site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   33649 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.

My impression of historical US-Euro relations is that while realpolitik was always an important component, there was a sense of shared ideology (liberal democracy) and cultural history that strengthened the bond relative to, say, US-Egyptian or US-Indonesian relations. We were the "free countries," we were the "Western nations," and until recently, we were "Christian nations." However, mass immigration, multiculturalism and its consequent curtailing of civil liberties, and militant secularism and progressivism seem to have severely weakened those identies in Europe and made room new identities to assert themselves.

I see US-Euro relations decaying to the more transactional relations that the U.S. has with culturally alien countries. European countries making noises about cozying up to China sounds bizarre when operating under the assumption that the old identities hold, but it actually makes sense if Europeans now simply view China and America as two ideologically-alien superpowers who offer different sets of incentives and obligations and who can be played off one another for benefit.

I think a lot of the outrage about "European ingratitude" from the American right is caused by right wingers failing to realize that European 2025 is not the Europe of 1950, or even 1990. Many Europeans seem to already view America as ideologically alien and thus view the relationship as totally transactional. It would be like expressing gratitude to your ISP for providing internet service after you sign a contract and pay your bill. Trump's more transactional approach aligns with this new reality, and so it's probably a good thing -- unless you're an American progressive, in which case, since you hold religious beliefs in common with European progressives, you probably view this development as needless division and infighting amongst enlightened nations that diverts time and energy away from pushing back the ever-encroaching forces of ignorance and oppression. That said, I sense a rift between American and European progressives as well, mostly in complaints from more traditional European socialists who see American "woke" progressivism as an irrelevant distraction from material problems and/or a form of American political and cultural imperialism. So perhaps even the bonds between progressives on either sides of the Atlantic are fraying and will not be strong enough to maintain a US-Euro relationship beyond the merely transactional.

This explanation is certainly too pat, and there's more nuance to be explored, but do you think this is more or less the direction in which things are heading?

After you sign a contract and pay your bill

I think that's the issue though, no? The Europeans haven't paid their bill. The transactional approach is falling apart because there is no transaction - just one-sided behavior.

To abuse the metaphor, it would be like Local ISP was a local business that had been giving you low pricing because your kids went to the same school and to maintain market share in your town. But now, your town has grown into a large city. The company has been bought out by BigTelecom. Jimmy, the owner's nephew whom you used to call when your internet stopped working, has been replaced by "Johnny" located in Bangalore. And there's no chance of you switching to another ISP as you can't afford the fees to break the contract. So now Local ISP ("A BigTelecom corporation!") is raising rates, because while they still provide you with internet service, they no longer see you as a human being, just another KPI on a spreadsheet to fiddle with in the quest to maximize BigTelecom's profits.

No, there was a deal in place, and I'd say it was skewed in favor of the US, Europeans doing their part just fine. Now US wants to have and eat the cake both, because competition with Chyna is a daunting proposition without bold/desperate moves.

My pet lowbrow armchair sociological theory is: there is no drift apart, there is instead an incredibly high level of cultural, ideological, whatever coupling. When any bigger US issue du jour appears on an US-centric forum like this, it shows up here in Europe a bit later, usually as a malformed parody version of itself, often on high levels of public life and politics. As a prime exhibit, see our Finnish center-left party head doing an over the top cringy imitation after Obama got elected. Or in the pandemic times, in quick succession, we first got a condemnation of local antivaxxers protesting when the act of gathering in a crowd might spread the disease, followed by it being excellent to gather up in a crowd to protest in solidarity of BLM. Likewise the local anti-immigration right parties run very much on American import anti-woke memes. The US cultural influence somehow inflicts on us the animal spirits of whatever is going on over the Atlantic, no matter how out of place in the local circumstances or logically inconsistent with itself the result is, and we go helplessly along.

Because of this this coupling, we won't sound very friendly and grateful toward the US no matter what -- we run too much on material copied from the US, and the content of it is all wrong for that. The local population more influenced by US progressive thinking will have a lot of imported self-flagellating anti-American memes to chew on (sometimes weirdly idolizing Scandinavia so at least we're getting a healthy boost in national self-esteem out of it). The folks inspired by current Trumpish thinking from the US right maybe aren't that flavor of anti-American, but will also not be America First, but of course rather rah-rah Finland First or Portugal First or Poland First.

If America someday feels like really warming up the transatlantic relationship, it just needs to develop a mainstream cultural worldview by whose standards America is just fine, and which is universalist enough that if you make a garbled copy and search-replace the word 'America' with 'Belgium' it doesn't turn into 'Belgium is the greatest country in the world, every other country (such as America) is run by little girls'. We'll lap it up instantly. It doesn't have to be all the way universalist -- Biden's 'let's own the Russkies together' seemed to me to work to this purpose just fine while it lasted. Sadly it was also very easy for the US right to see that as a project of a self-interested Europe to fleece the US, I guess.

