site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   8934 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 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.

So one of the older members of the Tories, Graham Stuart, has publically declared "We have to consider the possibility that President Trump is a Russian asset.". While these accusations have certainly been made more before, I don't think I've seen it so straightforward from parties that are traditionally allies for the Republicans. Graham isn't the only Tory seeming to turn either, Robert Jenrick (who once said if he was American he would vote for Trump and went to his inauguration) and Nigel Farage are two other examples of traditional conservative allies in the UK who have been increasingly critical of Trump's stance on Russia, although not as far as Graham Stuart has gone.

Which got me thinking, let's set aside all these accusations themselves and look at what I think is a better question.

If I was a secretly Russia aligned president who had been elected while hiding those views, who knew that I could not just take blatantly pro-Russia stances but I could perhaps slowly nudge public opinion of my supporters to be more friendly towards them and less friendly to Ukraine while taking pro Russian action under cover, what kind of things would I be doing and saying?

  1. Main thing, I'd slowly start to split and incite America's international allies. A stable West is one of the main things that Russia is scared of the most. Destabilize NATO, NORAD, ANZUS, etc.

  2. I'd have some underlings talk about how Russia shares conservative values eventually taking this discussion to the big stage and mentioning one or two things we can get along with. Play up the similarities we have with Russian culture while attacking the culture of other western democracies.

  3. I'd continually frame it as a waste of money, claim Ukraine has been committing fraud and focus on total values instead of the main thing that has been given of outdated weapons and technology. Argue that it's just so much money that it's in the US's best interest to stop funding because they're using it on other things anyway.

  4. I'd hide it all under a veil of trying to end the war. I'd direct blame towards the Ukrainians saying they aren't willing to compromise and that they don't want to end the assault on them, say that they aren't trying hard enough to stop being from conquered and killed. Instead of asking who is killing the Ukrainians going off to fight (Russian forces), I'd instead center it on Ukrainian leaders being responsible for the deaths.

  5. I'd slowly ramp up the discourse more and more, trying to make each step seem natural and more of a reaction from the previous. Picking an early fight gives me cover for picking the next one which gives me cover for the next and so on.

  6. I'd start a trade war with allies using classic protectionist rhetoric (an easy cover to deploy) while ramping down sanctions and trade restrictions on the Russian markets. Slowly putting American business connections back into Russia and away from western allies.

None of these on their own is necessarily a sign of pro Russian beliefs or actions, the point after all is to make for plausible deniability. Anything I do will be under reasons (protectionist rhetoric, "preventing fraud with the aid", etc) that ostensibly aren't pro Russia, as I slowly ramped up public opinion to turn on the west and view them as enemies.

The ambiguity and slow ramping is the point, make the callouts start from the radicals to give the appearance that accusations are always baseless and train people to ignore them from historic allies and partners. Make anyone who says this seem crazy by acting unpredictability and everyonce in a while lurching back to Ukraine when the heat turns up, but never going back fully. Slowly cranking more and more to Russia.

So for discussion what sorts of things would you do if you were a secret Russian operative in the White House trying to stay disguised? How would you try to manipulate American opinions over time while not being too blatantly obvious about it that you don't have built in deniability?

And then the point of the exercise, how does that differ with what we're seeing now? Do these actions line up like Stuart says and we should be considering the possibility, or do they not match and it's just alarmism from the Tories?

A Russian-controlled Trump would be much less hostile towards China and Iran. As someone else already mentioned, you could argue Obama is more likely to be a Russian asset than Trump based on this.

