site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   35669 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

ENTSOG map, for reference, with the breach occuring around Bornholm Island. Also to note, gas hasn't been flowing through either pipeline anyway: NS2 approval got spiked with the invasion, and NS1 has been shut off since the first of September, with the official excuse being a Russian turbine needing to be replaced and not being able to due to sanctions (though this is isn't true -- Canada, the repairer of such turbines, carved this out of their sanctions). Volumes have been flatlined since then, per the Nord Stream site. Accordingly, any recent projections of European gas scarcity (whether optimistic or pessimistic) shouldn't have been dependent on flow through Nord Stream. One such recent model has the biggest short term salve being energy generation substitution to coal, for example.

It's also very unlikely that Russia is responsible in this light -- the pipelines were already not being used via their equivocations over the turbines with Canada. Throwing Germany's steering wheel out of the window for them is not likely to yield them any concessions in the gas standoff, or poke at any weak points to unravel European solidarity over sanctions. This was likely West-aligned, but beyond that, who can say? These pipelines are notoriously vulnerable, I'd only be moderately surprised if it turned out to be a non-state actor (if only because overland pipelines are much easier targets, even if they don't have as much symbolic mindshare as Nord Stream).

One thing I do wonder is if they even get repaired now? NS1 potentially -- with its fate so uncertain whose to know -- but there isn't even a legally functioning entity on the European side to take responsibility for NS2. Who's justifying that expense?

This was likely West-aligned

Could have been Belarus, now they have the only pipeline from Russia to Europe. Very nice position for Lukashenko to be in. Also third parties, as previously mentioned.

Belarus would have to get Poland to agree to let the gas through their territory, wouldn’t they?

Something tells me Poland will hold out longer than Germany.

Well if you envision it as a game of chicken, the exchange has gone something like this:

EU: Stop invading Ukraine, or at least do it more quietly, or we're going to stop buying gas

RF: You're bluffing. You won't stop buying gas, you'll freeze to death. You don't care about the Ukies that much. Give us your money and shut up.

EU: We totally will stop buying gas, even if the poor freeze, we're Americans now we don't care about the poor. We're going to stop buying gas altogether in three months time. Three months time and you're cut off, no more money.

RF: Well, fine, fuck you, no more NS1 pipeline right now. "Maintenance" you know? See if you can hold up your end of the bargain.

Seen in this light, with Russia having recently called the EU's bluff by cutting off gas supplies early, it could make sense that a Western aligned actor attacked the pipeline for the purpose of calling Russia's bluff, "We don't need your stinking pipeline, in fact watch us blow it up." On the theory that Russia, realizing that pipeline diplomacy won't work, will be forced to settle for a lesser deal. Or it could be an escalation of Russia's earlier calling the EUs bluff, hoping to inspire panic in energy markets that will lead to cracks in the pro-war coalition in the West.

Not sure either plan will work. Both sides are far too organized to respond to intimidation in that way.

Well if you envision it as a game of chicken, the exchange has gone something like this:

EU: Stop invading Ukraine, or at least do it more quietly, or we're going to stop buying gas

RF: You're bluffing. You won't stop buying gas, you'll freeze to death. You don't care about the Ukies that much. Give us your money and shut up.

I approve of the game of chicken metaphor, but raise that it doesn't need to be a game of chicken between EU and RF, but could be between Germany and other members of the EU (or NATO) trying to constrain Germany's options.

While unlikely, it could also be an action by someone else trying to constraint Russia's options. As in- 'Russia, don't put your hopes on the Germans breaking ranks, they can't do so now.'

I approve of the game of chicken metaphor, but raise that it doesn't need to be a game of chicken between EU and RF, but could be between Germany and other members of the EU (or NATO) trying to constrain Germany's options.

Why not both? The benefits can be multi-faceted.

Euro gas futures markets have been chilling out for a bit, ironically.

The reason why it doesn't make much sense as Russian bluff/escalation is that the only important costs borne by Germany are political costs -- the cost of making difficult, painful, but ultimately strategically correct decisions. Taking that decision out of German hands is a gift. Blowing the pipeline ends the game, no more concessions to be extracted or cracks to leverage. However much Germans suffer this winter is of vastly less strategic import to Russia than the unified front of sanctions against it. That suffering is only a chip to be traded for relief on the latter, and is near useless on its own.

However much Germans suffer this winter is of vastly less strategic import to Russia than the unified front of sanctions against it. That suffering is only a chip to be traded for relief on the latter, and is near useless on its own.

I'd go so far as to say that German suffering is actively a bad thing for Russia. The goal of the game of chicken isn't to crash your opponent's car, it is to get him to swerve first. Both sides are attempting to show that they are indifferent to the suffering inflicted by cutting off trade, which is considerable on both sides. See the series of planted talking points stories in Western outlets recently, about how "actually Russian sanctions evasion in third countries is the ideal outcome for NATO because it stabilizes energy markets while forcing Russia to sell at a discount."

What better way to show that you are indifferent to the flow of gas being cut off than bombing the pipeline? It can be repaired for a few billion, the gain of your opponent folding in the face of your massive bluff is much higher.