In Sweden we had a mass shooting where a man was kicked off welfare and then decided to kill 10 people at a welfare office before finishing himself. He screamed "not everyone should work" before letting off a few rounds. His energy seems to reflect the European attitude on paying for a military.

Currently the attitude in Sweden is beyond bizarre. John Bolton would be considered a tankie right now. Their, is just fanatical worship of the US military industrial complex combined view of any being in opposition to the US as a fundamentally evil. I have never before seen people justifying the invasion of Iraq and Vietnam at the scale happening now. The average Swede has been turned into a Dick Cheney, except they only see the world as good vs evil.

At the same time as they want complete and utter American domination of every corner of the world they are shitting all over Americans and talking about boycotts. To make matters worse, most people can't give any legitimacy to any other view point. There are true believers in the neo con project, people who are fundamentally evil and those who are brainwashed by Russians.

The same bizarre situation is going on in entire Western Europe. People talking about the need to decouple from the US, so we can defend Taiwan?? I think we are living through one of those periods confusion in history that will be sandpapered by near-term historians in accordance with the developments that takes place by then, only for some guy to open some dusty archives in 70 years and realize "wait a minute actual people 2025 had wildly idiosyncratic ideas that didn't fit at all into the 2039 galactic federation council's ideological splits!!"

The same bizarre situation is going on in entire Western Europe. People talking about the need to decouple from the US, so we can defend Taiwan??

One of the British podcasters I listen to (I don't recall which off the top of my head — maybe Parvini?) characterized this as Starmer and European elites, in response to Trump trying to pull back the US from its global empire, trying to figure out how keep the GAE going without America.

I have heard people talking about wanting to set up a SWIFT-alternative to defend the liberal world order. They basically want to create a woke version of BRICS.

They see American unipolar order as dangerous, so they want to create an alternative one in order to save the ideology of the American liberal world order.

I think a lot of our international politics was controlled by the US establishment, and now that Trump is winding that down theres some weird reactions.

There's also the specter of US soft-blob money (USAID, State, etc.) money drying up so people scrambling for new grifts over to hard-blob (DoD, NATO, security services generally).

The attitude in the UK is similarly bizarre. The government, other blob parties, and supportive institutions have become foreign policy hardliners in a context where those same governments have, at every opportunity over the last 30 years, adopted policies that weaken the UK's ability to fight against a peer power. And I don't just mean in strict military budget terms here. They can increase the military budget right now and this won't improve the situation because the current circumstances make effective utilization of a larger military budget impossible. I mean policies like:

  • Outsourcing. Relying on foreign, China-centric supply chains for industry is silly.
  • Green energy. Tanks and jets don't run on batteries. Frack to Fuel Fighters.
  • Legally empowered NIMBYism. How are you going to build the factories and bases for all this?
  • Judicial power and rulings. Why build a munitions factory if you'll get sued over rare spiders? Why fight Russia if you'll get charged for shooting them?
  • Weapon Bans. Legal access to firearms would both mean more experienced citizens and a potentially stronger occupation resistance. Instead the government is floating bans for kitchen knives with pointed ends.
  • Nationalism. Nobody has found a way to make effective modern armies other than nationalism, and usually ethnic nationalism at that.
  • Lockdowns. Shrinking the economy over a cold does not win wars.
  • Immigration. This does not turn into military manpower. More British Muslims joined ISIS than are in the British Army.
  • Two-tier laws. Dispossession of the demographics most likely to serve in the military is a terrible idea.
  • Coffin dodgers subsidies. Why fund pensions or the NHS at the expense of the 20 and 30-somethings who are actually going to fight your war?

A UK that has a small military but is prepped and ready to re-arm and oppose Russia is a UK that looks very different from the UK we actually have. More importantly, it would be an image of the UK that our current government would despise. Cynically, the government isn't genuinely interested in defence, they just see sabre-rattling over this as a good way to go after domestic dissent.

That IRA court ruling is one of the most insane things I've ever seen. I'm not exactly an expert in The Troubles but... wow.

Indeed, and all the sabre rattling and criticism of what it claims is right-wing extremism by the current government must be understood in the context that this is also a government that not only funds extremism in support of it's supposed enemies, but is legally obligated to do so by it's own institutions.

Much of this is, however, just two-tier. A hypothetical opponent perceived as right-wing, like Russia, probably wouldn't be protected in this manner by our courts. But good luck defending Taiwan from Communists, to name one example.

More British Muslims joined ISIS than are in the British Army

Do you have a link for that?

The UK seems to be in a really horrible and sad spot. Personally I would leave. From banning encryption, kitchen knives, to spending the money from an outrageous tax system on bringing in Muslims who don’t care a lick about western society. The weather isn’t even pleasant!

