This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
People have commented that Zelensky's casual attire and his debating Trump and Vance in front of the media seems disrespectful or challenging to Trump. That's because it is. Contrary to Trump's claim that he has no cards, he does have a card - his popularity in Western media and the US congress. Trump has a thin margin in Congress and foreign policy is an area where a few Republicans are likely to peel off in support of popular wars.
Zelensky is betting that he is more powerful than Trump where it matters. If Trump has no power to withhold ongoing support from Zelensky, then it is Zelensky, not Trump, that controls American Ukraine policy. The press conference and its fallout serves as a test of strength where Zelensky challenges Trump and then gauges the results to see if his assumptions are correct.
That still doesn't give Zelensky a path to achieving any maximalist war objective. But it does give him a path to retaining the status quo of indefinite American material support, which seems good enough to him for the moment. Trump may be the elected President of the United States, he may be taller, better dressed, and more objectively correct about the best path forward. But in an open democracy it is popularity that matters - not any of those other things. And the contest pits Trump against America's most beloved political celebrity of the last three years.
It's no accident that Zelenksy looks like a character from a Marvel movie (strong resemblance to Hawkeye in particular). It is a persona designed to appeal to the American public. The President has a few explicit powers that a celebrity does not. But when it comes to swaying the US congress, it is an even battle ground - popularity vs. popularity, celebrity vs. celebrity. Zelensky thinks he can get 51 votes in the Senate and he's not going to sign any compromise agreement until he is reasonably sure he will lose.
Trump just halted military aid to Ukraine.
If Zelensky was making a play to see if he has more power than Trump, then he was consuming his own propaganda. So what if he has sympathizers in congress or the general American public is in favor of aid? If Trump unilaterally halts it, what can congress or the American people do about it? The answer is... nothing. Ukraine aid is simply not a contentious issue in America, even if the average American supports Ukraine, or is in favor of aid. The most they'll do is probably go "oh well, sucks for Ukraine" and go on about their day. Sure, the blue tribe will probably use this as an opportunity for more "Trump bad!" on social media, but that's basically the SOP for everything Trump does at this point.
We'll see how long Congress lets him hold the line. I'm optimistic that there's still enough fresh bravado in the Republican coalition to hold out for long enough to allow Trump's pressure to work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder if Zelensky actually believes that is casual attire is basically his version of the simple yet recognizable Mao suit.
Yes, there's probably something like that going on. What's funny about his martial-casual attire is that I very distinctively remember it being a truism when I was growing up that any head of state who routinely wore military attire was most likely a dictator or a warlord. It was even a pretty easy media trope in action and espionage movies to quickly establish that a ruler was evil by dressing the character in military uniform or some kind of martial aesthetic. There was supposed to be something unnerving and almost pathetic about a man not actively fighting on the frontline nor being an active member of the military in the conventional sense and still choosing to wear army garb each day. It's not like Thatcher wore a uniform during the Falklands War when she was in London governing, only when visiting the fighting troops.
I also remember - having gone to a French school - learning about how amidst the worsening Algeria crisis, De Gaulle responded to the erection of barricades in Algiers by appearing on state television wearing his old army uniform as a show of force and reminder of his past role in France's liberation. This move apparently shocked French society, especially on the political left, and strongly nourished already present fears that he was an authoritarian who might dismantle French Democracy.
Funny to see how quickly this association vanished with Zelenskyy, although maybe it was already an outdated 20th century relic anyway since most dictators today just wear business suits.
Zelensky doesn't wear a military uniform though, he just wears a sort of grey tracksuit style thing? It reads less like military and more like guy spending a lot of time in the sauna while pretending to go to the gym.
Looks more like the guy who shops at the PX of the local army base and then hangs around nearby bars to me:
https://assets.weforum.org/sf_account/image/responsive_small_webp_2pPb1R7-GRMljQdfgjneh3e6AYb2QP2XAxAunEbA69A.webp
"I'm not saying I'm a soldier, buuuuut...."
It looks like a T-shirt and a cheap north face jacket to me.
An army green t-shirt and an cheap bomber-style jacket, yes -- that's kind of the point being made here.
I think it might have gone gone over better if had worn his usual green fatigues. The one he wore to the White House looks too much like a track suit.
More options
Context Copy link
I am by no means a fashion expert, but that is not a bomber jacket. Maybe in some esoteric fashion world it is. In the world I live in, these are bomber jackets.
Even some of those are kind of not that classy. "Cheap bomber jacket" is a total loser move.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Grey Man Chic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I thought he was going for military-adjacent without transparently pretending to be an actual soldier.
