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 -
Modern chips use every single satellite out there to calculate position. They probably use something similar, possibly improved to be jamming resistant.
Europe can't even supply the simplest, WW1 piece of technology Ukraine needs: artillery ammunition. We are on year 3.5 of an artillery war. Despite having what, 50x the GDP, Ukraine could theoretically get less than half of what Russia makes.
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/04/22/germanys-new-plant-to-flood-nato-with-350k-artillery-shells/
The French army allegedly told Macron to go hang after he floated the idea of sending them into Ukraine, just as 'peacekeepers'. You know, not 'on the front' just station them around key strategic areas where they'd be getting shot at with Russian missiles. (I'll include the translated article in a reply)
Talent? Firstly, Russians would say they don't care about Germany/Poland, and they aren't South-Africa tier idiots who would say "just not yet". And maybe they'd be even correct, what Russians really care about is Americans out and being able to deal with Europe on a country basis. Even if conquest were possible (theoretically) it'd not be worth it - mass mobilization isn't what Russian citizens want, China wouldn't want it either.
As to ...what talent? NATO, the organisation, basically exists as sinecures for officers. European armies are small and have zero experience with modern warfare and not much critical equipment. No vast reserves of artillery. Shortages of air-defense missiles. Drone components would have to come from China, too.
Nick, 30 ans is not willing to let himself be conscripted by the million by governments he know doesn't care about him one iota and sent to the eastern front. Do you think all the young 'citizens' of immigrant origins who don't care about Europe one bit would let themselves be conscripted by the million, without starting to chimp?
Also, under ideal conditions- no pesky politicking, no sabotage by the courts, no foreign interference and vast reserves of veterans officers, it still took Germany what, 8 years to return from a small professional force to a large conscript army.
Not sure they'd want to take the Baltics, but I'd not rule it out either. They really hate them, Balt elites hate them back and are very keen on anti-Russian agitation, militarily it's doable and hey, it's not like the younger population of Baltics wouldn't just emigrate.
That US bows out or gets defeated in East Asia is likely. If they couldn't take on Houthis and convincingly win, what hope is there against Chinese?.
US Navy isn't ready to fight a missile-heavy war against China, near Chinese coasts. Aircraft carriers are of little help there. It'd need a lot more missile platforms and a lot more missiles. Both are in short supply.
How hard can it be to conscript these migrants? The US conscripted blacks in ww2, despite an extensive segregation regime and discrimination... Just blare war propaganda about how the enemy is subhuman nazi-commie orcs looking to rape and murder everyone you love. Go out on the street and grab them, draft them. That's what the Ukrainians do and it works out for them despite horrific casualties. The real problem is that the migrants aren't good at fighting compared to Europeans or Russians. One Russian brigade could've kept Assad in power, tiny Russian forces easily coup African nations: the MENA riff-raff are no match for European troops,. Nevertheless, if the Ukrainian population pool were 500 million rather than 20-30 million, I can't see how they could possibly lose the war save nuclear escalation.
The Ukrainians surely know their govt is grossly corrupt and doesn't care about them, sending them on pointless cross-river incursions, defending random towns to the last man for political reasons. Yet they fight on.
However, I admit that if the political front collapses then Europe does lose.
But if they go in on the Baltics and NATO gives up then NATO is a complete joke, they're dispensed to the cuck chair of history. Poland would be on their own. Germany would be on their own. And only then would they truly be in danger because Poland or Germany alone are no match for Russia. Surely you know how much the 'Putin Soviet Empire Imperialist Expansion Warstarter' crowd howls now, they'd be screeching and wailing if Putin did go in on the Baltics. Their frame is already dominant in elite circles and would only be further strengthened by an invasion. Taking Putin's word that he won't go further would be too much of a humiliation for these people.
The industrial capacity Europe retains is still considerably more than Russia in terms of machine tools, steel and especially high-tech industries. And let's remember that this is still Europe, these are the people who conquered almost all of the world. Even appallingly misled there's still latent competence on the continent. There isn't so much in the way of artillery but the raw fundamentals are just superior to Russia. A scale-based advantage beats a time-based advantage in a long war. European armies are small? They'll learn and grow in battle like America in WW2, like Ukraine and Russia today. They have some 2 million professional soldiers!
The US may well lose in Asia but at that point it's a new world order and all bets are off, NATO may well disintegrate or we see full WW3 or something else.
