site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   5245 thread views

Transnational Thursday for May 29, 2025

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Seems like the numbers were exaggerated with 2 of the attacks randomly detonating en route and another getting blocked by random civilians. Maybe 10 destroyed / damaged. Still pretty crazy though, not an attack that will change the outcome of the war but it could lead to countries tearing up / rethinking a lot of current nuke agreeements.

More and more the deep bombings are just drone swarms. With a record of over 400 lancets launched in one day last week and newer jet propelled variations using up more AA. The glidebombs doing most of the work on the front line are carried by smaller aircraft. It seems like this was purely (if it had been more successful) intended to try to provoke a nuclear response. Force Russia into a lose-lose situation where it either makes a major escalation, which they could use to try and get western boots on the ground. Or if Russia doesn't respond show the western powers that it's safe to greenlight deep strikes that slowly chip away at Russia's nuclear deterrence. As that is obviously the main reason the west won't get involved, everyone loses a nuclear war between NATO and Russia, but NATO wins a conventional war (unless China steps in).

I guess they've recognized they have no chance without European troops so they're going for crazier shit.

Pro-Russians have been shouting about the imminent nuclear war and crazy Ukrainians being on the brink of WW3 for three years now in a row every time that Ukrainians pull a successful operation of some kind (and also between the operations). Isn't it a bit tiresome when WW3 once again fails to happen?

It seems like this was purely (if it had been more successful) intended to try to provoke a nuclear response.

Isn’t there a more parsimonious explanation for ukraine’s behaviour? Something like: ‘Let’s do as much damage to russian military equipment as possible, because, we’re in a war, and that’s what you do’.

The russian supporters ever-renewed surprise and outrage at being attacked back never fails to entertain. Why would the ukrainians do that? They must have ulterior motives. Yesterday on twitter the hallucinated reason was to ‘torpedo the peace talks’, the peace talks that, until then, putin had shown zero interest in, and they duly decried as absurd.

Why would the ukrainians do that? They must have ulterior motives.

Indeed. What possible reason could the Ukrainians have to make the war more costly for Russia by striking against targets that Russia can't easily replace. It truly boggles the mind... /s

Assets that, if some reports are to be believed, were in some locations recently relocated and possibly preparing for an upcoming major strike that would coincide with the peace talks ongoing offensive.

Not really, you want to do damage to conventional weapons, not nuclear fleet. You're in a conventional war, you won't win with random deep strikes on weapons that aren't being used in the war. You could just start suicide bombing tons of people in moscow or something if you just want to do damage to your enemy, but that will just backfire and weaken your position. The pro-russian people tend to think more strategically and the pro Ukr in emotional displays. So they are eternally confused by eachother. It reminds me of the battle of the sexes.

The pro-russian people tend to think more strategically and the pro Ukr in emotional displays. So they are eternally confused by eachother. It reminds me of the battle of the sexes.

This has got to be one of the worst claims put out on this forum in a long time.

The pro-Russians tend to outwardly go for a more "rational" style of discourse and pro-Ukrainians for more "emotional", but these are just chosen styles of discourse, they don't actually indicate that one side is more rational and the other more emotional. I still remember how the "rational" pro-Russian warbloggers and -tweeters spent weeks declaring that there's not a slightest chance the Ukrainians would get the city of H'erson back or push Russians out of the Kharkiv oblast and then dropped the whole topic like a hot potato when that happened without any indication of why they were wrong.

on weapons that aren't being used in the war

These bombers are being used in the war.

The pro-russian people tend to think more strategically and the pro Ukr in emotional displays.

The pro-Russian people tend to affect ruthlessness, however I'm not prepared to call this strategic thinking since it often seems to boil down to a gloss on "never do anything to upset Russia, since they might decide to nuke everyone in a fit of pique."

If you could, why would you not spend a few million to inflict hundreds of millions in damage to the enemy?

I suppose the smart, the russian-soviet way to spend money and lives, is to use AA missiles to shoot down cheap drones, or to kill one of their guys in exchange for one of Ukraine's, so that russia can brute-force its way to victory and its population to extinction. Much more sporting.

You could just start suicide bombing tons of people in moscow or something if you just want to do damage to your enemy, but that will just backfire and weaken your position.

Well yeah, your plan is ugly and weakens ukraine's position, as you note. This plan was beautiful and gave russia a black eye. Apples and Oranges.

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