Is this was happens in Europe though? You go from turbo hivemind cucked socialism and then going to swing aggressively right into strong ethno-nationalism and provoke WWIII? History would make that seem so

spending the money from an outrageous tax system

Taxes in the UK are higher than in some low-tax US states (although places like Texas have very high property taxes, while the UK has almost none, particularly on expensive homes), but the difference with high tax US places like NYC or SF is pretty minimal.

Texas has very high sticker property taxes, but in practice established homeowners don't pay sticker price- there are a bevy of exemptions, and only people wealthy enough for second homes and landlords(and the low functioning, but most of those don't buy homes) have to pay the full amount for more than a year or two. Texas property taxes are still high but they aren't high enough to reach blue state levels of taxation.

It does appear that UK taxes are only slightly higher than the US. The real extreme outliers are in continental Europe.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/global/tax-burden-on-labor-oecd-2024/

But there's a big difference. UK taxation effects lower income people. For example, in the UK, all income above about $60k is taxed at 40%. And VAT is 20%.

In the US, on the other hand, a gigantic proportion of tax revenue comes from high income individuals. About half of federal income tax is paid by people making more than $500,000/year.

The UK, having few high earners compared to the US, is forced to extract eye-watering tax rates from middle class people. The UK tax system is both less progressive than the US, and there are fewer rich people. So regular people get squeezed hard in a way they don't in the US.

I doubt that’s true when factoring in VAT.

Since no one has mentioned it yet, I will discuss my hobby horse and mention that because of mass immigration the American population is only a little more than half ethnically European and that share is rapidly falling. It's silly to expect that such a country will maintain such close ties with Europe when American demographics are rapidly shifting towards becoming a group of people who see Europe as the people who oppressed their ancestors with colonialism. The American right is probably going to continue its tendency towards isolationism while the American left will gradually become anti-Europe in a milder version of the way it has already become anti-Israel.

Most of the newer Americans are Hispanic, who are as likely to see Europeans as their colonial ancestors who brought civilization to the primitives as they are as historical oppressors.

Seriously the racial tensions in the US are mostly African-American v everyone else and inflamed by the blue tribe, not white v non-white.

Yeah. Racial discourse in the US is so ridiculous when it comes to Hispanics.

Imagine being a Mexican who is like 90% white and considered an oppressor, then moving to the US where you are all of a sudden "brown" and some sort of minority charity case.

We tend to lump Hispanics together but levels of European admixture are all over the place. Many will fully assimilate and become indistinguishable from the rest of the white population.

I have met Latin American legal immigrants who felt offended at the implication that they were non-whites needing help in the face of discrimination, similar to how I would react to being offered a spot in an affirmative action for trailer trash program.

In this house we welcome human garbage like yourself. How we can we help you get back on your feet poor soul?

I agree with the trajectory, but I disagree with your claim on what's causing it, at least from the American perspective. I think it has more to do with some combination of a geopolitical changing of the tides and the fairly obvious cultural suicide that Europe has allowed to occur with their mass immigration.

The mass immigration is a symptom not the cause.

Are you talking about developed countries' dwindling populations and their attempts at alleviating that problem?

Yes

We probably agree on what the cause is. My emphasis on their when talking about Europeans is due to the type of immigration rather than me casting any blame at them for trying to fix their impending demographic problem. In the U.S., much of our immigration comes from Latin America which is largely Christian, with cultural values that overlap with American society. Europe on the other hand has imported large numbers of immigrants from cultures with very different legal, religious, and social norms. Both the U.S. and Europe face this degenerative population disease, but Europe’s prescription has made assimilation much harder and fueled deeper cultural fragmentation.

Same reason I find it hard to believe how much CANZUK cope is going around right now. It's just not the same populations anymore.

Europeans seem to already view America as ideologically alien

All we do is have people who mock Green politicians dragged out of their homes by the police and then criminally punished. And for this Americans criticize us. I guess we have little in common. Might as well side with the Chinese communists who also drag people away for criticizing their betters. Maybe they're our real ideological brethren.

I think it was unrealistic to expect the bond forged between Americans and Western Europeans in the trenches between 1917 and 1945 and then reinforced by another half-century of preparing for WWIII together to endure forever, especially once those events fell out of living memory. Tanner Greer has begun a series of posts on this topic, in which he quotes a prescient speech by Robert Gates from 2011 and points out that for the first time nearly everyone holding the levers of American foreign policy is either too young to remember the Cold War as a formative political experience or was uninvolved in the institutions through which aspiring political and military leaders at the time forged personal and emotional connections with their European counterparts, ending with this exhortation:

It is no longer sufficient to argue that NATO, or a free Taiwan, or any of ten thousand other things, are good because they buttress American hegemony. That presupposes American hegemony is a thing worth preserving in the first place—a presupposition not shared by all in power. Our arguments must strike deeper.

