site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33621 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump just kicked Zelenskyy out of the White House after a public shouting match.

I've never seen anything like this. I sort of expected Trump to give him a hard time just for the cameras, but this seems to have legitimately hurt relations. Zelenskyy was in town to sign the much-anticipated minerals deal. From what I can hear the deal was not signed.

Ukraine needs the US much more than the US needs Ukraine. Could Zelenskyy not keep his pride contained for a few hours?

The confrontation starts at 3hr7min here when Zelensky becomes accusatory with Vance at the prospect of any diplomatic action. He does this with a smirk on, and ends with “what kind of diplomacy, JD, are you speaking about? What, what do you mean?” I find it hard to interpret this as anything but extremely insulting. Wars in history have been fought against nations for less insulting behavior. The tone is demeaning and he’s casting doubt on America’s ability to pursue diplomacy. When Vance replies, Zelensky immediately interrupts him with his arms crossed, looking away. Then Zelensky interrupts again (remember, after speaking for 2 minutes). Then Zelensky says, “have you ever been to Ukraine, that you can speak of what problems we have?” He is the VP, he has all the data. This is an insane way to speak to the VP.

I would have liked to see him immediately kicked out of the White House right there and StarLink shut off. Make Ukraine fire him, then resume discussions with someone who isn’t incompetent at basic human manners.

with “what kind of diplomacy, JD, are you speaking about? What, what do you mean?” I find it hard to interpret this as anything but extremely insulting. Wars in history have been fought against nations for less insulting behavior

Thank you for actually marking the time... Zelenskyy is BEYOND insulting here! After Vance chides him mildly, Zelenskyy says "Have you ever been to Ukraine, huh? Count once?" with his arms folded and backing up with an extremely condescending air. I can't believe it! How could a leader who desperately needs this stronger ally act with such immense disrespect?

I have been kind of ambivalent so far but wow... I am disappointed with Zelenskyy here. I know Trump and Vance aren't exactly polite but come on. The course of world history could've been far different if he was willing to play nice.

After they scolded him for not being thankful enough Zelenskyy has gone on a tantrum on twitter doing a copy pasted thank you to every world leader other than Trump. lol

No he didn't. He explicitly thanks potus and USA here. https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1895555315716014324

That’s going to end well. Does “leverage” not translate to Ukrainian or something

Could Zelenskyy not keep his pride contained for a few hours?

Counterpoint: could Trump not keep Putin's dick out of his mouth for a few hours? Saying Zelenskyy ought to be more polite is a tactical remark at best, and given that Trump and Vance appear to have been spoiling for a fight I'm not sure it would have mattered. Conversely, Trump apologists are continually telling me that I ought to respect Trump as president of the United States, but also that he can't be held responsible for what he says or does. If he's president of the United States he ought to act like it.

Ukraine needs the US much more than the US needs Ukraine.

I don't think people grasp that this goes way beyond Ukraine. This is just the latest in an escalating series of actions from Trump demonstrating to American allies that the alliances are dead - that Trump will abandon American commitments on a whim and prefers Russia to NATO. Even if the next president is a hardcore internationalist, everyone is going to remember the fact that America elected Donald Trump and the rest of the GOP fell in line behind his every temper tantrum.

And yes, the US does need its allies. It's not 1941. Autarky is retarded, and we're going to quickly find it's a lot harder to strongarm the rest of the world than have friendly negotiations.

  • -14

Counterpoint: could Trump not keep Putin's dick out of his mouth for a few hours?

This type of rhetoric is adding far more heat than light.

Conversely, Trump apologists are continually telling me that I ought to respect Trump as president of the United States, but also that he can't be held responsible for what he says or does. If he's president of the United States he ought to act like it.

I agree with you here.

I don't think people grasp that this goes way beyond Ukraine. This is just the latest in an escalating series of actions from Trump demonstrating to American allies that the alliances are dead - that Trump will abandon American commitments on a whim and prefers Russia to NATO.

I think the burden of proof is on those saying this actually does go beyond Ukraine. I'm not aware of any official commitments the US had towards Ukraine, so I'm not sure how we're supposed to conclude from recent events that the US' other alliances are now dead.

This is just the latest in an escalating series of actions from Trump demonstrating to American allies that the alliances are dead - that Trump will abandon American commitments on a whim and prefers Russia to NATO.

This framing falls apart if you look at it from a distance.

  1. What are the American commitments to Ukraine? Were you aware before 2022 that America had a potential 12-figure liability to Ukraine in the event of invasion? I didn't.

  2. Trump does not prefer Russia to NATO. This impression comes from the fact that Trump wants to somewhat reduce the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on Russia, and increase the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on NATO, but this completely disregards the fact that current diplomatic and trade restrictions on Russia are MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH harsher than the restrictions on NATO

This impression comes from the fact that Trump wants to somewhat reduce the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on Russia, and increase the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on NATO

It comes from the fact that Trump has repeatedly praised Putin and disparaged NATO allies, siding with the former to excuse Russian territorial aggression. You say the above like it's normal and reasonable to want to rebalance away from your long running allies towards your longest running enemy (led by a guy who has proven again and again to be unreliable and belligerent).

Trump and Vance appear to have been spoiling for a fight

Trump and Vance were more likely getting ready to sign the deal that was already agreed upon, smile for the cameras, and have pats on the back all around.

This is not the time to throw in more demands and threaten to sink the deal.

Vance specifically started the fight. I think it's important we realize that's where the whole thing derailed. I don't think Trump and Vance both wanted the same thing to happen, but once it got going that's another matter, Trump is going to back Vance up plus had his own axes to grind if given the chance. Trump knows he has a certain image to maintain and was aware of the optics the whole time. Hell, at the very end, he even comments about how the whole blow up would make great TV...

Definitely think Vance set them on a collision course with the respect comment. That's a red rag to someone like Trump and Zelensky was apparently in no mood either.

Did you even watch the video? It’s 40 minutes long. Most of it is them talking about the diplomatic solution theh seem to have found, and Trump just keeps hammering that we need to find a peaceful end to the war.

Vance’s comment was a brief reiteration of this point, and Zelensky then escalated it into an argument by implying that he wanted to blow up the deal because he (a politician who has cancelled elections in his own country, btw) doesn’t believe in diplomacy.

Full disclosure I watched the final 10 minutes, so more than the 5 minute clips floating around but not the whole thing. That clip started with a question about Poland, Trump talks about how he’s aligned with “the world”. Nothing too abnormal for Trump. Trump says “one more question” and then Vance interjects out of nowhere about how actions and diplomacy matter more than chest thumping and words, which failed (talking about Biden’s time specifically). Zelensky then says well, this has been going on longer than the last 4 years, it’s been a decade - and last time, the deal was basically the same! A gas contract (economic ties) and promises (Europe and Obama) didn’t deter the 2014 mess. So he asks: what does “diplomacy” mean, if not that? Those earlier efforts are also diplomacy. It’s a good question.

And then Vance basically says “that’s disrespectful” and calls his points propaganda aimed at the media. What? Nothing in Zelensky’s point was that weird. Again it was a fair question - this new deal sounds suspiciously similar to the old post-2014 “solution” which clearly proved to be non-durable. Vance bringing up respect and throwing a rhetorical punch directly clearly, in my view, kicked off the combative part of the video.

More to the point, it really wasn’t supposed to be such a long thing. Usually, these kinds of media events are 10 minutes of fluff and posing followed by the actual discussion. I’d be interested to know what made this one drag on so long (maybe it was inevitable, actually, given such a long time in a room together in front of cameras). However, remember: Trump literally cut it off and then Vance said wait I gotta say something first (get it off my chest kind of thing). Otherwise, take the question, start the meeting, then negotiations behind closed doors.

I don’t think that is true. Watch the whole thing.

I've never seen anything like this. I sort of expected Trump to give him a hard time just for the cameras, but this seems to have legitimately hurt relations.

As opposed to, say, holding a peace summit with Russia without inviting Ukraine to the table, which didn't legitimately hurt relations?

This is an embarrassment to the Americans after the Americans embarrassed the Ukrainians and the Europeans. The reason you've never seen anything like this is because you've probably not been watching for it, and non-Trump presidents wouldn't have made this sort of summit after shunning a leader. Tit-for-tats aren't uncommon.

Zelenskyy was in town to sign the much-anticipated minerals deal. From what I can hear the deal was not signed.

Note, also, that the 'much-anticipated minerals deal' would have given the Americans substantial influence over the future of the Ukrainian economy. As in, 'the sort of influence that conspiracy theories are made of' influence, depending how the not-written Fund Agreement would have gone.

Zelensky might have gone forward with it had Trump offered security guarantees rather than the ability to retroactively act as if security guarantees had been offered, but that's on Trump to offer.

Ukraine needs the US much more than the US needs Ukraine. Could Zelenskyy not keep his pride contained for a few hours?