Maybe. He doesn't hit any marks for me and I doubt anyone would know these "intentions" and make this argument for him without him repeating it over and over to friendly press. He looks like halfway between a tech billionaire that stopped giving a fuck and an 80s mobster.
Like I said, the closest I've got is, "guy who goes to the gym all the time but never works out and just sits in the sauna."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There is a related-but-distinct line of clothing chic with Zelensky, and that is that a suit is not as benign / respectable in his context, since suites are often associated with the rich, powerful, and connected- i.e. the corrupt oligarchic class, whose reputation for selling out Ukraine is so well known that it shapes American doubter perceptions of Zelensky.
Americans like Trump want suites because it's seen as the normative / proper thing to do at high-level engagements, and being underdressed can be insulting as a sort of claim of 'I'm so important I can ignore it.' But this is not a universal view, and Zelensky breaking character not only at Trump's behest, but specifically for a very one-sided natural resource deal that could be characterized as selling out Ukraine, would be an obvious propaganda attack line.
Put another way- if the first time Zelensky put on a suit was to give the Americans a potential veto of 50% of future Ukrainian mineral projects going forward, it would not be seen by the Ukrainian home audience as a respectable and uncontroversial business attire, but something appropriate for an oligarch.
Worth also remembering that Zelensky became a Presidential candidate in the first place because he was caught on camera ranting about corrupt politicians, IIRC. His fashion choices are indeed most likely motivated by him wanting to distance himself from the politicians of yore.
That was the teacher character he played in his TV show, Servant of the People
More options
Context Copy link
Amusingly, you've confused him with the fictional character he played.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Most of the examples I can think of that would have suggested this wear dress military uniforms: Franco, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and such. Although I suppose there is an association of more field-style uniforms (usually with a rifle or equivalent) with something like an African coup. I don't think Zelenskyy's attire really embodies either, but that is just my opinion. The association I remember learning also involved dictators frequently giving all their yes-men medals to wear on excessively elaborate uniforms: somewhere there is a picture from North Korea of comical numbers of medals.
Off the top of my head, Castro, Noriega, and Thomas Sankara come to mind as wearing everyday military attire, and I think Saddam usually wasn't wearing ceremonial uniforms. But yes Zelenskyy is definitely doing something more toned down and palatable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Zelensky did earn it to some extent. Staying in Kyiv when it looked in imminent danger of falling to the Russians and famously telling western leaders trying to convince him to flee "I don't need a ride, I need ammo" was pretty heroic and effectively created the image in most people's minds of a leader close to literally fighting on the front lines to defend his nation. His habit of wearing military attire seemed a lot more appropriate in that context.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't have much positive to say about Trump's foreign policy nominees or strategies but it's very funny to have seen every western country except the US ignoring all of their defense industries, spending, and global security, and then getting mad when the US doesn't spend those resources and materiel in the way they want.
This is media circus. As of 2024 the majority of NATO countries are meeting the 2% of GDP target, and this is broadly indicative of overall attitudes towards defence investment post Feb-22.
The fact that you needed to pick a contrived example (Why just NATO, why not other western countries? why current defense % GDP spending and not a historical average? why is 65% of them doing it but 35% of them not doing it considered a success? why aren't we just comparing total or % of GDP expenditures against the USA's numbers?) sort of proves the point I was making. If Italy produced 80% of the EU's steel, whether or not there is some norm or rule in the EU rules or treaties, I would find it pretty fucking rich if 5 other countries made it an international incident that Italy isn't using it's steel output for X or Y industry after those same countries neglected their production and investment for years.
Given current events and the context of your comment I believed you were referring to current spending levels within NATO. Seriously, who were you referring to if not a NATO member state?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well he certainly seems to think he does:
I confess to being ignorant of the mechanics of how all this works, and a cursory Google search didn't turn up much, so if someone with more expertise wants to chime in please do. But the news articles coming out today seem to indicate that the President and his national security team have essentially unilateral power to withhold aid from Ukraine if they choose to.
Trump was impeached the first time for temporarily delaying aid to Ukraine. Or at least threatening to in a phone call. Congress shall determine what aid is sent to Ukraine.
Not every last penny is specifically earmarked and Trump has some latitude here. But his agency is quite limited.
As is frequently the case with these sorts of things, the coverup was worse than the crime. He was charged for attempting to establish a quid pro quo with Zelensky, but there's no indication that the mere act of withholding the aid itself was an impeachable offense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They do. As a legal authority matter, the aid legislation is usually for sending material to Ukraine or replacing lost stock already sent, which allows the president to not-send on the basis of replacing already-sent.
