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 -
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
You, uh, realize that drone attacks on gas infrastructure has been going on for years in the middle east, right?
Not in Europe though. Which is probably going to change, seeing as Russians are mad and in no mood to play.
Yawn? Sabotage and targeting energy infrastructure is old news in this war.
Russia's claimed energy infrastracture sabotage operations since they seized the Zaphorizhzhia nuclear power plant in early March (easy to find articles around 4 March), and it was barely two weeks ago that Russia outright bombed Ukrainian energy infrastructure after the Kharkiv offensive. The whole Nord Stream turbine shutdown pretext may not be sabotage in the normal concept, but it absolutely was by general definition of deliberately destroying, damaging, or obstructing something for political or military advantage, which definitely applies to the pretextual closures. Nord Stream 1 actually was actively used energy infrastructure.
This is less 'the Russians are mad and in no mood to play' and 'this precedent is long dead in this war, and Russia's been killing it for some time now.'
Yeah.
Warzone and not warzone, same thing!
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
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link