Rosencrantz2
1d ago
If you rule out something like that, what kind of international opinion-giving would be allowed, if any? He was presenting an argument on behalf of the UK government not pro or con a specific political party.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
Yes possible -- "If that's what you think of me, then that's what I'll be."
The reality lines up with what you describe only it's not that slow. It's happening pretty fast and a significant fraction of the US and global and maybe even Russian populations think Trump is a Russian asset -- pretty shameless work if he is operating clandestinely. This is why I don't think he is -- a Russian asset would be more subtle and include some measure of compromise for added realism, such as minor criticism of Russia on occasion. Much more likely he is just an ideological sympathiser and whole hearted admirer of Putin's raw power.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
I think Trump has lost the ability to telegram a message or accurately communicate his intentions at all though. Should Canada be developing nuclear arms to protect against the US? Who knows?
Moreover Trump has only been in power for a few weeks, so I don't think it's that strange for Zelenskyy to be blindsided by the discovery that in this case he really meant it.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
Probably the majority of the 'realpolitik' posts are bent on avoiding the stating of plain facts such as that 'Russia is a totalitarian state that invaded a democracy'. If they could actually bite the bullet and describe reality as is, while also advocating that Ukraine should surrender (or all but), that would be an honest realpolitik position, but it's no coincidence that they also want to blame Ukraine and empathise with Russia. That is not realpolitik at all but moral justification.
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
Well, there's something in that especially in a school type scenario where attractiveness and status are perhaps most correlated, but I dunno if status is ever really simple. Venkatesh Rao has great material on this and the idea of keeping status deliberately illegible among a group:
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/10/14/the-gervais-principle-iv-wonderful-human-beings/
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
What is happening if a woman is an excellent singer? A perfect mother? A physics professor? Isn't it the same thing, they are claiming status on some dimension but other hypothetical women want status to be primarily based on another axis. Status uncertainty.
If we stick to a situation where a group all share the same preference for what dimension should count most, like I dunno a hockey team. I think everyone respects the best player regardless of gender?
Not exactly sure how to isolate the difference you are talking about here. Perhaps you could give a clear example of a tall poppy situation with women where it is not a case of status uncertainty?
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
Surely men are constantly cut down for being tall poppies, it just depends on what dimensions you focus on. Threats can come in many forms – small but too smart would be an example of someone who might get ostracised. Certain social skills just happen to be more weighted dimensions for women than men. That's more complicated as harder to measure, but in large groups where higher status is not dependent on size and strength, equally complex games are going on with men (e.g. in politics).
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
There really are a lot of Russian talking points, aren't there? But don't you find it interesting to see how badly many quite smart people here want to believe in them? It's an endless task to try to engage with or counter all of it, nonetheless, I feel that the more misinformation and distortion I read here, the more I learn!
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
That but seriously! I don't think he's likely to suit up until the war is over at least on paper.
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
Churchill came to America dressed in war fatigues didn't he?
Rosencrantz2
4d ago
It's hard to know exactly what is tenable without knowing what's being discussed behind closed doors, all I have are questions:
-Did the US-led proposal even involve Western civilians on the border? It didn't specify that from what I can tell, just that the US would have a future investment stake in Ukraine (not that the mines would be operated by westerners, or that they would be built soon, or that they would be near to the front line).
-Is there not a wider possibility space where Russia's negotiated peace comes with official acceptance of its new borders and in exchange Ukraine gets NATO membership? I would think there is give and take to be had here (though I am just a guy on the internet).
-Isn't there also the possibility of peacekeeping troops from a selection of nations on the border without Ukraine having NATO membership?
Rosencrantz2
4d ago
Indeed – they were obviously hoping/assuming the US would be part of any guarantee, but I would imagine European leaders are, right now in London, trying to figure out what guarantees if any they can plausibly offer by themselves.
Rosencrantz2
4d ago
The 'with or without guarantees' in 3 is the crux of the entire disagreement though, isn't it. To simplify, Europe and Ukraine want 3 with guarantees, the US wants 3 without guarantees.
The version without guarantees is the one that could be said to be fellating Putin since it asks literally nothing of him that he doesn't want.