I feel like so much of the Ukraine discussion avoids the object-level, do the “pro-Ukraine” people think that if we continue the status quo (US/NATO funding the war but not willing to put boots on the ground), that Ukraine can actually win? As someone who doesn’t think so, I feel like trying to get a ceasefire done ASAP is the right move both practically and morally. I understand the value of deterring wars of aggression and that Russia is morally in the wrong etc. etc. but I feel like trying to freeze the conflict in place gives more credibility to US/NATO deterrence and saves thousands of young men’s lives, compared to funding the war until Ukraine collapses spectacularly just to impose the maximum costs on Russia. I see people online argue that Russia would collapse before Ukraine does if we just maintain or somewhat increase current support, but Trump doesn’t seem to think so and the European politicians just speak in moralism and world war 2 analogies. If Trump sees things the way I do, that financial/material support is just delaying an inevitable Ukraine loss and this isn’t worth risking world war 3 by putting boots on the ground, then it doesn’t take any evil motives to think that trying to end or freeze the conflict as soon as possible is the best course of action.

If one thinks the war is moral whether or not Ukraine wins, then the question of whether they can win is secondary. The real metric would be marginal cost/benefit.

I think most of the rules-based-international-order types fall into this category. They’ve valued deterring or debilitating Russia higher than you.

But if Ukraine cannot actually win despite what NATO has done already and might do in the future, not only does it not deter Russia, but it demonstrates to the world that NATO is a paper tiger. It’s not going to deter Russia from trying for more, as they won the war. It’s not going to convince China. It’s probably not going to convince anyone else. NATO went all in on saving Ukraine and couldn’t.

They’ve valued deterring or debilitating Russia higher than you.

This is the part that's getting me into some real-life arguments. My friends who say they support Ukraine also seem to hate Putin even more. Their hatred of Russia/Putin vastly overshadows the reality of what's going on to the actual Ukrainians they say they support. Men, both Ukrainians and Russians, are dying in droves. Somehow that seems to balance things out for them. I don't know.

It comes off as "I hate Putin, so I'm perfectly OK with all of you dying to achieve this goal."

It makes me a bit sad, honestly. How can one support Ukraine while at the same time knowing full well that you're just killing off a generation of her men?

I hate Putin, so I'm perfectly OK with all of you dying to achieve this goal

This is highly uncharitable. It's not just about hating Putin, the point is that the worse the war is for Russia the greater deterrent it stands as against wars of aggression. And of course it's not as if the US is forcing Ukraine to fight, just furnishing them some weapons to do so.

I think Ukraine can win the same way Finland "won" the Winter War i.e. inflict disproportionate casualties against a numerically superior opponent for years on end, and after being beaten into exhaustion sign a peace treaty in which they give up 10% of their territory and accept forced neutrality. On paper this is a loss, but it kept them out of the communist bloc and they ended up a western-aligned NATO member without suffering economically or politically the way Poland or Czechoslovakia did in the interim.

At the end of the day, it's the Ukrainians at the front making the decision to fight or not, and as long as they're shooting at our geopolitical rivals I have no problem with arming them. So far, their revealed preference is to hold the line, and the moment that changes it will be clearly evident in the form of mass protests, mutinies, or defections, and their government will have no choice but to sue for peace. It's not my place to tell them how many of their lives are or aren't worth sacrificing for their cause, whatever they think that cause is.

The Ukrainians at the front were abducted off the street. It’s a conscript army. If I lived in Ukraine, I would have fled by now.

Ukraine may not win - not morally or practically, but because it’s too dangerous. Ukrainian troops approaching Russia or taking back Crimea will see nuclear weapons flying. Pushing Russia to the brink is a bad idea.

it's the Ukrainians at the front making the decision to fight or not

The videos I’ve seen of Ukrainian troops shooting their foreign blocking detachments so they can withdraw from the front, and the last few literal suicide bombings of Ukrainian draft offices by bereaved parents would seem to suggest that it is not, in fact, their decision whether to continue fighting.

Right now it looks like Russia can beat Ukraine by attrition. But a lot of things could happen before Russia actually won. For a ceasefire to make sense to Ukraine, it cannot result in speeding up Russia's timetable, and similarly for it to make sense to Russia, it cannot result it giving Ukraine a chance to improve its position.

