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 -
Its pretty clear from satellite imagery that Russian vehicle parks were drawing down rapidly, but the pace of drawdown slowing is largely to do with tactical evolutions. Russias strategy of infiltrate and airstrike identified strongpoints has no place for armor partially because armor has many more limitations but simply because there isnt anything useful available to call up: vehicle parks are dry, the vehicle operators suck shit, and generals cant coordinate for fuck.
I am curious as to what the CIA Mossad SIS info you cite is, because all evidence shows that Russia has lost the thousands of vehicles cited byOryx and has not meaningfully replenished their TOE, and there is no statement from any of those entities to the contrary. If the claim is that Russia has a strong reserve that it can spring forth when the moment is right, there us no evidence for that still: the 1st Guards Tank Army and 4th Guards Tank Division (fuck Russia for their inconsistent nomenclature) are not on the front and are still functionally degraded, sitting pretty in the LMD for propaganda purposes. Russian C2 is degraded by institutional incapacity and the adhoc nature of any push being scraped from whatever is present. There is no actual reconstituted Russian Bear waiting to roll over once Pokrovsk breaks.
Chinas support of Russia seems the most hilarious part to me. China is buying up Russian oil continually, but it is RMB-effected (nominally presented in USD terms) so the actual levers of international finance to punish either China or Russia are limited. Yet China does not provide explicit military equipment to Russia, instead selling dual use components and forcibly adapted shitty golf carts or ebikes for Russia to get blown up. If China was kinetically supporting Russia like North Korea did, Russia would get its thousand tank fleet immediately: there are about 2000 type 96 idling in mongolia visible from Russia, pristine tanks preserved in sandy but dry terrain, needing less to reup than even tanks atmosphere protected facilities.
Instead Russia gets alibaba Desertcross jeeps and suicide tier dirt bikes. If Russia had better frontline electrification they would get the fields of Light Electric Vehicles with 40 mile range that China produced in the hundreds of thousands back in the 2010s. I don't doubt that China is happy to see western treasure expended on internal conflicts far from its border, but China didn't need to start this fight. Its not like the US seems to care about China given that the US is busy preparing for a Venezuela regime overthrow (Monroe is BACK baby!) while China is gearing up for a new Sino Japan war.
I’m referring to a specific incident about a year into the war, when the Ukrainian MoD claimed that Russia had suffered 140,000 KIA so far, and the White House started trumpeting that figure. The CIA quietly said that they thought the number of Russian KIA was more like 20,000, and you actually had the White House press secretary ridiculing the CIA’s estimate, even though British and Israeli intelligence had similar figures.
From what I remember this was a very common confusion between Ukrainians reporting casualties (still probably overestimated, but not really that egregious) and some newspapers reporting KIAs
Meduza confirmations of Russian KIA based on orbituaries were far more in line with Ukrainian estimates for casualties based on a 4:1 wounded to dead ratio, while Russia was just hilariously reporting "no casualties to glorious Russia, Kiev quakes in fear as we approach". Russia only started reporting casualties when Wagner untouchables were being killed. Ukraine also underreports their own casualties by massive amounts but the zigger smugposting about "well we still have missiles and tanks and people to throw so the west is clearly wrong about how much we are losing" is just neener neener loser shit. If you've got the resources then fucking win you useless shitheads. Either you're facing a tough opponent which explains your abysmal pace of advance or you're gassed out against a weakling. Dean writes that "all we have to do is wait for the enemy to lose the will to fight" is a great example of Bad Theories Of Victory, but "we can win but just choose not to" is a strong contender for the top prize of copesnorting. Its fucking Ukraine, a flat open land that used to be your own fucking territory and with compatible rail gauges. If fucking ziggers can't take on their bumfuck rural cousins then they aren't a great power exercising regional strength they're just the dying office boomer bullying juniors while whining about the good old days.
Dude, stop sanewashing the Russian lost a million. Meduza only got up to what, 130k, which would give 700k total losses.
Yeah, let's just elide the fact the bumfuck 'rural cousins' used to be the most industrialized part of USSR, are getting loads of assistance from Americans, and are, per capita, at least as capable as Russians and likely way more motivated.
More options
Context Copy link
or, you're content disarming Ukraine by physically killing its fighting men and destroying its fighting equipment as well emptying the armories of Europe on good terms in optimal situations close to your border and can do it as long as they're willing to fill their fortifications with soldiers and equipment
Russia was reporting casualty figures until fall 2022 when they stopped publicly releasing the figures. The Ukrainian MoD and government has claimed various casualty and KIA figures from laughable to completely ridiculous over the last 3 1/2 years.
If we listened to Western media, you should be scratching your head that despite how close Russia has been to collapse and failure and how many bagillion Russian men are dead in wave attacks, Russia continues to take land and destroy the AFU. Attempting to quote ISW or even Oryx is just unserious; those people are uncredible clowns with a 3 1/2 year record of just being wrong.