These are days of dread possibility. Victory will not be had without contesting fundamentals.

To focus on just the Ukraine angle, today's Russia is not the Soviet Union. To the extent that it threatens anyone, it threatens the nations on its European periphery and not the United States. This change means that Europeans cannot realistically expect the same level of support they were receiving when the enemy was mightier and the danger greater. On paper, the economic disparity between European NATO and Russia indicates that they should be able to crush Moscow with one hand tied behind their backs even without American aid. Most of us know intuitively that it wouldn't be that easy, and explanations tend to converge on the idea that Europeans have become complacent and entitled, taking the fact that they can cower behind America's shield for granted and indulging in luxury beliefs that having a military or borders or a distinct national identity is icky and reeks of fascism. If the rug gets pulled out from under them in the form of military assistance or security guarantees, they will have one last chance to get off their asses and reclaim their place(s) among the great powers of the world, and if they can no longer muster the ambition to do that then they can go play Museum Fremen in their cathedrals and wait for some new, more vital culture to replace them.

I think a lot of the outrage about "European ingratitude" from the American right is caused by right wingers failing to realize that European 2025 is not the Europe of 1950, or even 1990.

As I said downthread: a lot of the outrage about "European ingratitude" is caused by a) an imaginary Frenchman that lives rent-free in the heads of many red tribers b) taking a world that defers to American interests for granted.

To steal a turn of phrase, America is a country afflicted by "big country autism". Most Americans have no idea what other countries are like and mostly don't think (or care) about them. The average American voter has no real strong opinions on foreign policy beyond liking flashy, muscular actions because 'Murica. This has led to a half century of foreign policy that is, outside of a few big wars, mostly technocratic. I think the idea that American conservatives are outraged by some dissonance between their expectations of Europe and reality is faintly comical.

This explanation is certainly too pat, and there's more nuance to be explored, but do you think this is more or less the direction in which things are heading?

No. I think the central ideological divergence is within the United States, between Trumpian nationalists (who view European nations as unruly vassals who need fall in line and be grateful for whatever they get) and internationalists/atlanticists (who view European nations as strategic and ideological partners who need to led, not commanded). This is almost entirely an elite conflict, with voters either tuning out entirely or following the lead of their political leaders.

Within Europe, this mostly seems to come down to the question of what you think about the US' long term reliability, which is very much a developing situation. Right now, European nations cede at lot of de facto sovereignty to the US (e.g. on trade and foreign policy) in exchange for US security guarantees, but Trump's erratic, Russophilic behavior combined with the cultlike support he receives within his own party calls into question whether or not those guarantees will actually be matched. Right now the only NATO country to have invoked Article 5 is the United States and the current president has strongly hinted that he wouldn't reciprocate. Of course, given how erratic Trump is this could all change in a week. It's possible that assurances are being made behind the scenes that grandpa won't be allowed to do anything too disruptive (I wouldn't count on it though - per above, Trump is the party establishment).

This is the best reply in this thread I've read.

People like to wishcast world events as actually being about their pet causes. While I'd like to believe American reluctance is from Europe not taking the conflict seriously even after 3 years and being lapped in artillery shells sent by freaking North Korea, that's not actually the case.

The reality is that very few people care about foreign policy, while plenty of people care about culture and vibes and dunking on their outgroup. This means leaders get to effectively decide foreign policy, and the voters will mostly follow like sheep since they want to support their ingroup. I can practically guarantee that if Trump said we're now going big on booting Russia out of Ukraine by whatever means necessary, the Catturds of the right would flip (like they perennially do on Israel) and say jingoism is actually the best thing ever now -- "AMERICA IS BACK BABY". Really, the only thing you need to do to understand contemporary American politics is learn about negative partisanship. Learn about the frothing, searing hatred the two wings of the country have for each other, and everything else will follow naturally.

I also agree that America is a fundamentally untrustworthy ally. With the Legislative branch effectively defunct, the President has become more and more like an elected, absolute monarch. And you simply can't trust a country that's willing to elect a Mad King every so often.

They're not imaginary frenchmen living in our heads they are English and German elected officials on TV, I've also seen similar sentiments posted by several of our European users here. You can claim that these are not representative of the typical European's view, but they are not imaginary.

As @Dean observed last week there seems to be a refusal amongst the European powers to grapple with the reality of US-EU relations post Cold War. They seem to want the US to continue playing the role of world police and serve as thier mercenaries, but also seem to resent the idea that mercenaries have to get paid.

The position of the US military today feels somewhat analogous to that of a Cop in a blue city where the DA refuses to prosecute shoplifting and the local "elite" take pride in running interference for rioters. At some point the question becomes why would any sane, competent, moral person want that job?