Right now the best offer Russia is willing to consider is "We take part of Ukraine now and all of it later". This is obviously not acceptable to Ukraine, even if the alternative is a continued grinding war of attrition that they seem likely to lose.

Right now the best offer Russia is willing to consider is "We take part of Ukraine now and all of it later". This is obviously not acceptable to Ukraine, even if the alternative is a continued grinding war of attrition that they seem likely to lose.

What I don't understand is why Ukraine doesn't put a realistic offer on the table? Because as far as I know, the Ukrainian position is still "we will take back all the lost territories including Crimea".

Come to Russia with a realistic offer to end the war. If Putin refuses to negotiate, so be it. Then we'll know the war can't be ended and we can continue to support Ukraine with no reservations.

But Zelenskyy is not even trying, and is instead pursuing a strategy that is most likely to end with military collapse, or worse, a direct NATO-Russia conflict.

A NATO Russian conflict is a win for Zelenskyy.

Yes, I know. It's just a loss for everyone else.

You start with an offer you are willing to back down from. But you don't pre-backdown from that position before you even get to the table. A return to status quo from 2014 is not going to fly, but you don't back down from that position until the Russians are actually negotiating. You are pre-emptively weakening your own position because now you have to make concessions in negotiations on top of the concessions you gave up without anything in trade.

You don't go to Russia with a reasonable offer, and they won't come to you with a reasonable offer. That is what the negotiations are for. If Putin wants to negotiate he will do so, regardless of what Zelensky is saying he will agree to.

Fair enough- I’m no expert on the state of the battlefield and maybe there’s no ceasefire that Russia would agree to. But between “continue slowly losing now” and “pause, then maybe continue to lose later” it’s not obvious which is the better choice (maybe Putin drops dead, maybe European arms spending actually materializes). And if the Ukrainian war effort is completely reliant on the US, and the US thinks trying to get a ceasefire done is beneficial I think it’s the US’s right to insist on it. It just feels like Trump is being called pro-Russia for trying to negotiate while the Europeans get to LARP as serious defenders of the post-war order, when ultimately they aren’t willing to risk world war 3 over this conflict either.

I understand this, but what, if anything, should the US do if Putin invades a Baltic state and/or Finland?

Try to beat our Iraq kill ratio

Tactical air strikes on their forward positions and supply convoys. Russia would just lose. The much-feared Russian tank rush has been proven to be a meme.

I think we should defend them fully because we have a formal defense treaty with them.

I would first see how much steering power over the EU establishment I have when Im a more normal american president, before I go full Trump. I would try to get a deal in Ukraine with the europeans on board - I wont fully disentangle from them in 4 years, if they actually get into a war with Russia congress will make me help them, and they know it. Ideally Id want a deal that I can weaken later when I pivot, but its not all that important. Then I would start to separate from my allies. That would be harder to do while the war is hot. I think in the end, Russia doesnt necessarily want Ukraine right now - if I destroy the NATO behind it, thats much more important.

I think Trump sees Russia as an adversary, but not one he wants to start a war with. The US tried to help Ukraine, but at some point you're just throwing good money after bad. I don't think he see Russia as big enough threat to continue risking war, and the US is too exhausted (both financially and morally) playing world policeman for the last 3 decades with little to show for their efforts. The US needs a reset, because it's on the same unsustainable path (financially, demographically, culturally) that Europe is on. For that same reason, Europe is not going to be a reliable ally in the future, and they may even become a different type of adversary than Russia. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but I expect the UK state to fail before I die unless they make big changes very soon; it's likely already too late. It's quite possible that hostile groups will gain access to European nuclear weapons during this time.

I am sure Trump has had many amicable and even friendly relationships with bad people throughout his careers--New York real estate and Hollywood entertainment are full of such people. I get the sense that he personally likes Putin, and that he believes (wrongly or rightly) that he can deal with Putin. I don't think that necessarily means he thinks Putin is a good person, or that Putin's government does good things. I think Trump knows that you can make deals with bad people, and sometimes you have to, and you might even like them even though they're bad. The question is not so much whether they're good or bad so much as whether you can get them to do the things you need them to, and sometimes you can. You may not be able to trust them entirely, but moralistic grandstanding achieves nothing unless you're willing to back it up with gunfire, and he isn't.