This would presume the issue was over Zelensky's pride, as opposed to terms, or Trump's pride. Also- don't ignore the potential that this may have been in part engineered.

Yesterday, media was reporting that today's meeting only happened because of France's Macron making an appeal with Trump. In turn, the Europeans were already raising their invitation of Zelensky to the 6 March summit. Within hours- which is to say, in time for the European evening news and to set the stage for tomorrow morning's news- multinational media is covering Macron backing Zelensky.

And all on a DC Friday, i.e. the cliche timing for any expected bad news story?

So you have a scenario of-

Previous Week: The Americans have a power play of having direct talks with Russia, at diplomatic expense of Ukraine and Europe

This Week: American President doesn't want to meet Ukrainian President; European VIP intervenes; Because EUR VIP intervenes, Meeting Occurs; Meeting goes poorly; EUR VIP among the first global leaders being cited

Next Week: Just who is more humiliated by US-UKR meeting is weekly news cycle; UKR-EU summit is stage-managed; Europe bolsters position vis-a-vis US; EUR VIP claims mantle of anti-Trump european leadership

would have given the Americans substantial influence over the future of the Ukrainian economy.

N.b. it was only 50% of revenues from non-existent and infeasible industries, not that it matters anymore.

As opposed to, say, holding a peace summit with Russia without inviting Ukraine to the table, which didn't legitimately hurt relations?

As opposed to a peace summit with Ukraine without inviting Russia to the table? Putin has a tender ego, deliberately snubbing and ostracizing him has worked just as well as beating a toddler to make it stop crying does. Having a widely publicized "discussion between two very important countries" first doesn't hurt Ukraine in any way other than wounding its pride, but saving Putin's face might actually help end the war in 2025.

As opposed to a peace summit with Ukraine without inviting Russia to the table?

This would, indeed, not be a productive way to get actual peace term conditions in place.

Mind you, I don't think it had that purpose in the first place, as opposed to inter-pro-Ukraine-coalition politics, but I fully agree to any point that not inviting Russia to a peace summit makes it a bit of a farce of a peace summit.

Putin has a tender ego, deliberately snubbing and ostracizing him has worked just as well as beating a toddler to make it stop crying does.

And should Putin claim snubbing rights- such as holding a summit without Ukraine or Europe- I would give a shrug.

Coincidentally, I more or less shrugged from the summit earlier this month as well. Propaganda, for sure, but completely consistent with my predictions last fall that the early post-Turmp period would be met with pro-forma rather than substantial negotiations.

I'd also note that this would normalize the consequence of Trump getting a similar result for doing a similar thing.

Having a widely publicized "discussion between two very important countries" first doesn't hurt Ukraine in any way other than wounding its pride, but saving Putin's face might actually help end the war in 2025.

And what if not all the parties involved want the war to end in 2025?

From my perspective, it seems to me that Russia wants the war to end in 2025 because the grind of 2024 for the election year and negotiating shaping are not indefinitely sustainable (as was raised and discussed last year). Reasons why may very, but there is regullar discussions / expectations of significant push potential in late 2025 and into 2026... and with it, the ability to compellingly make demands on terms.

Trump wanted the war to end in 2025 because it frustrates him and he wants to take credit and move past it. Different reads on Trump differ, but I don't think anyone thinks he has a strategic rather than emotional reason for wanting the war to end in 2025.

However, the Europeans and Ukrainians were not the ones who want the war to end in 2025, beyond the general 'we'd love it if our enemies stop fighting' sense, and have consistently signaled hesitation / opposition to a war ending in 2025 on terms Putin finds favorable. Their general position is that better long-term terms are worth fighting longer for, and there is plenty of speculation that they believe Russia's pushing in 2024 is leaving it far more constrained in 2025 and especially in 2026 and beyond.

They have it for their own reasons- the Ukrainians caring more about long-term terms rather than short-term terrain or casualty losses, the Europeans wanting more time for European rearmament- but neither has exactly been shy about supporting more Ukrainian deaths for longer-term security vis-a-vis Russia, which they do not feel they are getting from Trump.

The wisdom / accuracy of their choice may be up for question, but if the war goes on until 2026 or 2027 or even 2028 as a result of this snub-fest, that won't be a failure of the Ukrainians to seek peace in 2025, but a failure of those who actually wanted it in 2025.

(And, for the record, I've my doubts of the credibility of any American shut-off of all forms of aid... but that's another topic and we shall see.)

As opposed to, say, holding a peace summit with Russia without inviting Ukraine to the table, which didn't legitimately hurt relations?

I mean the Europeans had peace summits with the Ukrainians without inviting Russia. At least the US and Russia having a meeting about their proxy war involves the actual players instead of completely irrelevant countries.

I mean the Europeans had peace summits with the Ukrainians without inviting Russia.

And thus, the Europeans did not have failed summits with Ukraine after not-snubbing Ukraine the week prior, and did not legitimately hurt their relations in the process.

At least the US and Russia having a meeting about their proxy war involves the actual players instead of completely irrelevant countries.

American hyperagency strikes again!

However, I suspect what a lot of people who claim to wish an end to the Ukraine War are going to find is that Ukrainians is not an irrelevant country to the Ukraine War happening in Ukraine.

American hyperagency strikes again!

Okay if it's not our war then it shouldn't make much of a difference if we just pull all funding and stop providing intelligence?

I am pleased to see you have abandoned without defense the claim that Ukraine is a completely irrelevant country to the resolution of the Ukraine War in Ukraine.

I look forward to your future rejoinder that similarly attempts to avoid defending that claim.

There is an old saw that beggars can’t be choosers. If America says “take or it leave” Ukraine could leave it and then lose the war in about six months.

Is this a prediction Ukraine will lose the war in six months? Because they left it.

Worth noting that this kind of incident is very bad for right-wing parties in Europe and the Anglosphere. Trump is monumentally unpopular in Europe, the UK, Canada, and Australia, and support for Ukraine remains very high. Additionally, this kind of "Reality TV diplomacy" is generally poorly received outside the US. The result will be that right-wing parties in these countries will likely have to distance themselves from Trump, and even that may not be enough to restore their pre-Trump election hopes (witness the recent resurgence of the LPC, in no small a gift from Trump).

Even if American conservatives don't care about Ukraine, I assume some of them care about global influence and leadership, especially among their historical allies. Part of the key to achieving this is assisting in the political success of ideological conspecifics in these nations, whereas this kind of bluster entirely thwarts that goal.

Of course, there are some on the American right who would be only too happy to dismantle the post-WW2 alliance system in favour of a more narrowly transactional approach, even at the cost of global influence and leadership. Even setting aside that this is unlikely to be a long-term winning position ideologically with the American electorate, I would note that empires are hard to build and easy to lose. The consequences of a global geopolitical decoupling between the US and its historical allies could be significant: US defense contractors being excluded from arms deals, tariffs or barriers to US firms operating in the EU, a rise in Chinese economic influence in the developed world, and a sidelining of US interests in global forums.

Worth noting that this kind of incident is very bad for right-wing parties in Europe and the Anglosphere. Trump is monumentally unpopular in Europe, the UK, Canada, and Australia, and support for Ukraine remains very high. Additionally, this kind of "Reality TV diplomacy" is generally poorly received outside the US. The result will be that right-wing parties in these countries will likely have to distance themselves from Trump, and even that may not be enough to restore their pre-Trump election hopes (witness the recent resurgence of the LPC, in no small a gift from Trump).

Right-wing parties in Europe owe their popularity primarily to anti-immigrant sentiment. What Trump says/does won't affect that much.

No, but…

Most politicians, especially those who join fringe parties with little prospect of power, have at least a few genuine personal beliefs and aren’t willing to say literally anything to win.

This allows pinning people like Farage (or me) by forcing him to either lose 40% of support or else denounce Trump and MAGA and explicitly side with Ukraine. The latter would be explicitly going against his own judgement and also cut off Trump/Musk support. It’s also probably not a lie he could tell convincingly.

Farage saying that Russia had some reasonable motives for invading Ukraine seems to have massively reduced the number of seats he got in the election - the polls showed a big drop at that time which he never recovered from.

A lot of UK people are fanatical about Ukraine and they hate Russia. This is particularly true of the over 50s who form the main nativist support base in UK.

this kind of incident is very bad for right-wing parties in Europe

Why should Americans care what happens to right wing parties in Europe. They aren't even allowed to win. Even if they got the votes, they would just be retroactively banned as nazis and thrown in prison, assuming they're even allowed to get on the ballot in the first place. They'd probably be banned and suppressed well before then if their poll numbers got remotely close to winning.

And don't call uniparty parties like the Tories "right-wing." Name a single right-wing thing the Tories have ever done.

Why should Americans care what happens to right wing parties in Europe.

Why did Vance defend freedom of speech in Europe? Why care?

The anti immigration right wing populist parties have won elections in various European countries like Italy, the Netherlands, Austria and Poland.