It's my loose perception that in foreign policy, the masses don't actually drive policy nearly as much as you'd think. Instead, it's all about "personnel is policy" at the diplomatic level (and to a lesser but still important extent, business level). Thus, it doesn't actually matter so much what the people of e.g. Zimbabwe think, it's about the diplomats and top leaders. Did a good chunk of them go to business school in Europe? Who runs in their friend circles? How are the business links? Questions like this, and including shared ideology/cultural history/philosophical affinity, are most impactful. Occasionally, this will also include military links, but again this is going to be often at the officer corps level at the lowest. To that extent, the actual "cultural alienness" of a foreign country's everyman doesn't matter.

If bonds are fraying then I view that as mostly downstream from State Department personnel changes under Trump 1.0 (and 2.0) as well as, honestly, Trump's trade policies, not some fundamental chasm in mindset... though some of it probably bleeds through even to the elites.

I think there are some important insights here, but I'd like to speak to the European angle. In short, the bulk of the breakdown on the European side is due to Trump, or increasingly Trumpism as a movement, which seems tailor-made to alienate European elites. At a personal level, Trump is crass, vulgar, tasteless, and lacks the kind of general cultural and historical knowledge that would be a sine qua non for most European leaders. Vance makes things worse, adding a smug debate club arrogance to Trump's lack of regard for decorum and norms. I have two friends who were actually present at the Munich Security Conference last week, and both of them said Vance's address was the most shocking speech they'd seen in their respective diplomatic careers, both in terms of content, but also in terms of form: the complete lack of niceties, the most of all as what they perceived as its bilious anger and unpleasantness.

Even worse than the personal angle, though, is the political level. Trump simply doesn't play by the established rules of the Liberal International Order, and if there's one thing Europe loves it's rules and procedures. And as much as I can appreciate a good disruptor, Trump's diplomatic strategy seems less like Paul Graham and more like an unmedicated ADHD child in an airport lobby. One week it's tariffs on Mexico and Canada, the next it's annexing Panama, the next it's annexing Greenland, then Gaza, and then onto Ukraine. These ideas whizz by so seriously it's very unclear whether they're intended as literal policy proposals or some kind of semiotic ritual. Not to mention that the policies themselves are utterly bonkers, ill thought-out and ill considered. The Gaza plan in particular was just extraordinary in its inchoate madness. Adding all this together, to many of us Europeans, it looks like there's a void at the top of American leadership where elite human capital is supposed to go.

However, perhaps most of all, I think many Americans just don't realise how visceral and close and frightening the Ukraine war is for many people in Europe. To hear Americans talk about it, it may be as far away as Afghanistan or Iraq, but for many Europeans it's literally the next country over, we have Ukrainian refugees among us, and Russia is conducting assassinations and sabotage in our cities. The default assumption among most Europeans was that this was the obvious next conflict of the Free World against tyrants, and it was as much in America's interests to fight it as it was Europe's. This impression was bolstered by Biden's presidency, and despite Trump's bluster, I think most Europeans assumed he'd pursue broadly similar policies.

Instead, the events of the last two weeks have been the biggest shock to transatlantic relations since Suez, or perhaps even pre-WW2. Most left-wing Europeans didn't like America much to begin with (well, not as a political entity), but the usual transatlantic cheerleaders on the centre, right, and even hard right are in a state of absolute epistemic and existential shock. The idea that America would not just clamp down on aid for Ukraine but moot de facto switching sides was so far outside of their Overton Windows that they have no idea how to process what comes next. Suddenly, ideas that used to look like a bad videogame storyline - e.g., a realignment towards China - no longer seem totally impossible, but that's mainly because our model of the possibility space has collapsed, and until we can stitch it back together, almost anything seems possible.

I think you describe the European elite perspective accurately. The problem I have with the perspective is that it is all sizzle and no steak. Take Vance’s speech. He talked about the Euro problem with free speech. The European response was “we have free speech; you are allowed to say what you want provided it doesn’t offend the government’s sensibilities.” This of course vindicates Vance. Yet instead of tackling the substance and either disagreeing with Vance that free speech is good or doing some introspection, they complained about how shocking the speech was.

And honestly this all style no substance political idea has been endemic in western democracies for decades (including the US). The difference is that people like Vance are now focusing on the substance and it is difficult for European elites to hear because Vance is discussing uncomfortable truths.

I think Vance’s speech was more for Americans back home. As an “American back home” it was pretty epic and satisfying. Euros do need a wake up call. We are expected to contribute more than required to NATO, and the countries we are allied with don’t even support our most basic freedom of free speech? I’m not sure about that anymore…

But wasn’t it also for them? I see the European project dying in Europe. In fifty years do we expect Europe to act anything like Europe of fifty years prior?

No I truly believe euros think that “hate speech” doesn’t qualify for free speech protections and that insulting a politician is acceptably “hateful”.