He and Putin went through a lot together on the same side.

Trump wants to be buds.

If I was a secretly Russia aligned president who had been elected while hiding those views,

I don't think Trump is trying to hide his views. Your own post is about how even the people who'd rather stay quiet are starting to talk about it openly, because at some point it becomes difficult to ignore.

FWIW Noah Smith's opinion:

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-is-being-sold-out-by-its

Imagine, for a moment, that the U.S. lost a major war against a coalition of China and Russia. What would the victorious coalition force our country to do, as the terms of our surrender? (... 1, 2, 3 ...) Anyway, now realize that under its new President Donald Trump, America is very rapidly making moves in all three of the directions listed above.

It’s basically an early surrender in Cold War 2, but Trump, Musk, & co. may see it as their only option for preserving their vision of Western civilization.

Why exactly does Trump thinks it is so important to take this option as early as possible is a whole different question. Large part of conspiracy speculations are going on precisely because there are no clear reasons for him to do that, so people assume there might be something secret going on behind the scenes to justify his actions. But the actions themselves are quite open.

FWIW Noah Smith's opinion:

As I've stated now several times, his opinion is worthless.

So I will once again assume he has it wrong and in fact is missing some obvious counterexample, but no, I will not be reading his arguments since it would be a waste of time.

Why is he being cited in this discussion anyway?

A self-citation to a self-citation to a bare assertion, purely intended to smear the author. Could you try making an actual counter argument?

Why exactly does Trump thinks it is so important to take this option as early as possible is a whole different question.

One thesis is 'the US should always arrive a few years late to any world war, rather than be in it from the start.'

Particularly in the more modern technological era, the opening period of any great power war is going to be the costliest- the use of long-range precision munitions that are expended faster than they are produced, the utilization of 0-day exploits in cyberattacks before they can be patched, the shutdown of critical infrastructure to make any major conflict go to a negotiating table of 'do you really want to continue'

This is a not-particularly-quiet part of anti-American strategies for the last few decades- that you present a fait accompli and then threaten such high costs that the (American) adversary chooses not to counter-escalate. And as technology has increased, so has the ability to inflict those front-end costs.

IF you are going to enter a world war at all, the best time is a few years in, after the primary belligerents have battered eachother first and used up most of their means of devestation.

If Dean was POTUS, what would he do right now about Ukraine?

We often disagree, but this is a thesis I will absolutely endorse. We are, at this moment, standing under a vast overhang of technological potential in warfighting. The Civil War and World War I are examples of the collapse of this sort of overhang. That is not the sort of situation we would be well-advised to enter in anything approaching a cavalier fashion.

From a sociopathic perspective, having front row seats the Ukraine war is probably much better value per dollar or per American life than the US military usually gets. At least as long as the US can avoid getting directly involved.

A comment from that article:

Google "The case for Donald Trump as an FSB Asset"

Much of the material is quite good, especially the content from back during 2016 and Trump1 before Helsinki. It's all hypothetical of course; but the evidence such that it is, is compelling.

Mueller, as you no doubt know, uncovered a considerable amount of contact between individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and individuals associated with or suspected of ties to Russian intelligence. But there were no direct ties to Trump himself.

Mueller did most definitely encounter extensive amounts of obstruction into his investigation by the Trump campaign, but as per DOJ regulations punted actual prosecution to Congress.

I don't think "self-aware Russian asset" is particularly plausible. My impression is that Donald Trump wants to win, to be the greatest, better than anyone has been before, and that his affinity for Putin is because he looks like someone who is winning. That and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize 9 months into his term in office, so that's the deadline Trump is up against if he wants to be the best president at fostering peace.