For broadly the same reasons that the Soviet Union supported Communist parties around the world. Of course American citizens don't need to care about their ideological fellow travellers outside the US (to be clear, I'm mainly talking about Reform, FN, AfD, and so on - I agree that the Tory party are at best a 'post-ideological' organisation), and isolationism has always been and remains a choice that the US can make. If the US is happy to wash its hands of affairs in Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, or anywhere else, no-one is stopping them from doing that.

However, to the extent that US wants to secure markets for its exports, have influence on international organisations, gain intelligence on threats overseas, limit the rise of China, control immigration flows, and protect its allies, it will in turn need international partners. This will be far easier if they can help get some ideologically sympathetic parties into positions of power.

What I want is an American Empire in America. That is, north of Darien, west of Iceland, and east of Russia. I want Manifest Destiny, not overseas entanglements.

We're doing a piss poor job limiting the rise of China, mostly because the people in charge saw it as a way to make money, and sold out their country to do so. Apple doesn't become the most valuable company in the world without facilitating the rise of China, and the same could be said of most any successful "American" company in the last fifty years.

We just left four years of actively encouraging immigration flows in order to import a reliable voter base for Democrats. Nothing about Ukraine matters more than simply wanting it done, or want the country flooded instead.

The same could be said of Britain, or Germany, or France. Going to war in Ukraine isn't going to remove the Somalis from Minnesota or the Pakis from England. That requires the will to do it.

I want Manifest Destiny, not overseas entanglements.

Literally our own history showed that we did the Manifest Destiny as far as we could (even going so far as to conquer Hawai'i, which is over a sea), and then like a couple decades after that, we decided to help push the Spanish Empire into the dustbin of history. If anything, Manifest Destiny probably led to the Spanish-American War, and I could 50-Stalins you and claim that the American Empire should not have gone west of Oklahoma or Texas.

How are right wing parties relevant? Are they more sympathetic to the US than the left wing (excluding Trump of course)?

Trump might be burning bridges by spitting on the faces of others, but I don't see how the European right is relevant here. The US has been buddies with plenty of left wing regimes.

To be sure, if future US administrations want to hit the 'reset' button and go back to the old ways of doing things, then they can try to be friends with whoever they like, as they have done in the past, as you note. However, the mainstream European left, right, and centre is deeply committed to the Liberal International Order that Trump is crusading against.

That means a Trump or future Vance administration has to look to the fringes for real allies, and basically no Communist or radical left organisations would given him a look, not least because of his stance on Israel and Gaza (which frustratingly are the primary fixation for the European radical left right now). That leaves basically only one group of parties that would are openly to a close alliance (as opposed to a marriage of convenience), namely the non-establishment nationalist right - parties like FN, Fidesz, AfD, and Reform, all of who have relatively cosy relationships with Trump already. However, the more Trump acts in ways that harm Europe's security interests, the harder it is for these parties to maintain this relationship, at least without suffering political harm.

However, the mainstream European left, right, and centre is deeply committed to the Liberal International Order that Trump is crusading against.

Rhetorically, perhaps, but certainly not when it comes to investing money and manpower in actually defending it. I'm pro-Ukraine, and not particularly pro-Trump, but I find myself frequently defending him against these sorts of accusations because they're so hard to take seriously.

Your statement also applies only if we consider the Liberal International Order to specifically encompass the region around Russia and Ukraine. For instance, much of the mainstream European political class is quite unconcerned with China's ambitions in the pacific, or Iran's actions in the ME, which aren't exactly in line with the idea of the LIO. These statements about the LIO are mostly window-dressing for standard geopolitical concerns - when it's happening close to us then it's all about high-minded values, when it's far away then it's not our business.

Of course, there are some on the American right who would be only too happy to dismantle the post-WW2 alliance system in favour of a more narrowly transactional approach, even at the cost of global influence and leadership.

What "influence and leadership" does the U.S. have that is not transactional already? EU seems to believe U.S. "leadership" consists of them making decisions and us paying for it. Our "influence" in most other countries consists mainly of bribery in the form of foreign aid and trade concessions. This is all transactional already! What soft power we do have comes from cultural output completely independent of and irrelevant to our foreign policy establishment, and that has all gone to absolute shit anyways.

From my perspective it seems like we're the Sugar Daddy who is promised that we're really, truly, loved and fun to be with, so long as the wallet comes out. They'll say nice(ish) things about us exactly as long the checks keep flowing. One second later, we're monsters who are killing the entire world.

America currently spends a comparatively small amount of money in exchange for global hegemon status. This means that it has a huge influence in the foreign policy of most G20 nations. European leaders line up to kowtow to the new Big Man in The White House after every US election. If China seems to be making inroads into European markets, America can lean on domestic governments to have them barred or stymied. US arms manufacturers are prioritised for contracts across the free world. Its tech companies are given comparatively free rein. Its cultural products dominate cinemas and streaming services. Its navy and airforce can rely on a global network of old European bases for staging and resupply. It has an outsize seat at every serious international forum.

All of that currently relies on a 'package deal' with its allies - in exchange for security guarantees and a committee to upholding the LIO, it gets to be the Leader Of The Free World, with all the perks and privileges that entails.

The US can drop the package, and try to negotiate for these privileges on a line-by-line basis. My expectation, though, is that some of them will be outright off the table, while others will be a lot more expensive to purchase individually.

Most of our global hegemony comes from our military and technical capabilities, it’s not because we give out our money in random nice, but generally unappreciated gestures of good will. Iraqis don’t hate us less because we fund their version of Sesame Street. Africa doesn’t hate us less or love us more because we build the occasional school or hospital. Even the shipping lanes are mostly free for trade because we have a navy that protects all of that. Even if we decided to not fund all the things we fund and decide not to get involved in every war on the planet, I don’t see why any other country is going to say fuck you to the country that spends more on it’s military than the rest of the planet combined.

the country that spends more on it’s military than the rest of the planet combined.

This isn't remotely true, even in purely nominal terms.

The US and Europe banned Huawei because it was used to spy on them by China. Europe uses a lot of american technology like facebook, and it is also used to spy on us, but you can notice it was never banned. Do you think this will last for long without NATO?

Maybe you think that the US technology is just better and we can't just avoid using it, but then you have to learn that FAIR is in Paris, that's where LLaMa models are trained. Europe might not be as useless to you as you think.

Can you name a single major tech that has come out of Europe in a decade? Their economy is terrible and they have no innovation.

Europe has a capital market problem but it has no innovation problem. So American companies use the research done in both US and EU and put it to the market (like they do in Facebook AI Research and DeepMind). Or do you think both labs are useless? Huggingface was also created in France untiel they had a need for more funding.

The inexistence of European Big Tech is at the US advantage (they get skills without a competition).

Deep reinforcement learning and voice cloning (Deepmind and Eleven Labs respectively). Deepmind is Google-affiliated now but weren’t when they made their initial big breakthroughs.

In general America poaches a lot of British innovation by having more permissive regulations and a lot more investment capital.

Trump is monumentally unpopular in Europe

In the media? Sure, among the plebs? Not so much.

The result will be that right-wing parties in these countries will likely have to distance themselves from Trump, and even that may not be enough to restore their pre-Trump election hopes

This is pure copium. If anything, Trump's shenanigans will be a boon to the various dissident right-wing parties in the EU.

In the UK, France, and Germany, Trump’s approval ratings are his lowest in basically the entire world, and even in the explicitly reactionary European subs like /r/badunitedkingdom, Trump is a very divisive figure.

If anything, Trump's shenanigans will be a boon to the various dissident right-wing parties in the EU.

This distancing is literally already happening.

A lot of American conservatives seem to be in blissful ignorance about how negatively Trump is perceived in Europe, especially given the bizarre events of the last month. I literally know more self-identified European fascists than European Trump stans. Of course, there’s no reason why Americans have to care what Europeans think, but when we’re literally talking about European public opinion, it’s important to get things right.

However, I don’t want to presume; if you’re a European, though, I’d be curious to know where you’re from (maybe Poland?) such that your perceptions of Trump’s reputation here are so different from mine.

Ultimately I think you're right, but it hardly reflects well on the people of these countries that they would reverse their positions on domestic and international issues entirely to maintain their self-image of being better and more enlightened than americans. It really shames me that I see this exact train of throught so clearly in my compatriots (Canadians). Our entire country's identity is just this.

A lot of American conservatives seem to be in blissful ignorance about how negatively Trump is perceived in Europe, especially given the bizarre events of the last month.

A lot of American conservatives relationship with the outside world is mediated entirely by Donald Trump and an imaginary snooty Frenchman who lives rent-free in their head. If Trump says he's made America respected again on the world stage after Biden destroyed our reputation, they're going to believe him.

Americans don't have to care what Europeans think, but a lot of them take American global standing for granted and don't grasp that a world much less friendly to American interests is possible.