Yeah but recent immigrants are very literally mobile towards wherever suits them and know the right buttons to press in terms of media representation. Where was this hypothetical black American conscript going to bail off to? Europe was a complete mess at the time, people were fundamentally far less mobile.
More options
Context Copy link
In WW2, US largely used blacks in non-combat roles. The few combat units that existed were a very mixed bag. Also performed quite badly, at least the infantry division in Italy. US also suffered low overall casualties. In Vietnam, US casualties overall were miniscule (by European war standards) and yet there was quite a lot of popular discontent around the draft.
And? That's the predictable outcome. What else can you say about current EU leadership except that they're stupid cucks?
They let themselves be signed up for the American plan of showing Russia who is who in Ukraine. That plane was based on the assumptions Russians have the same level of agency as pudding.
Well, now it's years later and Ukraine still isn't getting enough weapons, European governments are ever more distrusted by the population, half of Germany's welfare goes to foreigners. In short, these people are cucks and their countries rightfully belong in the 'cuck chair of history' until the regimes are overthrown and unfucked. Welfare state over, migrants gone, retirees half starving. Who has the will to do that? Nobody. (but I'm a pessimist)
Despite knowing since at least 2020 that there'd be war, the same governments haven't done anything to secure popular support such as getting rid of the migrants. Iran and Pakistan can do mass deportations, but France or Germany can't. Trust in government in Germany is at an all time post-1950 low.
No, they aren't. They are the retarded liberal grandchildren of people who weren't even sure conquering the world was a good idea.
There won't be a 'full WW3' because even as bad as US getting kicked out of East Asia could be-and I suspect it'll happen gently, in a 'face-saving' way - a total nuclear exchange is way, way worse. Worst case if it loses hegemon status, Americans are losing at 1-2 decades of very shitty politics and economics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Translated article from Marianne on Macron's troop proposal: https://archive.is/u1j76#selection-3005.0-3323.65
By refusing to rule out sending troops to Ukraine, Emmanuel Macron has triggered an uproar across Europe and earned a rebuke from the United States. Several French officers, speaking to Marianne on condition of anonymity, say they were “knocked sideways.” “Let’s not kid ourselves: against the Russians we’re a cheer-leading squad!” scoffs a senior officer, convinced that dispatching French troops to the Ukrainian front would simply be “unreasonable.” At the Élysée, the stance is unapologetic: “The President wanted to send a strong signal,” says an adviser, describing the wording as “carefully measured and calibrated.”
At the Ministry for the Armed Forces, those close to Sébastien Lecornu defend the president’s wording: “The state of Ukrainian forces is deeply worrying. The president’s remarks are meant to jolt everyone and show we’re at a turning point.” How did we get here? Several classified defence reports, seen by Marianne, speak of a “critical situation.” Here are the three key findings—far removed from official talking-points.
Finding 1: A Ukrainian military victory is now impossible.
For months European chancelleries clung to the hope that Kyiv’s 2023 spring counter-offensive, backed by Western kit, would push the Russian army all the way back to Moscow. After-action reviews written this autumn are damning. “It gradually bogged down in mud and blood and achieved no strategic gains,” states one confidential defence report on the “failure of the Ukrainian offensive.”
The planning—drawn up in Kyiv and Western headquarters—proved “disastrous.” “Planners assumed that once the first Russian defensive belts were breached the whole front would collapse … These crucial preliminary phases ignored the enemy’s moral strength on the defensive: that is, the Russian soldier’s determination to cling to the ground,” the report notes, calling Western planning a “bankruptcy.” Another lesson is the poor training of Ukrainian soldiers and NCOs: “Newly formed brigades existed mostly on paper” and training never lasted more than three weeks. Lacking cadres and a critical mass of veterans, these “Year-Two soldiers” were thrown against a Russian fortification line that turned out to be impregnable. With no air support, a mish-mash of Western kit inferior to old Soviet gear (“obsolete, easy to maintain, usable in degraded mode,” says the report), Ukrainian troops had no chance of breaking through.