I think it will keep getting worse and worse there until the euros completely freak out and swing towards ethno-nationalism, remilitarize and start WWIII. Doesn’t seem like they are good at moderating their political fads and always bring it too far in one direction

However, perhaps most of all, I think many Americans just don't realise how visceral and close and frightening the Ukraine war is for many people in Europe.

Is it? My impression is that, even for most Europeans, the Ukraine war just isn't all that important. The real hot button issue seems to be immigration, or maybe just the economy in general. No one in Europe is massively raising defense spending, activating the draft, getting nuclear weapons, or calling for a pan-Europian army. I'd expect to see all of those things if they felt they were seriously on the edge of a Russian invasion. The only countries who are really acting like they're at war are the former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland and Bulgaria.

I guess we'll see if the new German government wants to massively increase military aid to Ukraine. If they do then, I'll be proven wrong. But I think they'll basically keep it to the same level it's at now.

No one in Europe is massively raising defense spending, activating the draft, getting nuclear weapons, or calling for a pan-Europian army.

Many countries in Europe have, in fact, hiked up defense spending massively, not only compared to 2021 but also compared to 2014, in other words the boost started already after Crimea. At least most of the EU countries in the chart now have defence spending that surpasses the 2% NATO guideline. Numerous politicians have called for a pan-European army throughout the years.

Well, this is subjective, but i wouldn't call 2.5% "massive." Massive would be 6% like what Russia spends. Massive enough to build up huge stocks of new ammunition, instead of using up all the old stuff in Ukraine and hoping that the war ends before supplies run out.

And, i know that politicians occasionally endorse the idea of a Europian army. But it just doesn't seem that serious to me. I cant imagine Britain or france wanting to join now, anyway. Meanwhile Austria still won't even join NATO

I think there are some important insights here, but I'd like to speak to the European angle

You're not speaking from the European angle, you're speaking from the European elite angle.

Sure, Trump is widely seen as a rube that's nothing new, but the only people Vance makes things worse for are the European elites. Our entire self-image is built on Americans being dumb rednecks who can't string a proper sentence together, and us being the enlightened ones. Trump can give a prophetic warning about dependence on Russia, and we'll laugh in his face because he's a simpleton, and we're obviously intellectually superior. Vance is a direct threat to that sense of superiority which is why, as TIRM pointed out, European politicians are breaking down in literal tears over his speech, but if you think the average European thinks he's worse than Trump, you're out of touch.

Approximately no one believes in "the established rules of the Liberal International Order". Most people eyes will glaze over, if you bring up the phrase. The war might be "visceral and close and frightening" to people bordering Russia, but quite frankly your bloodlust exceeds even that of the Ukrainian refugees' that I talked to.

You might be right that this is all a massive shock to the European elites who were relying on Americans acting a certain way, but I'd like for you to give some sort of argument for why Americans acting that way is either sustainable or desirable. Right now all we're getting is pearl clutching.

Reading the comment sections in German papers during the past weeks, I am starting to genuinely feel a little afraid. The general population, or at least those who bother to comment under those articles, are positively hysterical, in a way that I imagine a deadbeat limerent live-in girl/boyfriend who refused to see the writing on the wall and wound up being dumped and dumped on the street with no plan B in short order would be. If it were an individual, this would be a point at which I'd call in a welfare check on them lest they harm themselves. Tropically, this would be due to emotional discombobulation or a line of thought like "He loved me, right? He still cares enough that he wouldn't just let me die, right?". Following this schema, I would not be surprised if they soon started floating a spontaneous deployment of European military, fueled by some vain hope that surely even Trump's US would turn around and step in before France/Poland/the UK goes in and outright loses (which is a distinct possibility, because I don't see immediately available European capabilities even just making up for US intel and Starlink if those are withdrawn, and a European mobilisation would surely be enough to convince even Putin to escalate at last). The comment sections would cheer right up until the point where they get draft letters themselves, and depending on what happens between now and then even beyond.

Of course, it could be that for all of Trump's seeming randomness, the whole plan was actually signed off by someone in the State Dept who went above and beyond on the "how can we make Europe contribute more" assignment and is now waiting for just that to happen.

both of them said Vance's address was the most shocking speech they'd seen in their respective diplomatic careers

They are illiberal in a way shaped perfectly to block people like Vance or more traditional American Republicans from winning elections. Very selectively applied laws used to round up critics of leftists using police raids. A political Overton window enforced through state action and without any input from voters. Vance rightfully points out that Europe's true threats are just this sort of action.

The response is predictably shock, outrage and literal weeping.

I think many Americans just don't realise how visceral and close and frightening the Ukraine war is for many people in Europe

Europe buys Russian gas and contributes only the most meager and hesitant support for Ukraine. I notice the revealed preference here. "Apparently not very important."

The response is predictably shock, outrage and literal weeping.

The weeping was from the man talking about retiring, not about Vance's speech, FYI.