Any discussion is moot. The other side won't hear it , they are ideological fanatics pushed to the brink by the propaganda of an enemy state. The truth doesn't matter anymore , the only thing they understand is consequences. Close down NATO bases in europe , completely decouple from the US MIC , dissolve NATO and create a tight alliance with european states and arm up for the coming WW3. Force them to either accept that their insanity has a cost or to make a move so dumb that makes them pariahs ( like invading canada ). If you bow down now they will keep going and will just leave us in the dust the moment putin is ready to go after the baltics anyway.

Fun to think what European defense and industrial policy might look like in the event of a total breakdown in the post-war transatlantic alliance system (conditional on European leaders actually growing a pair, i.e., on hell freezing over). Here are some ideas that came out of a drunken groupchat with some security wonk friends tonight and summarised by R1:

Defense

• European Defense Force with Independent Command: Phased withdrawal from NATO integrated command structure while establishing a purely European military alliance with France as the nuclear guarantor and Germany providing conventional backbone.

• Strategic Defense Technology Embargo: Immediate moratorium on new U.S. defense procurement contracts with accelerated transition plan (5-7 years) to phase out existing U.S. systems. European defense contractors given emergency powers to reverse-engineer critical components.

• Military Base Sovereignty Initiative: Formal 24-month notice to terminate all Status of Forces Agreements with the U.S., with negotiated transition periods only where absolutely necessary for European security.

• European Nuclear Deterrent Expansion: Franco-German nuclear sharing agreement with French warheads placed under joint European command structure. Fast-track development of new European delivery systems not dependent on U.S. technology.

• Counter-Intelligence Offensive: Comprehensive review of all U.S. intelligence operations in Europe with expulsion of suspected intelligence officers and enhanced counter-surveillance against U.S. electronic intelligence gathering.

Economics & Industry

• Strategic Industry Protection Act: Mandatory European ownership requirements for critical infrastructure and technology companies. Forced divestiture of U.S. majority-owned assets in energy, telecommunications, defense, and advanced manufacturing within 36 months.

• Digital Sovereignty Enforcement: European internet traffic routing law requiring all European data to remain on European networks. Complete firewall system to regulate U.S. digital services with capability to block access if diplomatic conditions deteriorate.

• Energy Independence Acceleration Plan: Emergency powers for nuclear construction in willing nations with cross-border agreements to share capacity. German solar/wind expansion with French nuclear backup through enhanced grid interconnections. Phaseout of U.S. energy imports.

• European Technology Sovereignty Fund: €500 billion fund for European alternatives to U.S. technology platforms, semiconductor manufacturing, and cloud services with preferential procurement rules for European public entities.

• Space Independence Initiative: Tripling of European Space Agency budget with fast-track development of alternative satellite networks. Security review of all SpaceX operations in Europe with potential for forced technology transfer.

Finance & Diplomacy

• Euro Primacy Initiative: Requirement for all energy transactions involving European entities to be conducted in euros. Introduction of euro-denominated oil and gas contracts with major suppliers.

• European Clearing House: New European interbank settlement system isolated from U.S. financial infrastructure with capability to process transactions with sanctioned entities if determined to be in European strategic interest.

• Anti-Dollar Diplomacy Campaign: Strategic diplomatic engagement with BICS [sic] nations to create formal mechanisms for reducing dollar dependency in international trade.

• Counter-Sanctions Framework: Preemptive legislation authorizing immediate reciprocal sanctions against U.S. entities if sanctions are placed on European companies. Includes targeting of U.S. financial institutions operating in Europe.

• European Foreign Asset Protection Law: Legal framework to shield European overseas assets from potential U.S. seizure through complex ownership structures and diplomatic agreements with third countries.

Economic Countermeasures

• Reciprocal Tariff Authorization: Automatic trigger mechanism imposing 35% tariffs on U.S. goods in response to any U.S. tariff increases, particularly targeting politically sensitive sectors (agriculture, automotive, aerospace).

• European Export Control Regime: Restrictions on European exports that support critical U.S. supply chains, leveraging dependencies in areas like specialty chemicals, precision components, and industrial machinery.

• Intellectual Property Retaliation System: Framework for suspending U.S. intellectual property protections in Europe in response to economic aggression, with particular focus on pharmaceutical and entertainment industries.

• Corporate Tax Equalization: Special taxation regime for U.S. multinational corporations operating in Europe to offset advantages from U.S. economic policies hostile to European interests.

Europe already has a terrible economy. You would destroy it. I welcome Europe doing this and then come groveling back when their loser leaders are kicked out.

I do like me a good spite list, especially the sort that counters its own suggestions.

Like, any sort of 'phased NATO transition' matched with an immediate SOFA-termination isn't a phased NATO termination, its an immediate NATO transition, because said American NATO officers will be part of the SOFA-termination.

Similarly, a European phase out of American defense procurement corresponding with the immediate theft of American military technology isn't a phase out. You've just cut off the American resupply that would make a phase out work, without having had time to build a replacement, which is the point of a phase out.

The energy phaseout of American energy exports isn't a phaseout if you're requiring all energy purchases to be in euros. For one, LNG is a fungible export- it doesn't matter who you buy it from. Two, you're not actually weakening the dollar by demanding payment in Euros- you're paying a dollar premium for the conversion mechanisms with people who will go along with the Euro requirement, since they can demand higher prices for your stipulation.

The Counter-Sanctions Framework already exists in various forms. They failed not for lack of balls, but for the same reason the inter-European clearing house doesn't work as a way to escape dollar sanctions- European companies want to sell not only to the Americans, but companies and countries that sell to the Americans. Very classic 'Europe is not the world' moment.

As for the economic retaliation measures, it's always a good chuckle to see offers for the Trump-preferred trade dynamics be volunteered in the name of spiting him. Like, Trump is absolutely a fan of reciprocal and symmetrical tariffs- and he'd absolutely appreciate the assistance to the transition to economic autarky from a supply chain cutoff, since it'd remove a major lever of influence. (Most countries want others to be dependent on them). Similarly, corporate tax equalization would be trumpeted as a major win- Europe is a tax haven for American companies from American jurisdiction, and if Europe were to both equalize corporate tax rates internally and start punitive actions against American companies, pretty soon they'd not stay in Europe.

Good spite list, 4/5, would recommend more whiskey.

These excellent points all round. In fairness of the (admittedly already dubious) coherency of the groupchat that inspired this, there were six of us trading ideas, and I just dumped the logs into Deepseek, creating a particularly contradictory medley. However, that's on me for posting without vetting the consistency.

Would be curious to hear your thoughts on what a more focused and thoughtful European spitelist would look like, conditional on a continuing decline in Euro-US relations to the point where the consensus among European leaders is to classify America as a strategic competitors rather than allies.

Bottom line- a more focused and thoughtful European spitelist wouldn't be a spitelist, it would be a clinch-list. Rather than trying to punch the other guy in the face and get pinched back, try to get as close as possible to mitigate his ability to punch you.

A fundamental issue that is both causing the Euro-American rift and would be made worse by a spitelist is that the Europeans are not militarily capable of meeting what it views its security needs as vis-a-vis Russia. This is one of the foundational issues of the conflict with Trump- Trump called on the Europeans to do more, he was laughed at, and now he's in transaction mode. Worse, as bad shape as the Russian military is at the moment, it is still in greater position in the immediate-near term to pivot from any sort of Ukraine stop to do something in the Balkans or the Baltics than the Europeans alone are able to resist.

However, even if you think the US should be classified as a strategic competitor, this doesn't mean you want to start pushing away the Americans as fast as possible. Immediate American departure- especially on hostile terms- is the third-worst case scenario. (The second-worst case scenario is immediate American departure, followed by a Russian Baltic / Balkan crisis. The worst case is if the Americans can't be persuaded to come back.)

Instead, you want to build up your own strength before they leave, while still leaving the option for them to be there. Even if they aren't being relied upon to fight, there's no reason to make it harder for them to do so if they were open to it in the future, and kicking them out of the country means it's both physically harder to get them in, and much less likely.

Which means, in turn, that maybe you start your aircraft replacement program ASAP... but instead of kicking the Americans out of those bases, you cover more of the stationing costs. It's paying more, yes, but it's making them less likely to leave- and as long as they are in the country, that's still a deterrence value all of its own.

Similarly, cutting off European export supply chains to American critical industries is stupid. You want to maximize that shit. Invest heavily in certain shared benefits, so that IF something bad happens, THEN you can take it down, or threaten to.

Some things are relatively, and can be done at any time. There's never been anything preventing the French from extending their own nuclear umbrella across Europe. Other things have costs and are irreversible- if you announce a French nuclear shield for Europe, then the Americans may change their minds on the need of their own nukes in unit, and withdraw- and if those go, a lot of the political weight does as well. (After all, the American lives are there to help drive the use of American nukes- no nukes, less basis for Americans.)

