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 -
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