I saw the video. He addresses Vance's speech and immediately cries.

But yeah, also that is his farewell so maybe he was coincidentally weepy.

Oh dang I got suckered in by fake apologetics. Man it's so hard to trust anything today. Sigh.

A political Overton window enforced through state action and without any input from voters.

It's remarkable. The Europeans have somehow crafted a democracy that is immune from responding to the desires of the public.

For example, immigration.

Supermajorities in both France and Germany think immigration levels are too high. Perceptions of immigration have net negative ratings of 40-50%. And it's also one of the most important issues. Yet the leaders just keep ignoring the voters and doubling down on mass immigration.

Even "right-wing" parties seem completely unwilling to stem the tide.

The most consistent thing about Trump, it seems to me, is how he plays into Russia's hands. I seriously wonder if we are seeing a real world Manchurian candidate.

  • -19

We already saw a Manchurian candidate, and his name was Barack.

This breaks several rules, but mostly it's just a low effort snarl without evidence. You have a long string of these and have been skirting a permaban for a while now.

This comment itself is just middling bad and devoid of value, but your history recommends a timeout of anywhere from 3 days to forever. Your last few bans were 1-2 weeks, and you have multiple comments in the log saying "Permaban next time." The fact that we haven't done this yet is because we don't actually like to permaban people, especially when it's someone like you who, when exercising a modicum of self control, is capable of being a decent poster. On the other hand, we can only say "Knock this off or you're going to get permabanned" so many times before it becomes an empty threat.

I'm going to make this one 1 week. If I were in a less forgiving mood, it would have been 2 weeks, and if I had decided to make it permanent, no one would blink. So if you come back to spew more, you'd better be on point and make it worth it.

I don't understand where this sentiment comes from. When you look at actual effects on policy rather than rhetoric, Biden (or more accurately his handlers) seems to have been far more in Russia's pocket than Trump ever was.

See efforts to drive up energy prices (thus increasing russian revenue from ng exports), the DNC's much heralded policy of rapprochement (in contrast to Trump) prior to Feb 2022, and the onerous restrictions placed on the use of US supplied weapons in the first 2 years of the war.

Yeah, this level of Putin Posting always strikes me as a surefire sign that the person is not thinking logically. 2016-2020 notably did not include any Russian invasions/advancements. Trump consistently warned Germany and others against being reliant on Russian gas. Obama and Biden, on the other hand, saw large bites by the Russian military and could not marshal a response. They are part of the Green movement that has stymied European industry, and are big players in the various NGO movements that shipped millions of unassimilated Arabs into large cities in Europe.

If Trumps a manchurian what are they? Mao himself?

Apparently serious people are now talking about a "Trump-Putin alignment". You would think Trump were actively sending military aid to the Russian frontlines. Ironically, it's European nations who have done more to finance Russia's war because they're dependent on Russian energy. Anything less than complete unconditional and unlimited military aid for Ukraine is interpreted as actually allying against Ukraine and all of Europe.

Exactly.

I actually think this might be good for Europe. The civilizational decay is really beginning to stink up the place, but there is nothing that focuses the mind quite like a genuine existential threat. Time to man up. Unfortunately, I didn't see much manning up on the faces of Europe's leaders during Vance's speech. I fear that in a few more years the indigenous peoples of Europe will increasingly rather take up arms against their governments than for them.

For all the European sabre-rattling, they are not actually worried by Russia, as evidenced by their weak military budgets and troop numbers. Russia is a rhetorical device not a real threat. They were barely able to conquer 20% of Ukraine.

But I agree that a sharp crisis is probably the only thing that saves Europe from permanent decline. The coming population replacement will leave a stronger mark on the history of the continent than any war or plague ever did.

What exactly is the way you see this benefitting Europe? Some sort of authoritarian magic where you 1. pump money into the military, 2. institute 3 years of Korean-style military service, 3. ????????, 4. experience great revitalization? There is not actually any existential threat to Europe from being dumped by the US, so any change would have to either be driven by delusion and/or resentment (towards Trump, Vance and everything they stand for). Resentment against Trump will surely not drive Europeans to make any policy change that looks like something he would want, and delusion is a crapshoot.

Regaining the ability to defend themselves means that Europe will be free to pursue its own independent foreign policy without the nagging fear that if they step out of line they will be left out in the cold without America's guns to back them up. That could mean a more aggressive posture towards Russia, an economic realignment with China, maintaining Danish control over Greenland and its associated Arctic resources, restoring France's neo-colonial relationship with West Africa, or catching up to the US and China in dual-use technologies such as AI and rocketry. It's not that all of these things are impossible otherwise, but having a big stick provides a certain helpful sense of confidence akin to exercising and getting into shape on a personal level.

Not the OP, but I see it as benefitting Europe in the same way that "hitting bottom" might benefit an addict if it convinces them of the need to get clean.