But start going through these sort of considerations- and thinking in terms more than a decade away, well after Trump leaves office-

-and a spite list will be pretty shortsighted. You don't act solely out of spite of your strategic competitors, you try to coopt them to your own advantage, even when they do things you don't like.

This sounds pretty much exactly the kind of thing you'd do if you wanted to improve Europe's military and geopolitical relationship with America. I can see under some assumptions that's not unreasonable, in the same way that a woman planning to leave her violent and abusive husband might want to act like an even more loving wife than usual, right up until the point where she's out the door and has the restraining order in place. However, I guess I was more interested in hearing your thoughts on what it would look like when the wife actually leaves, rather than the part where she cooks her husband his favourite dinner and gets her hair done the way he likes it.

There are a lot of ways to try and use that wife metaphor in a counter-argument that come off as variously inflammatory or quibbling about the nature of the relationship. (Like- where is the violent and abusive husband coming from?) So I'm going to move past that after just noting the awkward metaphor.

If you're looking for sort of stupid histrionics an emotional and impatient actor would do, I guess I could point out that taking 50,000-60,000 hostages (the US military presence in Europe) to be held hostage and exchanged for all Europeans in the US and all Americans of European origin willing to immediately migrate over and begin long-term re-naturalization would be an idea. Maybe you can also pressure all European-based religions to excommunicate all American political officials who take positions against European interests, while conducting crackdowns on any churches based in America with branches in Europe. You could also invest into cybercrime, and try to just steal all the bitcoin to fund a European renaissance, while forging American dollars in the gajillions to fuel American inflation while buying all the things.

But you asked me what a focused and thoughtful actor would do. And what a thoughtful and focused planner would do is practice strategic patience and wait while building up strength until they are ready, because thought reveals the need (I am not ready), and focus delivers the patience (I will prioritize getting ready before acting for my own satisfaction).

If doing so also happens to give grounds for further strategic cooperation... that's not a humiliation. Or rather, it shouldn't be, unless there's an issue with having to entice a military alliance when you need one. But there's already that concession going on- just referring to Europe as Europe collectively.

More comments

Why is it so important not to break kayfabe?

I agree with Trump and Vance that Zelenskyy is working against peace and deserved the dressdown. If this chastens him and leads to peace, any amount of incivility will be worth it. Ukrainian conscripts are still dying every day.

What peace proposal is there? Suppose they let Russia keep the land they've already annexed with the only concession to stop fighting (already a bad precedent). Then in a few months, after they're refreshed a bit, Russia comes up with some dumb pretext to attack the rest of Ukraine. What mechanism exists to stop them that time that does not exist right now? There's so much distrust I don't see why Ukraine would agree to this.

Without any durable security guarantees from the US, it doesn't seem like peace is tractable.

What peace proposal is there?

With Zelenskyy still in power, it seems unlikely that there will be one.

It is not the responsibility of the US to protect Ukraine, a country halfway around the world. I can understand Trump's exasperation with Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy is the one with his hat in his hand, asking for American blood and treasure. He should act like it. And yeah, the commando look is wearing thin.

The correct move for the US here is a large aid and weapons package that is conditional on a peace deal, and withdrawal if there is not. Perhaps the Europeans can step up, if they still want to prosecute the war under Zelenskyy.

But there should be no US security guarantees. In fact, these should be explicitly denied to prevent a repeat of misinterpretations of the Budapest Memorandum.

I can't tell what Trump (or Vance) is actually mad about besides Zelensky not being sufficiently obsequious.

Zelensky, essentially unprompted, heavily implied that diplomacy with Putin would be ineffective without concrete security guarantees (i.e. a promise of boots on the ground, if not now then at least in the future). Trump and Vance didn't think it was the right time to be discussing that. It spiraled out from there.

You can argue that it should have been handled better, but I don't think you can say that the exchange was irrational, or that it was solely based on an abstract notion of "disrespect".

I'm referring to 1:20 in this clip when Zelensky said "can I ask you...?"

Vance's preceding comment did not demand a response. It was already complete and self-contained. Zelensky could have simply smiled and said nothing and none of this would have happened.

Why should he? If he believes diplomacy with putin to be ineffective, but the trump administration refuses to provide security guarantees, then isn't this the correct response? What other support can he get when "diplomacy" so far involved talks with russia without Ukraine and strongarming them to pay back freely given support?

Also, to me it does not seem like " Trump and Vance didn't think it was the right time to be discussing that", it seems like they were affronted that he dared to disagree.

I'm really confused about how anyone is interpreting this as Zelensky being unreasonable or childish. Trump spent the first 30 seconds essentiay badmouthing Zelensky, during which time Zelensky sat there quietly and didn’t react. Around the 1:20 mark when Vance mentioned negotiation, Zelensky very calmly and defferentially said "Can I ask you something?" It wasn't in a heated or charged way--he was clearly trying to engage in rational discussion. He even said, "I'm not speaking just of Biden, it was president Obama, and President Trump, and President Biden, and now president Trump, and God bless now President Trump will stop him. But in 2014 nobody stopped him (Putin) he just occupied amlnd took. He killed people. . ." And he goes on to piint out that for 8 years, he tried to negotiate with Putin and that he actually signed a ceasefire in 2019.

What part of that is problematic? What part of that should have caused negotiations to blow up? You're telling me that somehow Zelensky didn't phrase something exactly right and that set Trump off and Zelensky's at fault because he shojld have known better? Not the guy who flies off the handle when someone says something that in any way challenges what he wants to hear, no matter how calmly, kindly or rationally?

Everything from Vance looked to me like a performance intended to make it appear as if for some reason Zelensky was doing something inappropriate, but i can't figure out what he's actually complaining about. "We tried to negotiate. What do you want us to do? ", "you didn't do negotiations that would bring peace, dummy. How dare you come here and say otherwise in front of the media?"

I literally can't believe that anyone is falling for Vance doing anything other than trying to put on a self aggrandizing performance here.

This ignores the 40 minutes before when Zelensky took subtle digs etc.

I mean, there is a lot of subtext when you actually answer, yeah, why didn't anyone stop Putin in 2014? Because the answer, nakedly, is "Because Ukraine isn't worth it." It wasn't worth it to anyone. It wasn't worth it to Obama, it wasn't worth it to Europe that bought cheap Russian carbon energy for the next 7 years, it wasn't worth it to anyone.

Why was it worth it in 2022? It's hard to look past the deranging effect attacks on Trump along the Russian axis had on people. None of the moral, political, or economic calculus has changed since 2014. The only thing that changed is Trump and Russiagate. You also had a lot of warmongers with nothing to do since Biden forced them to quit Afghanistan.

It doesn't seem like Zelensky knows this. He thinks he's been able to get anything he wants because of the merit of his cause. He doesn't realize he's been riding the coat tails of TDS.

So, what part of that should have caused negotiations to blow up? The part where we are only in this mess because the American Intelligence services fabricated a criminal conspiracy involving their commander in chief. The part where Zelensky presumed he was in any position to ask for anything from anyone. The part where he failed to adequately appreciate why hatred for the man across from him was the only reason he got anything in the first place.

Why was it worth it in 2022?

Putin failed to provide a fait accompli that made interference seem pointless and/or Biden isn't Obama?

And, of course, "we thought he'd be restrained and stick to Crimea" appears stupid in hindsight but isn't exactly unthinkable.

I think it's worth synthesizing this with the claim elsewhere in the thread that Obama took an unusually mild response to the 2014 invasion in order to stand by his infamously pro-Russia line in the 2012 debate with Romney.

Let's take everything you're saying at face value and I'll concede what I'd otherwise consider dubious or false claims in your post.

What do you think the point of even inviting Zelensky was? What concessions was the US expecting that he didn’t offer? What SHOULD he have said in that meeting to make things go more smoothly? What part of that indicated that Zelensky was, in the moment, changing the terms of any deal the US and Ukraine had planned to agree to? All he did was point out that Russia can't be trusted to hold to the terms of a peace deal and that Russia will not be a good ally to the US long term. He was calm and defferential in the dace of a lot of insults. The things you just talked about have nothing to do with what Zelensky said or did in that meeting. He said thank you over and over again and didn't argue with any offensive comments made toward him peraonally. All he did was point out that Russia isn't a trustworthy ally, which aside from Trump, the US generally acknowledges. So what did you expect Zelensky to do differently TODAY and why?

Well, I'm seeing this analysis making the rounds. Judge for yourself. It's long, I've abbreviated it slightly.

Richard Hanania

When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.

You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.

In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.

The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.

The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.

More comments

"Have you said thank you?" "Yes, frequently." "But have you said thank you today?"

This is the way you talk to a child, not a junior partner. The US has bought vast amounts of soft power in Ukraine and a permanent ally on the doorstep of its long-term geopolitical adversary, and is squandering those expensive gains for the sake of Trump's TV show.

