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 -
So basically my country - which has maintained a huge land army through conscription, one of the largest artilleries in Europe etc., and which has coincidentally now committed to also defending the Baltic states while upending its past defence doctrine due to a recent NATO membership - will have to get screwed due to what other countries have done regarding their militaries? Of course that is the prize for putting one's trust in foreign countries, but still.
Most red tribe normies would, if they knew about Finland’s defense policies, strongly respect them. They don’t, of course- if asked about Finland they’d say, uh, trees?
More options
Context Copy link
Define 'screwed.' My bet on Trump would be no, not really, unless your government joins the French line on maximum-anti-Trump-resistance. At which point it's just classic patron relations.
The Trump-side of the Republican party is more about 'we aren't obligated to help people who aren't allies' and 'don't help those who don't help themselves' than 'don't help anyone.' The former is a reaction to scope creep- such as the resistance to leaving the Syrian conflict justified on the grounds of Kurdish partners that two elections prior would have been considered terrorists- and the later is one of the points of 'why Americans lose war' (because they try to fight instead of rather than along with partners).
Assuming you are referring to Poland, Sweden, or Finland, the Trump-end is far more sympathetic / willing to support those countries precisely because they have spent so much. That's not in the 'and bought American too', though that helps, but just in the general 'spending like it sees a threat.' Which is completely compatible with Trump's own past points, such as not helping NATO states that did not spend to the targets... but making no such claim about those that did.
The risk - screwed, if you will- is less about direct intention, and more of indirect complications of conflict with Germany on bases. The American presence / force flow for a Baltic contingency fundamentally relies on flowing forces into Germany, because that's where the infrastructure is. That risk, in turn, is that the bases close before an alternative is built up- and if that alternative is as good / reliable / not as vulnerable to disruption. It's not impossible to do so, but I wouldn't count on Trump setting timelines with that in mind.
Which leads to the risk that Trump closes bases over a basing break with Germany, and the US losing force-flow access into Europe for a contingency which occurs during the drawdown / before the alternative is created. It's not that alternatives aren't possible, but rather that they'd be less good / easier for the Russians to disrupt.
At which point my bet wouldn't be that your country would be screwed for lack of help, but rather screwed by the disruption to reinforcements before equivalent / alternative lines could be made.
The bright side to this is that Sweden and Finland entering NATO has significantly reduced the ability of the Russians to project disruption power into the western baltic, which in turn makes Poland more viable an intervention route than Germany, especially as American airpower can base in the northern baltic rather than also have to compete through the more dangerous southern baltic coast region.
Surely you must be aware that stefferi is Finnish? It's even in his flair.
Not everyone is aware what Suomi is in reference to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The first order of business is selling your allies on reforming themselves. I think, unfortunately, your politicians were quite unwise in their plunge into NATO as opposed to a negotiated entrance that required many of the constituent states to live up to obligations. NATO's Eastern front needed Finland more than you needed NATO at the time of entry.
More options
Context Copy link
The biggest threat to Finland is not Russia, it is mass immigration.
Excluding Ukraine, Finland lets in about 0.7% of its population EVERY YEAR. And its not taking the best. In fact, the IQ gap between Finland natives and its immigrants is the worst in the world. And, of course, the immigrants have a fertility rate far above the Finns.
https://x.com/arctotherium42/status/1891483969486545295
Russia controlled Finland for a century and couldn't destroy the Finnish nation. But mass immigration is permanent. Left unchecked, Finland will be an entirely different country within a generation. In fact, it's already probably too late. Finland will be gone, and it won't be the Russians that did it, it will be suicide.
As an American, this is sad but it not my problem. We shouldn't spend blood and treasure defending countries that don't even recognize their own right to exist.
A large portion of the current rise of immigration is labor immigration from low-fertility Southeast Asian countries like Thailand and Philippines (including changes like seasonal berry pickers being required to apply for residence when they didn't need to so permanently) or nonpermanent student visas for South Asians (see here. Presumably some portion of them will say, but it's not as such by itself the sort of a culture-destroying moment being portrayed here.
In any case, this is an odd reason for doing a military alliance rugpull. I'm not aware of the US tying its other alliances to migration policies.
This happened specifically during a time when the Russian Empire was a ramshackle premodern empire that was, as a system, built in a way that facilitated Finnish autonomy (due to being a collection of nationalities under an Emperor) and quite simply couldn't assimilate minorities to the same degree as a modern state could due to having very little in the way of state instutions beyond the very basic ones to speak of. This was already changing during the last years of the Empire, which were also related to attempts to start Russification campaigns in Finland and, of course, changed drastically during the Soviet times due to rapid modernization, though this was counteracted to some degree korenizatsya. Still, it was the Soviet times when many Finnic nations in Russia that had survived thus far started disappearing. Finland being theoretically conquered by Russia - admittedly still a low probability - would face a completely different situation from the Grand Duchy.
More options
Context Copy link
Not that I disagree with the core idea of the argument here, but it's not unlikely that Finland would ultimately end up the same as a Russian province in comparison to staying part of the Western system. Russia is undergoing demographic change as well, and while it's not as fast as in Central and Western Europe, the Russia of 2100 will be a whole lot more Muslim and Central Asian than it is now, at least based on the trends of the last few decades. Whether that's better than the Afro-Arab Finland that seems to be the destination at the moment is of course a matter of debate.
It will be darkly amusing if-when anti-western sentiment in Russia shifts from being because of ethnic-Russian-centric narratives, and more from Islamic-centric sentiments that make political alliances with them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Please no, even Finland is going to be overrun by Indians.
On a side note I didn't realize native emiratis and other gulf states were so retarded. Does this exclude migrant workers or are they counted?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's what one gets for dissolving oneself into a federal union.
Do remember that foreign policy is a EU prerogative now.
But it's not one! If it was one, our security situation would be better.
Look I fully agree with you that the current setup for the EU is a stupid mess that only hamstrings itself, but you decided to join this stupid mess by signing stupid mess treaties and devolving your powers to stupid mess institutions.
Now you get to feel the consequences.
If you don't like this you can either leave or attempt to change the institutions from the inside. Good luck.
I wish there was a simple solution, the way I see it it's just headed for implosion in a future financial, political or military crisis. The rot is far too widespread now. And the way the institutions are setup is too locked down to contenance any sort of reform.
Americans have been making similar comments about Federalism on this side of the pond for probably two centuries now. While some of those criticisms ring true, I think it'd be wrong to dismiss the American Experiment as having failed on that account. Americans are still having those very same arguments over our "stupid mess institutions" even now.
I'm not convinced that the idea of the EU is what's failing in practice. The most obvious difference I can point to is American chutzpah, which somehow seems more important than even the intra-EU language barriers.
As an American looking from the outside, I'm inclined to agree.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is only a net negative for Finland is Moscow's actions are dictated (at least in part) by perceiving NATO as a threat.
If Moscow is a mad dog attacking the weakest neighbors in its vicinity then a weak military alliance is better than none.
By failing to adhere to agreements, eastward expansion and providing support and aid to its enemies, and formenting color revolutions in allied states.
It's more than perception.
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