Add to that “Russia’s overwhelming dominance in electronic warfare, crippling Ukrainian drone use and command systems.” Today, “the Russian army is the tactical and technical benchmark for conceiving and executing defensive operations,” the report concludes. Not only does Moscow have the heavy engineer kit to build defensive works—“almost completely absent on the Ukrainian side, and impossible for the West to supply quickly”—but the 1,200-km front, known as the Surovikin Line, is mined on a colossal scale (7,000 km of mines). Another observation: “The Russians have also managed their reserve force to ensure operational endurance.” According to the document, Moscow reinforces units before they are exhausted, mixes recruits with seasoned troops, gives regular rear-area rest periods—and “has always maintained a coherent force pool to handle the unexpected.” Far from the Western cliché of a Russian army mindlessly feeding men into the meat-grinder… “To date, the Ukrainian general staff lacks a critical mass of ground forces capable of combined-arms manoeuvre at corps level able to challenge their Russian counterparts and break the defensive line,” the classified report concludes, warning that “the gravest analytical and judgement error would be to keep looking for exclusively military solutions to end the fighting.” A French senior officer sums up: “Looking at the forces on the ground, it’s clear Ukraine cannot win this war militarily.”
Finding 2: Kyiv has been forced onto the defensive.
The conflict entered a critical phase in December. According to our military sources in Paris, the Ukrainian army has been compelled to go on the defensive. “The combat motivation of Ukrainian soldiers is deeply affected,” notes a 2024 outlook report. “Zelensky needs 35,000 men a month; he is not recruiting half that, while Putin can draw on 30,000 volunteers each month,” says an officer just back from Kyiv. The balance of materiel is just as lopsided: the failed 2023 offensive “tactically destroyed” half of Kyiv’s 12 combat brigades. Western aid has never been lower. It is therefore clear no Ukrainian offensive can be mounted this year. “The West can ship 3-D printers to make drones or loitering munitions, but it can’t print soldiers,” the report notes. “Given the situation, the idea has been floated to reinforce the Ukrainian army not with fighters but with support troops in the rear, freeing Ukrainian soldiers for the front,” admits a senior officer, confirming a “quiet build-up” of Western troops in civilian clothes. Even if two American rail-cars—likely used by the CIA—are attached to the daily train from Poland to Kyiv, the West only half-admits the presence of special forces in Ukraine. “Besides the Americans, who let the New York Times visit a CIA camp, there are plenty of Brits,” says a military source, who does not deny the presence of French special forces— notably combat swimmers on training missions…
Finding 3: The risk of a Russian breakthrough is real.
This is the latest lesson from the Ukrainian front that gives French observers cold sweats. On 17 February Kyiv had to abandon the city of Avdiivka, north of Donetsk, until then a fortified bastion. “It was both the heart and the symbol of Ukrainian resistance in Russian-speaking Donbas,” notes a report on the “Battle of Avdiivka,” drawing a series of damning lessons. “The Russians changed their modus operandi, compartmentalising the city and, above all, using glide bombs on a large scale for the first time,” the document states. Whereas a 155 mm artillery shell carries 7 kg of explosive, a glide bomb delivers 200–700 kg and can pierce more than 2 m of reinforced concrete—hell for Ukrainian defences, which reportedly lost over 1,000 men a day. Moreover, the Russians now fit small-arms suppressors to foil acoustic detection on the battlefield. “The decision to withdraw Ukrainian forces came as a surprise,” the report notes, highlighting “its suddenness and lack of preparation,” raising fears it was “imposed on, rather than decided by, the Ukrainian command,” hinting at the start of a rout. “The Ukrainian armed forces have just shown tactically that they lack the human and material capacity… to hold a sector of the front under sustained enemy pressure,” the document continues. “The Ukrainian failure at Avdiivka shows that, despite the emergency dispatch of an ‘elite’ brigade—the 3rd Air Assault Azov Brigade—Kyiv is unable to shore up a collapsing sector locally,” the report warns. The art of “Maskovkira” What will the Russians do with this tactical success? Continue the current pattern of “nibbling and slow erosion” along the whole front, or push for a deep breakthrough? “The terrain behind Avdiivka allows it,” the recent document notes, adding that Western sources tend to “underestimate” the Russians, masters of “Maskovkira”—the practice of “appearing weak when you are strong.” According to this analysis, after two years of war Russian forces have demonstrated the ability to “develop operational endurance” enabling them to wage “a long, slow, high-intensity war based on the continuous attrition of the Ukrainian army.” A sobering conclusion for what comes next. Is this new strategic landscape—where the Russian army seems dominant and the Ukrainian army exhausted—what prompted Emmanuel Macron, “dynamically” as he put it, to consider sending troops? A realistic perspective given the current operational situation, described as “critical” by observers on the ground. “But what may look realistic from a strictly tactical standpoint can prove unrealistic from a strategic and diplomatic one,” sighs a French senior officer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link