If I only thank Republicans for something the government did and skip thanking Democrats when the chance arises it wouldn't be too shocking they'd potentially be somewhat miffed.

Sorry if this feels like dogpiling, but Russia is not an important geopolitical adversary of the U.S.

  • In 1989, the Soviet Union had a greater population than the US and a GDP about 50% as large.

  • In 2024, Russia's population is only about 40% of the US and its GDP is only 7% as large.

Russia is largely relevant only because of its nuclear arsenal and natural resources. Ukraine matters even less. It's GDP is only about 0.5% that of the US. Russia is not our main adversary, nor is Ukraine an important ally. If they were in the Russian sphere of influence (not saying they should be) it would be completely immaterial to the US.

Russia is China's closest ally, the primary sponsor of Iran and North Korea, and it has led a series of coups in West Africa against US-backed regimes. It has conducted multiple assassinations in allied countries. It has literally attacked US troops in Syria. It seized large numbers of US assets (and several US citizens) at the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine. It is currently under the most comprehensive sanctions regime run by the US against anyone. I can see a case for China being the greater threat to the US in the long-run (though I don't buy it myself), but if Russia isn't at least #2 then I have literally no clue who else would be.

Iran, perhaps?

Depends how much you want the US in the middle east.

Iran without Russia would be a significantly diminished force, to a greater degree than Russia without Iran. I also don't see Iran as a particularly credible threat to the US's (limited) interests in the region at this point, especially with Assad gone, Hizbollah weakened, and Hamas shattered.

Zelensky is asking for American boys to die on the steppe in Ukraine on the other side of the world. And he's spent years trying to get that to happen. Honestly, quite a bit more should have been required of Zelensky.

The US has bought vast amounts of soft power in Ukraine and a permanent ally on the doorstep of its long-term geopolitical adversary, and is squandering those expensive gains for the sake of Trump's TV show.

Hardly, Ukraine is losing the war and has no path to victory. The only question left is how much Russia wants to take. And the only thing which stops that is vast escalation by a coalition putting boots on the ground in Russia to stop them. The European militaries are little more than paper jobs programs with empty armories.

The only country which isn't is Poland and you notice their behavior lately? They have no interest either. This is all about Europeans trying to get Americans to fight their war for them against Russia. No thanks; if Europeans want sovereignty they're going to have to earn it. If they want to fight Russia, they're going to have to convince their populations to hop into the shredder like so many poor Ukrainians.

Trump was trying to get some deal where Ukraine gets the "soft security guarantee" of Americans have property and interest in the country which would mean ongoing American interest in the long-term which should deter Russians from taking the rest of the country. This is something the Russians may accept. They will not accept and will not end the war if any European troops or "peacekeepers" are on the ground there. They will just keep fighting.

Instead, Zelensky attempted to push for hard security guarantees in front of cameras, which means a promise for American boys dying in Ukraine. So now, that's all likely lost.

I am curious what you think about this security guarantee: Russia gets to keep the land it annexed, which is more Russian aligned anyway (right?), but the rest of Ukraine gets to join NATO.

That offer is DOA because it would put NATO military within 300mi from Moscow. Russia has repeatedly stated no NATO membership for Ukraine and constitutionally guaranteed neutrality, but if the border was pushed back significantly (like the Dnieper River significantly) they may find it acceptable enough given some other concessions like having at least part of it demilitarized.

My analysis is based on my belief that Russia is winning the war, that the only reason the lines are the way they are is because Moscow prefers the fighting to happen in the east closer to Russian territory where they can demilitarize Ukraine by destroying its armies and burning its equipment (and the treasuries and armories of Europe to boot) and, most sadly, a shocking amount of Ukraine's best. As time goes on, this will just get worse until we have a Germany in 1944-45 situation where collapse leads to a slaughter of their remaining military forces.

The US has already used most of its leverage in the Biden administration. The only thing left is to appeal to Russia to avoid the butcher's bill, but given the above Russia has already paid most of the cost and political will so they're going to need a whole lot to stop.

That offer is DOA because it would put NATO military within 300mi from Moscow

Why is that the magic number? Maybe the map is distorting things but Ukraine being in NATO doesn't seem much different than Finland, Latvia and Estonia being nearby and much closer to St Petersburg and not that far from Moscow. Ukraine minus Donbas buffer seems like more of the same spitting distance.

The US has already used most of its leverage in the Biden administration. The only thing left is to appeal to Russia to avoid the butcher's bill, but given the above Russia has already paid most of the cost and political will so they're going to need a whole lot to stop.

Leverage: we could just say okay this bullshit has gone on long enough. The unilateral peace deal is the free part of Ukraine is part of NATO now. Keep Crimea and Donbas etc. Well played, Putin, you got your buffer. Now kindly cut the shit or our air forces will light you up.

Are they going to nuke over that? Seems unlikely.

It's because the Russians believe it's close enough to give the US first strike capability which it will not allow. And if NATO moved cruise missiles into the Baltic states or Finland, I expect Russia would do something about it. The various security agreements Russia has with the US are meant to make sure this doesn't happen. Russia's nuclear arsenal aren't around St. Petersburg for that reason.

You can quibble with whether you believe or disbelieve the Russians claims, but at the end of the day that's what they've stated and why they've said they will not allow Ukraine to be in NATO. This was ignored all the way up until December 2021 when it became pretty clear Russia's "security concerns" were about to be made real whether you believe them or not.

And that's why your "security guarantee" is DOA.

We could just say okay this bullshit has gone on long enough.

Sure, the US could also just launch nuclear weapons and let God sort it out.

Now kindly cut the shit or our air forces will light you up.

No, the US and European air forces would suffer catastrophic casualties if they tried to do something like this, so Russia would call their bluff and it wouldn't happen.

Are they going to nuke over that? Seems unlikely.

Oh? Nuclear Armageddon where hundreds of millions die is unlikely? Okay, well I guess let's just push it. After all, we desperate need land on Russia's border in the NATO alliance because... well who cares, Russia has to make the substantive case why we shouldn't!

And what if, instead, they decide to nuke Ukraine and maybe nuke some of the bases those planes are stationed at in some eastern European countries in response? Are we going to embrace nuclear Armageddon over that? I doubt it.

Sorry, but this just isn't serious.

No, the US and European air forces would suffer catastrophic casualties if they tried to do something like this, so Russia would call their bluff and it wouldn't happen.

I'm fairly skeptical Russia has a meaningful response to NATO air power but we can call me a Kool Aid drinker if you like.

Oh? Nuclear Armageddon where hundreds of millions die is unlikely? Okay, well I guess let's just push it.

It doesn't really logically follow that supposing the West surrenders substantial territory and the war can end, it's not enough and Russia is going to push the big red button and now everyone dies. That is the opposite of improving Russia's security posture!

After all, we desperate need land on Russia's border in the NATO alliance because... well who cares, Russia has to make the substantive case why we shouldn't!

As has been demonstrated, countries that aren't part of NATO get invaded by Russia and there's that whole substantive case of the rules based order where you don't get to just conquer nations because it would totes help quiet your paranoia.

More comments

Are they going to nuke over that? Seems unlikely.

And if they nuke ukraine over that, are we going to go full-MAD? Also seems unlikely.

We don't need nuclear weapons to open a can of whup ass on Russia. We can use our conventional forces for that and the gloves will be off if they use nukes in a war of conquest.

And even if we obliterate all of their power projection capability, it's still better for them to just take that and not choose suicide by nuking us directly.

The only reason we need to use nukes is to guarantee Armageddon if they nuke us.

More comments

Zelensky is asking for American boys to die on the steppe in Ukraine on the other side of the world.

I thought he was still just asking for materiel. When did he request troops?

The US has already sent lots of material. Ukraine and Europe want American security guarantees which means American soldiers and military in Ukraine protecting it from Russia. In my opinion, this whole fiasco is trying to manipulate the US into giving a guarantee so that Europe and Ukraine can get the US to fight this war for them. First it started with Europeans talking about "peacekeepers," but only with American security guarantees. The Russians will not allow European troops in Ukraine which means they will bomb European troops which go into Ukraine which would trigger the security guarantees.

This is why both the Biden admin and the Trump admin refuse to give such guarantees.

Jesus Christ. Zelenskyy, all you had to do was eat your humble pie and suck up to Trump for an hour or two. Macron and Starmer have been working day and night to coax him back. All for nothing!

This is really not giving Trump and Vance enough credit. Whatever you feel about the mineral deal, cease fire, American support, none of that really matters here if the only differentiating factor is how much abuse can Zelenskyy personally take. I believe that at least Vance is capable of separating the merits of these international deals from how servile Zelenskyy pretends to be today. As in, if the deal is bad, then it shouldn't be signed regardless if Zelensky is sucking up to them today or not. And vice-versa if the deal is good.