Rosencrantz2
5d ago
What do you think it is I don't know? Zelenskyy is managing multiple open questions -- the minerals deal, the prospect of a ceasefire/peace deal and how it will be enforced, and longer term planning for what happens if Russia musters forces and stages a third invasion. All those things are interconnected. The meeting seemed to suppose that just the minerals deal would be signed in advance of anything else being resolved, which seems foolhardy on Ukraine's part (if they were not in fact expecting further dialogue prior to signing). Negotiations by their nature can't be done piecemeal because once a concession is made it can't be taken back. As much as possible needs to be agreed at once. To think the minerals deal is security guarantee enough because of 'skin in the game' is to assume far too much. It surely only makes sense as part of an overall package of 'what next?' and I think it's likely that additional discussions and agreements relating to security would need to happen for Ukraine to be sensible to go forward with it without being unduly trusting.
Rosencrantz2
5d ago
When you step back the fact the meeting was allowed to take place in the way it did is baffling.
The minerals deal in itself is one sided -- it's not clear why Zelenskyy should give away so much without something -- anything at all -- in exchange, presumably a security guarantee. So one would think he's thinking the purpose of the visit is partly to discuss that. Maybe Trump thinks Zelenskyy is visiting simply to sign over the minerals and pay homage, but Zelenskyy has a different understanding, that there must be a chance of the US discussing Ukraine's terms further before signing. And the administration should know he's thinking that.
Yet despite this stark unfinished business, the first meeting in Washington is in front of the media, as if the visit is primarily ceremonial, and goes on for an hour. This seems highly unusual. Who planned it this way and for what reason? Not to mention, it was staged with both Trump and Vance there but only Zelenskyy from his side -- why??
Superficially it seems like the behind-the-scenes diplomats failed dismally at their jobs in allowing the meeting to happen at all in advance of the signing (of course they may have had a better plan that was overruled). Else the meeting was arranged like this deliberately to go wrong, but I don't really understand why.
Rosencrantz2
9d ago
My opinion, yeah, but particularly in speeches. (And just in case: if you think I edit my posts on The Motte for brevity or any other reason, I do not!)
Rosencrantz2
9d ago
As a sometime professional speechwriter I have no idea how to answer this. One recommendation though is that your page should look more like poetry than prose. Another is that you should write to a clear structure, and include logical connective tissue in your first draft, but then tear down the scaffolding once the thing is built. All the 'howevers' and 'because of thats' just take too long to say.
Rosencrantz2
9d ago
On reflection I'm inclined to change my mind and agree with this and the post before. I do think doing it this way signals his allegiance clearly (he sees the whole of government administration as the enemy). And if he were to simply fire everyone who didn't reply, THAT would create an incendiary effect. But I agree the message currently being sent is that his main objective is just getting attention.
Rosencrantz2
9d ago
Isn't this just Musk's intention? I'm sure he could do it in a more orderly fashion if he wanted but that wouldn't express his disruptive intent and contempt for bureaucracy as clearly. The version of reality where everyone instantly obeys him without checking with their bosses is what he's working towards I suppose but it will require employees who check their brains at the door and have a clear loyalty to a single leader rather than a line manager, job function or their own ideas about their job. (Cough, fascist.)
Rosencrantz2
11d ago
I can get behind the idea of explaining what you do and how it serves a specific directive from Congress (everyone should be able to explain this much). I have to send my boss a similar missive every week.
Doing it for your boss who you know is one thing, the point here is that you're doing it for someone a million levels above you with no context or two-way communication whatsoever. I would find it absurd to reply at all, whether I was a high or low functioning employee, so I agree with you the manner Musk is doing this is likely intended just to annoy people.
Indeed. You can actually see the rising Ukrainian GDP per capita figures drop as a consequence of each Russian invasion, so it is ironic to cite their low GDP as a reason Russian occupation would be helpful to their GDP.
Rosencrantz2
13d ago
I guess they are feeling defeated and correctly don't think it would help, until a more organised #resistance forms? I also think a good contingent of Dems will be looking askance at how much wild stuff the Trump administration is doing and thinking their best bet to keep quiet while their opponent is maybe making mistakes. There could be all kinds of bad fallout from so much action so fast, and it's better to attack that when it happens than be seen as hysterical yet again for e.g. noticing that Trump is a fascist (he is, but there is little profit left in saying it so the only option is to try to criticise him on specific bad consequences of his executive orders).
Rosencrantz2
13d ago
Yes though the more common case is they simply refuse to address the question of whether they are now Putin supporters, because it is too confusing.
Just because we're not there yet doesn't mean we can't get there in a year or two. It's hard to see how the trajectory from friends to enemies can be stopped because there likely will be further disagreements which Trump will pounce on and use to further the divide.
More options
Context Copy link