I find Trump's desire to win a Nobel Peace Prize (if he does, indeed, want one - all I have seen on this point is speculation) truly bizarre. For as long as I can remember American conservatives (and Tom Lehrer and others from the more cynical left) have mocked the Peace Prize based on the wickedness of some of the most famous laureates.

I personally believe that Donald Trump has already well and truly earned his place in the illustrious company of Yasser Arafat, Gerry Adams, Le Duc Tho etc. (I assume MAGA supporters would throw in the EU, Kofi Annan and Barack Obama as similarly undeserving cases.) But I don't see why he would be making an effort to have this fact publicly recognised.

My impression is that Donald Trump wants to win, to be the greatest, better than anyone has been before, and that his affinity for Putin is because he looks like someone who is winning.

I don't think it's so much an obsession with winning. Putin looks like someone who would like to make a deal.

Members of the atlanticist world order (NATO, Europe) seems to want to the world to just magically be different than what it is and the unstable post Cold War world to be maintained forever, even as they mortgage increasingly large chunks of their population's future for diminishing returns. They do not want to make deals with Trump; they don't think he's serious, they want him to disappear and the world to just go back the way it was. Both of these are non-starters for Trump. They don't call him to negociate their place in the next world order, they act outraged that Trump is not bound by the imperative of keeping the atlanticist world order intact. Putin at least takes those negociations seriously. Of course, Russia didn't have much of a place after the end of the Cold War so it's no wonder that they are open to discussions.

and that his affinity for Putin is because he looks like someone who is winning.

I think a lot of things are just Trump treating Putin how he'd want to be treated.

The refusal to do things like speak too negatively about Putin, going back to his first term, makes more sense if you think of it as Trump knowing talking about him that way would wreck any deal and not wanting to close off doors with a fellow tough guy. As he sees it anyway.

He doesn't care about Ukraine or Zelensky and thinks, offered a quick deal to get out of it all, Putin would move on it as he would.

That and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize 9 months into his term in office, so that's the deadline Trump is up against if he wants to be the best president at fostering peace.

He already did as much or more than Obama at the time.

This is certainly true. He has done many things.

That's not what I was going for, but I suppose it will do.

Yeah, I saw and considered the other way but I like this one better.

I'd be surprised if the Nobel people would be willing to give him a peace prize.

I'd be surprised if the Nobel people would be willing to give him a peace prize.

Of course the Nobel Committee would give Trump a Nobel Peace Prize! They'd be crazy not to, believe me. Nobody has done more for world peace than Donald Trump, not even close. The Abraham Accords? Beautiful peace deal, totally historic, everyone said it couldn't be done. And North Korea? Trump walked right in there, first president ever, and suddenly no more missile tests! The so-called experts - terrible people, by the way - they've been trying and failing for decades, but Trump got it done with his tremendous negotiating skills.

The fact is, Obama got one for doing absolutely nothing! Zero! Trump actually delivered peace, the best peace maybe ever, while bringing our troops home and building the greatest economy in history. The Nobel Committee, they know it, everybody knows it - Donald Trump deserves that prize more than anyone, and when they give it to him, it'll be the biggest, most-watched ceremony ever. Much bigger ratings than Obama's, that I can tell you!

Did you write this yourself or did you ask an AI to write it in Trump's style?

I think you have to be pretty credulous and/or clueless to take this talk of Trump being a Russian asset remotely seriously.

However, If I was a US President who was also secretly rooting for/in the pocket of Vladimir Putin here are some of the things i would be doing.

  • I would pursue a policy of rapprochement with Russia and its allies such as Iran, and instruct the State Department and US government-aligned NGOs to find excuses to ship them pallets of money and materiel.
  • I would work to curtail energy production and export by the US and other western powers to increase Russian revenue and negotiating leverage.
  • If Russia were to suddenly invade or annex the territory of one of its nieghbors I would be hesitant to condemn them and if possible avoid taking any action until it was clear which way the wind was blowing.
  • If pressured by congress and allies to provide support for the invaded I would slow-walk the deliveries, and put onerous restrictions on when/where US/NATO aid is allowed to be used, and against what targets.