Vance isn't the one making the decisions, and Trump is notoriously fickle. Why does he like Starmer? Solely based on sucking up to him in conversation, certainly not on policy.

True, Vance isn't the final decision maker, but he was instigating the exchange during the meeting.

Probably because he was sent into the desert to kill and die.

Again, are you American? Could you hold trump accountable even for a second for being a pathetic putin fan ? The whole thing was planned. You don't bring an ally that has been in a 3 year war to protect your interests as well and treat him like that. Can you guys not see that?

  • -20

If I were president in 1992 I'd have unilaterally unwound NATO and pursued an alliance with Russia.

I have staunchly opposed the Ukraine war because I've firmly believed the only two results from this are world war 3 or Russia pulls Ukraine back into it's sphere. Ukraine has never been not worth WWIII.

Tbh, I'd prefer Putin to rule all of Europe because I don't think he's as likely as the current governments to let Rotterdams happen.

Do you mean Rotherham?

Ukraine is not an ally of the US. We have entered no treaty as such and have no obligations. We have shipped them armaments to the tune of 100-250 billion dollars out of mutual interest. If the US is attacked by Canada today, tomorrow, or ten years from now, Ukraine is not sending troops, arms, or aid. Ukraine is not entitled to our money.

Russia is a hostile nation, a rogue state, and our geopolitical adversary, but it is not our enemy. We are not at war with Russia and owning Putin is not our goal.

Our actual European allies, NATO or otherwise, are not entitled to our money on behalf of the defense of Ukraine. If Europe wants to indefinitely fund a stalemate, go for it, but fund it too well and risk a nuclear war. Just because we have crossed 5 red lines with no consequence doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Yes they are. An ally is not only an ally if they send you troops when you are attacked. Will Israel send troops if you are attacked? Yet your president ( and me too ) think Israel is an ally of the US. In fact by your very basic analysis of what ally means the US has no real allies. You support them because it's objectively in your interest to support them because you are part of NATO and NATO countries border russia who has imperialist designs on them. Pretty clear right?

  • -13

Israel may not be one of them, but for many allied nations, including NATO, they would have a legal treaty obligation to send troops to devend the US if attacked. Whether they actually would is a different question but they have agreed to it.

I'm not American, but I understand realpolitik.

Trump could be the most pro-slavophile Manchurian agent, literally handpicked by the FSB to bring down America from within, and it still wouldn't matter - he's the American president. He holds the fate of not only Ukraine, but of many nations in his whim. When you're a leader of a nation, when you hold the welfare of millions of your countrymen with your every action you do whatever is necessary to ensure their prosperity and happiness. And that includes winning over the leaders of foreign nations, even if you don't like them. Especially if they're more powerful than you.

Zelensky makes the mistake of thinking he is the equal of the US president. He's not. He's the leader of some backwards Eastern European state that most Americans couldn't point to on a map, even after two years bombarded on the news. And not only that, he's coming hat in hand to ask for blood and treasure - He's asking for an American security guarantee. Trump can get away with humiliating the Europeans because he has the hard power to do it. Zelensky - and Ukraine by proxy - cannot afford to morally grandstand for the Europeans when his nation's very existance is at stake. The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.

Clearly you don't understand realpolitik as well as you think. Embarassing an ally by speaking to him like that is not something you can get away with and I struggle to see why you think so, especially when you are clearly licking the boot of the enemy to do it . This isn't high school . America's standing in the world is already starting to erode and I hope it erodes faster and more decisively going forward.

  • -20

You keep referring to Russia as the enemy when the voters who put Trump in power view DC and EU elite with significantly more disdain than they do Putin. No Russian ever called me cishet white male.

"He can't keep getting away with it..!"

Yes. Yes he can. He's the President of the United States.

There is a word for this. Arrogance. I can't even comprehend the level of arrogance you are showing. Pretty disgusting.

The whole thing was planned

Planned by whom?

By trump and vance. They pressured zelensky with nonsense until he either had to completely bow down or speak up. Of course he reacted to the vitriol spewed against him like any serious person. So either trump and vance are clueless narcissists (possible) or they had this planned.

  • -10

This is an interesting one screens different show situation.

Some see: https://www.themotte.org/post/1701/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/303464?context=8#context

I see: Zelensky revealed as a child. Continues wearing his costume, refuses to negotiate, starts throwing a tantrum in from of the people funding his war, refuses to show any grace whatsoever. JD asking if he has said thank you was the perfect “out” for him to backtrack, explain how Ukraine is forever indebted to the American people, and how Ukraine owes us their existence and has a friend forever as a result of the help we’ve shown them (wether he actually thinks this or not).

But he doesn’t. He just keeps pushing, and Trump and JD, who hold ALL of the leverage in this situation, respond predictably.

The mineral deal is a deal that helps Ukraine, not the US. We don’t need their minerals. They need us to come and protect them from Russia.

My worry is: this pushes us closer to WW3. We need people building off-ramps (like what Trump is trying to do here), not entrenching themselves further (what Z is doing).

I was under the impression the phrase was, one screen two movies. We see the same things, but the story we tell is wildly different.

You’re right. I totally mixed it up.

I say it's probably a good thing the mineral deal fell through.

It would expose the US to the contention that we would only be doing this because we want their worthless minerals or even for Trump to benefit financially. Few would see it for what it really is, a generous de-facto security guarantee.

But he doesn’t. He just keeps pushing, and Trump and JD, who hold ALL of the leverage in this situation, respond predictably.

He isn't wrong to ask for concrete guarantees that weren't actually in the mineral deal. Pointing out that Russia already broke the agreements in connection with this conflict isn't pushing, it's just plain and simple statement of facts - there's no reason to assume that Putin won't break the deal again. Vance and Trump refuse to even acknowledge this point, while continuing to talk to Putin behind Zelensky's back.

I'm pro-Zelensky taking an L, sucking up to Trump and stopping the war at all cost, but this can't happen without the guarantee that in some way shape or form prevents another invasion in the future.

Two screens is an understatement.

I mean, Trump does himself no favors going off on more awkwardly phrased rants about the Biden Laptop, Russiagate, The Spies Who Lie, etc when the matter before him is ending the Ukrainian War. It's... lets say subtle whatever it was Zelensky said or did which set him off.

That said, despite Trump practically exploding in rage, he had Zelensky dead to rights on a few inarguable points. He's gambling with WW3, he has zero cards in this situation, and peace is the only thing that can save his nation even fractionally.

Zelensky is the president of a vassal state, and he needed to be put in his place, even if the Trump is fairly intemperate. Hard as it is to watch, the counterfactual where Trump doesn't get angry and humiliate Zelensky, and yet Zelensky discovers some humility anyways and becomes willing to negotiate a peace that doesn't involve dragging the US into WW3 is impossible to imagine. And you've basically either made peace with or, or enjoy, Trumps inappropriate in a politician disposition, or the next four years for you will be rough.

He's gambling with WW3

What is it with Russian shills and this stock phrase? What on earth is in their mind? I'm mystified.

A "World War" needs multiple nations around that world to be at war. Presumably highly developed ones of equal relatively strength. There are no other nations. There's Russia, maybe North Korea, and that's it. China is certainly not going to get involved. Who else? India? Japan? Brazil? If NATO/Europe gets involved it's over for Russia. The only thing I can think of is it means nuclear missiles.

The only thing I can think of is it means nuclear missiles.

Thats it.

China's involvement comes presumably through taking advantage of the distraction to invade Taiwan.

He's gambling with WW3

This kind of thing always reminds me of Richard Hanania tweeting:

"lt's aways World War III with these people. We're never on the brink of a medium sized conflict like the Iran-Iraq War."

Well, we're currently in a medium sized conflict like the Iran-Iraq war. So it's hard to see what it could escalate to except a big conflict.

We are sleepwalking into the Second War of Jenkin’s Ear

The inevitable conclusion for this framing is that our leaders are also man-children but they are allowed to be because we are more powerful. Which is fine, that's how the world works, but morally it amounts to throwing stones from a glass house and it's far better to be the adults in the room.

The mineral deal is a deal that helps Ukraine, not the US. We don’t need their minerals. They need us to come and protect them from Russia.

I don't think this is true. The mineral deal that I found said nothing about military assistance or security guarantees. Instead, by my brief reading, it only creates a Fund that both the US and Ukraine can contribute to which reinvests into Ukraine with the US benefiting from the proceeds of this investment. The idea, of course, is that if the US invests in Ukraine, then we are invested in their future and we'll help them to win the war, or, being realistic, at least to not lose too badly. However, there are no mandate for the size or timeline of the US investment, which is problematic given how mercurial our current administration is. To Ukraine, this deal probably doesn't offer anything other than possibly appeasing Trump while concretely signing away natural resource revenues.

Ukraine doesn't even have meaningful amounts of minerals. This whole talking point is completely empty.

