sabotage the pipes, it doesn't imply why now. Why didn't these mines go off a month ago? Or two months ago? Or three months ago, and cite a training accident?

Nor does it explain why bother with a public training exercise as the pretext for mine laying. If the bombs are deliberatly placed- as they seem to be in their position just outside territorial waters- there's no need for a military ship of any sort. You place that sort of precision via scuba, so you just need an underwater GPS, a scuba team, and a boat big enough for the explosive.

If the argument is that the timing was delayed 3 months (again- why?) to provide deniability, why use a publicly announced training exercise in the area as the means to emplace?

Your other arguments via tweet are at least better soundclips that, without context, could easily support this context (though why a Polish twitter account of someone who is supposed to know of the event is immediately revealing the actor, you still haven't explained), but this 'three months ago the US was in proximity' is a really dumb argument. Everyone who sails through the Baltic Sea has been in proximity in the last three months, and had the opportunity to send small boats through the area.

This is possibly the least covert attack on an ally since Operation Barbarossa.

Give the French some credit. Rainbow Warrior wasn't even 40 years ago.

The US didn't bother covering up the attack because it's blatantly, absurdly obvious who did it. The US has made very open, public threats about making these pipelines disappear.

The ex-Polish foreign and defence minister knows perfectly well what's going on. This is just like attacks on Iranian scientists or centrifuges. We know perfectly well it's Israel and/or America behind it.

If I had to guess, I'd say the bombs were planted so the US could have another card up its sleeve in case Russia or Germany did anything. They just mobilized, so the US is using more pressure. But I guess that's just correlation=causation too.

there's no need for a military ship of any sort. You place that sort of precision via scuba, so you just need an underwater GPS, a scuba team, and a boat big enough for the explosive

Right. And by now, small unmanned subs – of the type even Ukraine or Russia could build without much assistance – can probably do that well enough. Those arguments cannot be relevant.

To be honest, it's amazing how nobody bombs infrastructure of this sort all the time. It's fragile, stationary, unfeasible to guard and very expensive/consequential, so the infamy alone is a massive prize. Proof of our common civility and rationality, I guess.

To be honest, it's amazing how nobody bombs infrastructure of this sort all the time.

US set a new, very expensive precedent. Expect small drones flying into LNG liquefaction facilities, time bombs going off near pipelines, that kind of thing.

It's really not hard for a navy to drop a half-ton time bomb next to a pipeline.

More comments

I'm fairly confident it was someone in Nato or aligned with them, just pointing out that there's a bit of 'worst argument in the world' going on calling it an attack on state infrastructure when that infrastructure was not in use and the government had standing political commitments to not use it again.

The practical function of "covert" means state actors can let norm violations slide without undermining the norms. Sometimes it is in your interest to pretend not to see something. Ukraine equivocating as to whether it directed the helicopters that bombed Belgorod is another example: everyone knows they did it, but Russia and the US can pretend otherwise if a frank accounting of the facts would trigger responses they actually don't want to or can't follow through with (e.g. US constricting arms shipments, Russia escalating).

A military would sometimes burn their boats after landing on enemy shores to impress upon all soldiers that the only way back is through (Cortés, famously). Everyone may vocally say they'll cooperate at the outset, a good way to get them to commit to that is to just burn the defect button.

Burning your own boats is one thing, burning someone else's boats is another. That's what the Trojans tried to do to the Greeks when they were sallying out!

If your crazy girlfriend convinces you to stop driving and you reluctantly accept, that's one thing. If she blows up your car, that's another.

The Libya, / Syria instability and NATO expansion were the pet projects of Administrations that were 'popular' among current year European PMC.

True, they should be dealt the same way as the American establishment.

Guillotines?

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