The conspiracy theory I'm seeing is that it's Putin's way of not giving anyone who seeks to replace him a way out. If the pipelines are destroyed and Europe becomes energy-independentish then there's no way for a successor to make a rapprochement take things back to normal. Ship goes down with the captain.

If the pipelines are destroyed and Europe becomes energy-independentish

Not happening. Barring the discovery of some brand new too-cheap-to-meter form of energy generation. there's no way for Europe to become energy independent without a dramatic decrease in quality of life, energy usage and/or population.

They could power up the decommissioned nuclear plants, stop cutting production, and start fracking like there's no tomorrow. But they won't.

Very unconvincing to me, not least because Putin has been incredibly risk-adverse and reticent to do anything that could be construed as escalatory as far as Nato is concerned.

I'm not averse to blaming Russia, but that's way too complicated.

It's also very unlikely that Russia is responsible in this light -- the pipelines were already not being used via their equivocations over the turbines with Canada. Throwing Germany's steering wheel out of the window for them is not likely to yield them any concessions in the gas standoff, or poke at any weak points to unravel European solidarity over sanctions.

Depends if they ever really planned on providing gas to Germany again.

Russia had made some rather large agreements with China on oil & gas prior to the Ukraine invasion. Russia has been ramping up construction of pipelines east.

If Russia had planned on cutting off these pipelines all along, it'd make no sense to cut off the flow on day 1. That would give a bit of pain to Germany (and the EU), but it would lead to an actual solution in short order, with spring/summer giving a decent buffer to prepare for winter. Also, if Russia cut gas day 1, then the EU (and particularly Germany) would have likely gone all in behind Ukraine. Maybe even boots on the ground. There surely wouldn't have been hemming and hawing about whether to send weapons, which ones, how many, etc.

A big sticking point for me is that I do not believe there was an actual issue with the turbines. I believe the particular compression station has 4 to 6 turbines typically installed, with 4 needed for operating easily at full capacity. There's another ~4 turbines that were spares, iirc. One was off for maintenance in Canada.

So how does Russia go from a full set of turbines, pumping at full capacity (I think they were actually pumping over capacity for much of the past few years), down to just 1 that's barely useable? It seems like a story they are telling. If the turbines were an issue, and they actually wanted them back up and running, Germany was willing to give them full support. But Russia refused, adding obstacles to it. And Russia was really only asking for a pretty narrow exception to the sanctions, not lifting of all sanctions. And from what I understand, Germany was happy to provide them.

So there's obviously more going on. Maybe Russia was leveraging the flow in order to prevent arms transfers? If Germany (or other EU states) were sending weapons, Russia throttles it. So Germany delays sending lethal/military aid to Ukraine.

But I think Russia is simply taking these turbines and tossing them on their eastern pipelines to accelerate construction, which is why they denied all offers to fix the things. Now this incident gives Russia the opportunity to begin peeling down the NS2 pipeline, and probably ripping whatever else they can get from NS1.

This will be the end (for awhile, at least) of cheap energy for the EU. But it will bring a ton of cheap energy to China.

I think Russia's actions are largely done at the behest of China. This is China's moment to make the multipolar world they've been talking about. Though I believe the multipolar world is simply a transition to a unipolar world with China at the top. And somehow we in the west continue to sit on our hands, and I fear we'll respond far too late.

China has collapsing demographics, little naval power, and an economy that's still poor and not growing... as well as the worst geographic vulnerabilities to its see trade and an entire ring of enemies around it...

China becoming an equal power in a multipolar world is optimistic, them winning the 21st century is laughable.

Many years until those pipelines to China are built.

At the moment, the gas fields that were supplying EU are thousands of km away from nearest China pipeline connection. The pipelines to China are from much smaller eastern fields.

All the gas that went to EU has nowhere to go. Unless they start with selling LNG, too.

Unless they start with selling LNG, too.

They have very little capacity to compress it. And are unlikely to be able to expand that much while under sanction.

And are unlikely to be able to expand that much while under sanction.

Yes. Chinese are completely unable to build gas liquefaction machinery. It requires high tech industry such a backward country cannot possibly manage to build.

Lmfao.

I get tons of downvotes when I point out 'sanctions' are no such a big deal when the country with half of the world's industry and the world's most rampant IP theft program refuses to sanction Russia on account of it being its biggest ally.

Cope & seethe, cope & seethe. Keep the downvotes coming.

Whining about downvoting is never productive.

"Cope and seethe" is just being obnoxiously antagonistic in a petty and immature way. This is not the playground and you aren't "winning" with the best neener-neener. Don't do this.

Okay.

I find it hilarious, this assumption that Chinese are traitorous idiots who are going to backstab Russia and can't even get high tech working.

Wishful thinking by yanks all the way, obviously.

Huge market out there for China related cope material. That they're going to betray Russia and snag some territory is about the most common talking point I see though.

I suppose China turning its back on Russia would be far-fetched, but I can imagine that if the two states were to ally, they would not even come close to being equivalent to 1.5 Americas. The Chinese readiness for war is still such that they might be capable of something, but the West has proven that China is very welcome to fuck around and find out--and maybe China won't, since the political costs of being smacked on your pizza hands over Taiwan are probably too dire to imagine.

More comments

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