Ukraine has no significant rare-earth deposits other than small scandium mines. The US Geological Survey, an authority on the matter, doesn’t list the country as holding any reserves. Neither does any other database commonly used in the mining business. At best, the value of all the world’s rare-earth production rounds to $15 billion a year — emphasis on “a year.” That’s equal to the value of just two days of global oil output. Even if Ukraine had gigantic deposits, they wouldn’t be that valuable in geo-economic terms.

Say that Ukraine was able, as if by magic, to produce 20% of the world’s rare earths. That would equal to about $3 billion annually. To reach the $500 billion mooted by Trump, the US would need to secure 150-plus years of Ukrainian output.

Take, for instance, titanium. In 2023 the entire world market for the hard, super-light metal was $31 billion. Last year, Ukraine exported just $11.6 million – not billion – of titanium-bearing minerals. Though in theory some 7 per cent of the world’s reserves of titanium are under Kyiv’s control, it will take an investment of billions to create refining capacity to make more valuable and exportable titanium sponge. Even then, seven per cent of the world market would amount to gross sales of just over $2 billion a year.

It’s the same story with lithium. In Lindsey Graham’s imaginary world, Ukraine’s estimated 500,000 tonnes of reserves could be worth between $10 billion and $12.5 billion at current prices. But world lithium sales in 2024 were just $37 billion... according to a recent report by BNE Intellinews, “Kyiv has yet to even begin exploiting its deposits [and] produces no lithium.” Some of the most promising deposits at Kruta Balka deposits in the Zaporizhzhia region are partially under Russian control

It's too expensive to send Ukraine weapons, but also we must put boots on the ground and invest tens of billions into Gaza to make it an Israeli Monaco, or something. None of this is coherent.

Ukraine doesn't even have meaningful amounts of minerals. This whole talking point is completely empty.

Am I missing something? Doesn't that effectively mean Trump was offering to bail out Ukraine essentially for free, and all he asked is a token that he can show to his supporters that he was looking out for their interest in the process of these negotiations?

No, it means the entire deal was worthless. The deal wasn't that the US would continue to support Ukraine militarily in exchange for mineral interests; that's what Zelensky was gunning for. The actual deal on the table was that Ukraine would grant the US rights to 50% of the revenue in Ukrainian rare earths, the idea being that it would give the US skin in the game to keep Russia from advancing further into the country. Of course, if defending these interests is more expensive than the interests are worth, you aren't going to defend them. The whole thing was essentially a modest giveaway. This is why Zelensky kept insisting an a real security guarantee.

Minor elaboration (Actually- major elaboration but if I took the time to write it all up by gosh I'll take advantage of it-)

The relevant 50% clause was this-

The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), defined as deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure) as agreed by both Participants, as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine.

Which is to say that the US government never gets rights to the money. Rather, the US government gets rights to the management of the fund, the degree of which would be determined later and have to be approved by Ukraine.

If the US had a functional veto over the fund, it could black how the fund was used, but this isn't the same as control.

This is, however, a potentially major sovereignty-infringing demand, since the 50% of all revenues of ALL relevant resource assets could also include all new future projects- regardless of if the US was involved in them. IE, even European-funded mineral projects would funnel revenue (not profits- revenue) into the US-UKR fund.

This would have huge distorting powers over the Ukrainian economy, to American benefit, since an American veto would mean powers either have to include American firms or some other benefit to the US for an American blessing.

The relevant spending clause to directly benefit the Americans would have been-

The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.

Any expense the Fund's American and Ukrainian managers agreed was acceptable- with no limits on acceptability- could use the 50% revenues going into the fund. If, hypothetically, that included American arms sales as an 'actual expense incurred by the newly developed project,' well that's not un-approvable.

The relevant not-security-guarantee clause was

The Participants reserve the right to take such action as necessary to protect and maximize the value of their economic interests in the Fund.

Which bears probably deliberate parallels to

take "such action as it deems necessary."

Which is the NATO Article 5 language, i.e. about as strong as American security guarantees get.

So the 'hook' is the mineral fund with American oversight, the scale of the influence was the bribe to keep the Americans in, the ability to charge the fund for American-approved expenses was the payment mechanism, and the 'reserve the right to protect our investment (which would be lost if Ukraine goes down)' was the quasi/not-security guarantee.

Can you find the part of the deal where Trump offers to bail out Ukrain in any way?

Not only was he offering a bailout for free to save face in front of his constituency, but most of those "minerals"/natural resources are already under Russian territorial control.

Again , what a problematic analysis. The only children in this situation is the fools you guys voted to the white house. They need you to protect them from Russia but haven't really said anything about actually protecting them? You are just demanding the minerals. The only thing pushing us closer to WW3 is Putin's lapdog that will allow him to go for the baltics next. When everything you are saying is a copy paste of Russian propaganda maybe you should really take a breather and think through whether your news sources are corrupted.

  • -22

Zelenskyy

Wait, is the "yy" spelling official now? When I saw it from Trump I was sure he was trolling, but now you and another top level poster wrote it this way, and I'm second-guessing myself. Is this some elaborate ruse that all Americans agreed to participate in?

It's like that on his wiki page for what it's worth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy.

The transliterations from Ukrainian to English have some gray areas from what I've read.

They could have decided that Europe can back them up, and having as big a row as possible is the best way to keep the war in the European news cycle.

"Support Ukraine or you're on Trump's side" is probably the fastest way to get a German panzer division rolling east these days. After all their new government is interested in using remilitarization to keep the economy going, and could certainly use more gas supplies. They don't even have to beat France and Poland first this time.

So you guys would all be ok with being embarassed and talked down on by two bufoons talking nonsense? And you think Zelensky should have just stayed quiet or else he has a plan to force the Europeans to back Ukraine? Maybe he is just a serious guy that has a limit on how much nonsense he can take? I certainly couldn't take the nonsense those two clowns spewed for too long.

  • -16

Really? Keep his pride contained? Maybe Trump can stop being putin's little bitch for more then a minute? They brought him there to embarass him and talk down to him. In any case their involvement in the deal does nothing for Ukraine since they were basically willing to do whatever putin asked. Better for everyone for them to stay uninvolved.

  • -20

Trump can stop being putin's little bitch for more then a minute?

This is... a little intense. Trump is trying to end the war and protect American interests, at least allegedly.

It's not intense enough. I'll go further.

Trump is a traitor to the USA, and we need to start seriously discussing imprisonment or a bullet to the brain. I'm serious.

I don't know if he's just a natural slave, so addled by age that he's easily manipulated and totally confused, or he really is compromised by Kremlin agents, but either way, he is not an American. He is a Russian (and Israeli, let's be real) stooge that has infiltrated the highest levels of American government.

What's more galling and troubling is his pathetic followers are so fucking stupid, immoral, and spiritually weak that they will mindlessly follow his treason. This hasn't been said much outloud because it's too "unkind" and extreme, but it's time to face the music. One of the definitive characteristics of modern "conservatism"/Republicanism is stupidity (for white people), and a low capacity for morality, and most of all, an extremely weak ability to think for oneself. A highly servile disposition prone to seeking out daddy/leader figures. NPCism combined with resentful hatred, insecurity, and confusion.

What that means, disturbingly, is one traitor in the Alpha Brain leadership means now a legion of NPCs, on display right here, mindlessly "sanewashing" and realigning their "thinking" with the new gibberish. They betray and try to sabotage America, their own home, too, because they can't think better for themselves. Fucking enraging and beyond pathetic. The most powerful nation in the world, a puppet of some semi-3rd world dictatorship shithole in the east (and that one less 3rd worldish nation in the desert). All because a huge segment of the USA chooses to be, or naturally is, mental invalids.

Or maybe it's what was just said, but Trump is such a narcissist he thinks he can pull a straight up "we have always been at war with Eastasia." Maybe just as a power move or something. Again, depressingly, he is at least right with some. I guess that could also be it.

  • -20

Trump is a traitor to the USA, and we need to start seriously discussing imprisonment or a bullet to the brain. I'm serious.

No, we really don't.

If there is one view we are going to ban here, it's "serious" discussions of assassinations.

Despite your username, you've managed to hang around for years without being banned, but I'm giving you a week off, and if you ever fedpost like this again, I will just go straight to permaban.

Was Trump a Russian stooge when, from 2017-2020, he was arming Ukraine and placing sanctions on Russia and Russians?

Calling Trump supporters dumb, immoral, and spiritually weak hasn't been said much out loud? That's basically been an NYT, WaPo, LATimes, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc., headline every day for the last 8 years. Don't forget racist and fascist, too.

As far as I can tell, the entirety of elite EU identity is based around saying and thinking the worst people in the world are white southerners who drive pickup trucks.

You don't protect American interest's by giving Ukraine to Putin. And you certainly don't protect american interest's by scolding allies that are fighting your enemy for 3 years live on camera. What that does is show to the world that you are unserious and not to be trusted. Pretty simple.

  • -17

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