As a game theory matter, a permanent cutoff right now would be a bet with a high risk of losing relevant leverage with Russia. If the US has already cutoff aid and is threatening to send no more to Ukraine, then the US cannot use either the offer of a cutoff or threat of more aid to pressure Russia. It also creates issues with leverage with Ukraine, since you can't threaten to cutoff aid if you've already cutoff aid, and while there are many who would gleefully relish Ukraine doing worse on the battlefront, that's a consequence, not an impossibility or even a categorical collapse. This is why opponents of Ukraine aid typically resort to 'they'll deserve the consequences' rather than address how a cutoff will end the war.
The key word in that, however, is 'permanent.'
As a kabuki theater/kayfabe matter, never a bad metaphor to remember with the US, a temporary cutoff allows both parties to play well for their respective political bases, before a mediated 'reconciliation' by third parties (such as the Europeans) who can facilitate a nominal compromise (such as Europeans buying weapons on behalf of Ukraine). Given how even Trump didn't appear that upset at the summit breakdown (the 'this will make for great TV' bit), and how I hardly expect Trump to refuse arms sales to Europe if offered, this could play out over weeks or even months.
My personal bet is on the later, which will play into the UKR-EU summit later this week, with any mitigation plans only revealed later this month.
Which is to say- I will be neither particularly surprised or alarmed if there's an announcement of a cutoff of military aid this week. I will be curious to see what form it takes if it does happen, particularly any concrete demands for a resumption of aid-
-because if there are easily fulfillable conditions, then that's an easy trigger for the US to flow aid back into Ukraine, which is what preserves the negotiating leverage with Russia, and lets all parties play to their preferred propaganda narratives of how they are taking advantage of it / the other parties are losing from it. And if the demand is generally unreasonable (i.e. resignation of Zelensky), then this is itself subject to a choreographed resolution via later reconciliation or managed turnover (which Zelensky has repeatedly signaled) with less stated understandings.
Which is to say, kabuki.
Which is coincidentally well timed given that Trump is due to speak to a joint session of Congress tomorrow (Tuesday) to lay out his priorities and Ukraine intentions.
More options
Context Copy link
This looks like it fits in with Trump's strategy to increase executive power by refusing to spend funds that Congress has appropriated, like how he shut down USAID. This is still a legal gambit on Trump's part, and it's not clear that he will get away with it.
If he does hold back aid for even a short period of time, the media response will be withering. Zelensky is popular. Does he have enough time before the midterms to weather the storm and pressure Zelensky to come to the table?
According to this, the funding for Ukraine is drawn from multiple sources, and at least some of those sources are under the direct control of the President/DoD:
Would be a bit odd if the President couldn't simply decline to exercise the Presidential Drawdown Authority. It wouldn't be much of an Authority in that case.
So, there are some funding sources that couldn't be canceled without getting into legally murky area, but Trump could choose to cancel a significant portion of it right away.
Interesting, thank you. That does give the President some short term discretionary leverage. But looking out on a longer timeline, Congress has the power to write spending bills that the President cannot stop
Yes, but in the long term, Zelenskyy could be dead, or at least Ukraine could be in a much worse position. A battle between Congress and Trump would take time, and that time would not be on Ukraine's side.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He really needs to lie better like the Biden admin did. Just slow role it, tie it up in court, complain about the "Parliamentarian", and give the money to a Republican Patronage Network that might, after 10 years, spent 0.01% of the money on Ukraine versus their pet causes. Shit, spend all of it on that Strategic Crypto Reserve and claim it's to keep Russia from getting all the Crypto. It'll hold up about as well as all the money Biden drained from the government for illegals getting tons of free shit. Trump's problem is that he's such a worse liar than the typical politician to whom words mean nothing, and passive aggression is the primary winning strategy. Trump feels this compulsive need to beat his chest and openly fight with people, instead of just lying that he'll do something, and then doing whatever he wants anyways with 100 layers of indirection and plausible deniability.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Seeing how the western media desperately mischaracterized what happened and engaged in their usual distortionary editing and reporting, you are absolutely correct that he has them in his pocket. All the more reason for the average republican to distrust him, given their rock bottom trust in journalists in general. But maybe his gambit will pay off
Although he might just be a bit of an arrogant type of person - apparently Biden hung up on him because of his attitude previously.
What outlets in Western media mischaracterized what happened? What distortions did they make in particular?
Mostly that what Vance said was unprovoked. They all basically tried to craft a “he started it” narrative. All the clips they show start with Vance talking, removing the entire context of what led up to it
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link