In short, I would be following the example set by Barack Obama in 2014

Ding ding ding.

If Trump is the Russian Asset, it'd be strange that Putin made his territory grabs in Obama and Biden's terms, was relatively well behaved during Trump 1, and is actually demonstrating willingness to make peace during Trump 2.

You even forgot the classic "I'll have more flexibility after the election" moment.

Why do you think Putin is demonstrating willingness to make peace in a way which goes beyond the default? He has always been happy to discuss terms on which Ukraine might surrender - and neither Putin nor Trump has made any public statements that suggest Putin would accept a reasonable peace deal, even a temporary ceasefire on the current front line.

One of the reasons why I am suspicious of Trump's motives here is that he is generally acting as if the key fact about the path to peace is that there is already an offer of a deal from the Russian side which preserves Ukrainian sovereignty in the territory Ukraine currently controls, and the reason why the war continues is that Zelensky is unwilling to accept it. This simply isn't true. Someone needs to bring Russia to the table as well as Ukraine, and Trump consistently talks and acts as if this is not the case. The model of Trump where his words and actions make sense given his goals is one where he thinks the best achievable outcome is a Ukrainian surrender with minimal additional bloodshed.

Now add alienating allies into the mix.

Obama was soft on Putin. Trump is another level.

I've been consistent in my view that Trump is not a Russian asset, just a simp for Putin. This is why he's not being very strategic about it - he's not acting like this because he works for Putin; he's acting like this because he likes Putin and doesn't like US allies.

A genuine Russian asset would be doing many of the same things, but they'd be trying to boil the frog and they'd be trying to be less polarizing domestically. As it is, Trump is largely calcifying anti-Russian sentiment without building any counterbalance. The pro-Russian element in the US government is essentially just Trump. And while a mad king can do a lot to trash US relationships, I would presume the Russians would be looking to sever them in a more permanent fashion.

The ambiguity and slow ramping is the point, make the callouts start from the radicals to give the appearance that accusations are always baseless and train people to ignore them from historic allies and partners

I think the Trump administration being "pro not sending poor rural American guys to get their legs and genitals blown off in foreign countries" has at least as much explanatory power as Trump being a "Russian asset", with the added benefit of being simpler, to boot.

Except that nobody has suggested sending American soldiers to Ukraine. Trump is the one planning to send Americans to disarm every land mine in Gaza.

Trump is the one planning to send Americans to disarm every land mine in Gaza.

Is he?

That is the easily foreseeable outcome of a security guarantee. Trump is 100% correct not to offer this.

I actually don't think that it does, both because that isn't on the table re: Ukraine and because they're not actually against that in other cases.

because that isn't on the table

Maybe I am in a filter bubble, but I've seen quite a lot of hemming and hawing lately that Trump's refusal to provide a security guarantee to the Ukraine is proof that he is a Russian asset.

If that is a common argument, I am somewhat perplexed at the idea that ground troops aren't on the table.

Am I wrong that it's a common argument, or is there some way to provide a guarantee that doesn't inevitably degenerate to boots on the ground?

is there some way to provide a guarantee that doesn't inevitably degenerate to boots on the ground?

US airpower and Other NATO ground troops. But that's really beside the point - the security guarantees discussion is about post-ceasefire/peace arrangements, not sending NATO troops (American or otherwise) in to end the war. If the proposition is that Russia cannot be deterred, then that's implicitly conceding that any peace deal is pointless regardless.

Trump being a Russian asset and Trump’s agenda being good for Russia are different things. Trump just likes autarchy and isolationism and dislikes foreign allies.

We’d have some evidence that isn’t fake if he was a Russian asset. We don’t.

I don’t think Trump is reliable enough as a human being to be a Russian asset, all else aside.