I think the “best case” scenario along those lines would be an extremely humiliating intervention in Ukraine that results in thousands of western casualties, more-than-Suez level political humiliation, and likely the collapse of the British, French, German, and possibly also low country and Italian governments depending on who was involved, followed by a period of great hardship, followed by reinvention out of desperation and a major pivot toward China.

I have two friends who were actually present at the Munich Security Conference last week, and both of them said Vance's address was the most shocking speech they'd seen in their respective diplomatic careers

The problem here is that I listened to that speech. There was nothing angry or unpleasant about it. In fact, it was one of the most refreshing public addresses I've seen in my memory. Is English your friends' second language? Do they have any understanding of American culture at all? Debate club? It was lightyears away from that - simple, direct language, delivered clearly. A real message from a politician instead of the same endless fucking vapid platitudes about democracy while jailing people for "hate speech".

I think many Americans just don't realise how visceral and close and frightening the Ukraine war is for many people in Europe.

Ok. Fine. Yes, it's far away. Let's pretend I haven't seen the visceral footage of men disemboweled, flayed alive, and burning in the fields of Ukraine. If it's so real, why can virtually no countries in Europe maintain their commitments to NATO spending? Is it perhaps because they're busy gloating about how morally superior their welfare state is while it's endlessly subsidized by the US of A?

I actually don't think Zelensky meant for this to pop off the way it did. It was uncomfortable to watch aggression and dominance toward a man who (to me) seems to be trying to keep his country and people from annihilation.

But I don't see how the established rules of the Lilberal International Order benefit the American taxpayer. I'm tired of watching my children's future being sold while being sneered at. If it takes someone as uncouth as Trump to man the Bailey while Vance stays in the Motte, then it is what it is.

Re Zelensky I have a different take. Marco Rubio complained recently that they had what they thought were agreements with Ukraine only for Zelensky to say something totally different to the media a couple of days later.

I think the Trump administration believed they had a framework with Ukraine to end the war — there would be a cease fire, and there would be a soft American guarantee via this rare earth deal but not a hard one.

Zelensky multiple times throughout the process indicated he wanted to with renewed support kick out Russia. When he responded to Vance’s criticism of Biden with saying we can’t do a cease fire with Putin because he will break his word Zelensky was confirming that he wasn’t agreeing with the framework that I think the Trump admin thought Ukraine agreed with hence Vance’s statement re litigating to the media (the same issue Rubio had).

So I think the Trump admin was simply pissed that they felt again Zelensky was welching on a private deal.

I also think the press conference proved to the Trump admin their fears are correct. Namely they are concerned Zelensky will armed with a guarantee try to provoke Russia into an altercation and then demand action by the Americans citing the guarantee in the hopes of regaining their lost territory. If you read Trump’s comments closet this is his concern.

And honestly given the history here, it isn’t unreasonable to believe Zelensky would try to antagonize Russia. The pre war boundaries of Ukraine weren’t natural. It was arbitrary lines drawn on a map with two peoples (more if you include the Hungarians). The Russian minority has faced persecution by the Kiev government and Ukrainian nationalists while at the same time Russia has helped to incite tensions. That is, no one has clean hands here. Zelensky focused on Russia’s untrustworthy actions (true) while ignoring Ukraine’s untrustworthy actions and historic goals re the Donbas and Crimea.

In short, Trump isn’t willing to give a security guarantee because he doesn’t trust either side here. But he was willing to more intertwine Ukrainian and US interests which creates some degree of strategic ambiguity that would help Ukraine without pre committing the US. And Trump realized that Zelensky isn’t really interested in that deal which I think they felt they had hammered out. And that pissed off Trump (who honestly does seem to want to end the war for both humanitarian reasons and economic ones).

It was arbitrary lines drawn on a map with two peoples (more if you include the Hungarians).

Three peoples. Galicians have never had their own state and they're big into Ukr nationalism, but they're not the same as central Ukrainians. Add Hungarians and Tatars and there probably isn't a way to make it not arbitrary.

If it's so real, why can virtually no countries in Europe maintain their commitments to NATO spending?

The "virtually no countries" is completely not true. The European defense spending have been rising rapidly even before Trump came to office. Only a handful of NATO members do not spend 2% GDP and the number of allies exceeding the limit crossed 23 in 2004. There are now a few countries that spend more than US without having global ambitions and open ocean navies.

While I always appreciate being corrected, you're arguing about a detail in my language about the countries themselves instead of NATO in aggregate. From your link:

If we take into account only the 23 EU member states that are also members of NATO, defence expenditure was 1.99% of their combined GDP in 2024 and is expected to be 2.04% in 2025.

So, put another way: Trump demanded they start pulling their weight 8 years ago, but they're still not hitting the 2% / GDP target, despite an active, major war in their neighborhood they supposedly care deeply about (?!?).

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