I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, and I wouldn’t lose any voters

An iconic quote, for sure, but what is he actually saying? He’s saying that enemy propaganda runs off him like water off a duck’s back, it has no effect. Imagine the infamous Trump ‘pee tape’ alleged by Christopher Steele released tomorrow in The Guardian. Would anyone believe it? We live in the age of AI video now, so presumably not, but even in 2016 special effects were already very good, Trump’s opponents very rich, Trump’s supporters already very suspicious of mainstream media.

This makes Trump a very poor Russian asset. The classic tools of Russian tradecraft - conspicuous-but-plausibly-deniable assassination and kompromat - are both unusable (the former because it would only bring more anti-Russia politicians to power and the latter because it would have no effect on Trump’s popularity). The only other thing the Russians had in the Cold War, and the source of most double agents, was communism and ideology, but Trump has little of that and these days neither does Russia.

Also Trump only became President due to several unlikely twists of fate. If you were trying to cultivate KGB assets 40 years ago in the hopes that one of them would eventually become President, you would mostly be focusing on congressmen and governors, not moderately famous real estate developers.

I would have not delivered weapons and intelligence to Ukraine in my first term in office. In fact, I would have worked with the President of Russia to either pressure Ukraine into acquiescing to neutrality and territorial concessions then or alternatively wrung my hands and done absolutely nothing while the Russia invaded Ukraine, because you would have to be retarded to want to invade your neighbor and not to it while your own guy is sitting in the Presidency of the only country that can effectively help them.

The reality lines up with what you describe only it's not that slow. It's happening pretty fast and a significant fraction of the US and global and maybe even Russian populations think Trump is a Russian asset -- pretty shameless work if he is operating clandestinely. This is why I don't think he is -- a Russian asset would be more subtle and include some measure of compromise for added realism, such as minor criticism of Russia on occasion. Much more likely he is just an ideological sympathiser and whole hearted admirer of Putin's raw power.

and a significant fraction of the US and global and maybe even Russian populations think Trump is a Russian asset

They do understand he's not acting in their interests. The "but muh Russian asset" (and to a point, "but muh corruption") is just jingoism (from the same psychological place as "muh birth certificate").

You think Trump would be capable of being subtle and patient?

Truthfully? Yes.

Observe, Trump is a real-estate developer in one of the most crooked cities in the Union, a successful developer at that. An army of Democrat and US government -aligned lawers spent 9 years and millions of dollars building a case against him and weren't able to find anything beyond ticky-tacky 3 felonies a day type shit.

This presents us with two possibilities. Trump is corrupt, but also very good at covering his ass, crossing ts, dotting is, etc... or he is both clean and successful in a famously shady industry in a famously shady city.

Both of these options require him to posses substantial reserves of patience and subtlty

Much more likely he is just an ideological sympathiser and whole hearted admirer of Putin's raw power.

I think even this is going too far. At the height of the gaming culture war, pro-Gamergaters liked talking about "getting thrown in the pit with the rest of us", that is, the circumstance that disagreeing with their opposition on anything would in short order get you labelled a misogynistic pro-Trump Nazi incel no matter how small the disagreement was, and that when you found yourself shunned by polite society and welcomed by a set of misogynistic pro-Trump Nazi incels, it is very easy to think the latter might not be so bad, and to repay kindness, acceptance and affirmation with the same.

In the affect-loading game, confident and egotistical people especially pin their own node at plus infinity affect. All the Western media has spent the past 8 years trying their darndest to reinforce the Trump-Russia edge. Who says Trump himself should be immune? If he keeps being thrown in the pit with Russia, would we not expect him to come to feel that Russia is on his team?

(As an aside, I would be so relieved if Trump somehow actually aligned the US with Russia against China, so I could then side with the latter against the former. It's always hard to dodge allegations that I sympathise with the anti-US position due to having Russian roots.)

Yes possible -- "If that's what you think of me, then that's what I'll be."

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