Copesnorting Ukrainians and cheerleaders are their own problem, but directionally they were never as bad as "rossiya stronk forever" antiwest ziggers whether DSA communist or antiwoke conservative. That doesn't mean the RUSSIAN theory of its path to victory is any more resilient. Russia force generation is "on pace" with casualties, and they recruit approcimately 20-30k a month. Math it out however you want, the Russian milbloggers are themselves bitching about massive losses for meters of dead dirt. If the AFU recruitment crisis is so abysmal and they're a shattered force with no men left, then why is Russia not just steamrolling back to Kharkiv or Kherson, the prizes won back early on. You have to make an affirmative case for your own theory of victory, and the Russian theory of victory has, ever since its inception, been "we can lose bodies forever". Their only major true victory in any war since founding was annihilating the Reich, and THAT had its own 'the enemy is on its last legs and we totally didn't lose the entire 6th to a useless siege' copesnorting.
Again, its fucking Ukraine. Flat empty land, equivalent rail gauges, fully mapped out, and literally the poorest country in Europe BEFORE the invasion. To fuck this up is fucking pathetic. Without nukes modern Russia would have been curbstomped to the dustbin of history like the failed traitors they were to the Kievan Rus and the Golden Horde. Muscovy delenda est.
I must not have been exposed to the "'rossiya stronk forever' antiwest ziggers" as much as you have been. In no world is Russia suffering 30k casualties a month.
not what I wrote; what I wrote was Russia is content at defensible lines close to their border where they can shell, bomb, and drone AFU fortifications, push forward with small forces to provoke a Ukrainian counterattack and then kill the counterattackers
I don't think this dialogue is going anywhere and you appear more interested in raging at ghost "ziggers" on the internet than responding to what I'm actually writing, which is typical about ppl who want to talk about this conflict and why I rarely bother to try.
Noble Russia only wishes to defend and kills invading Nazis by the thousand! Defensible line close to border, which is why the rush to Kiev was Just A Feint.
I can linkspam endless analysis from CSIS, UK MoD, Mediazone etc citing 200k+ dead and 900k+ total casualties, but you have already declared, in true Russian fashion, that the data presented cannot possibly match your perceived reality and thus the data is simply false. By charting out negative space in a positively affirmed stance - the claim is Russia has high casualties, but Russia has not collapsed, so Russia cannot possibly have high casualties - the positive affirmation is dismissed by claiming a negative. The affirmative case of Russia having collapsed is not the one being presented, but deliberate conflation serves to blur the boundaries of the argument and widen the counterclaim without needing to make a falsifiable claim.
Semantic games are irritating enough, but this conjuring of fallacies never actually employed by opposing viewpoints is not smart arguing, its cowardly retreating into "I never said that but you actually said something and you are wrong so I am right by default."
So, what is it you are claiming
or
I never said Russia losing a bagillion men will stop Russia, I have CONTINUALLY said thar Russia is extremely happy to toss minorities into the meatgrinder and that it can do so forever. I have always said that Russian C2 is a clusterfuck of ineptitude that prevents armor mass (which doesnt even exist anyways because Russian maintenance was is and always will be shit), that offensive operations are adhoc using whatever meat and alibaba junk vehicles can be scraped together, and that it is a slow attritional grind that Russia can sustain forever because sunk cost fallacy is the most consistent behavioral pattern of failed regimes everywhere.
I have staked my affirmative positions. I don't rely on casualty counts as first principles to justify a negative claim, I see Russian failure - defined against Russias own stated objectives and not the inferred "we are just defending ourselves" cope - and find ample proof of why they fail. I can do the same for Ukraine as well, since you can repeat ever C2 failure of Russia with how Ukraine absolutely bumblefucked their Zaphorizia offensive and their Kursk retreat, and those DID materially affect Ukraines theory of victory. The west also loves to imagine that Russia will break under economic pressure and valiant resistance because it keeps western hands clean, but whether thats a fiction they internally digest because they're incapable cowards or feckless warmongers is subject to. ones own biases. Its not like Europe has actually expended any of its actual warfighting equipment its doctrine calls for. Whether that doctrine is a good one is a different question, but the assumption that Russia is defeating the west by sacrificing the 1st Guards Tank Division for a bunch of javelins and legacy 152mm carted out of Bulgaria is just so adorable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Drones have made armored assaults extremely difficult. It's just too hard to amass a strike force without being spotted, much less crossing the killzone. That's why they switched to light 'vehicles' like golf carts and whatnot - the best survivability is speed and concealment. The idea behind "Line of Drones" was to remove the need for frontline infantry - it hasn't lived up to those goals, but it's the reason they haven't collapsed when they have such a manpower crisis.
I honestly think that excuse from Russians (and Ukrainians) about not massing armor due to drones is just cope. They aren't massing vehicles tread to tread, mobility kills on vehicles are still overwhelmingly mines and artillery is for (great) effect. No, the slavs just suck at coordinating multi prong advances whether it is armored or unarmored, and doing ATV spam is proof of incapability not prudence. Russians certainly effected multi prong armored pushes in Kursk when the ground wasnt mined and torn to shit, and any massing being within artillery range is fucking criminal since you shouldn't be massing within 5km of a first line of contact and if you're rushing to wait under an enemys artillery range then you're fucked whether you're sitting in an ATV or a BMP.
I believe this, but I also believe that drone ISR and resulting drone directed fires (to say nothing of drone strikes themselves) have made armored assaults, and worse breaching a minefield (already one of the hardest ops) an order of magnitude harder.
I am confident that in some sort of US Army vs Russian Army showdown, while the US Army would probably eventually prevail, as they are much better at independence and adaption (and importantly, course use more smoke and EW due to less micro from generals in the back). But they would get fucking SHELLACKED in the process.
Now of course they wouldn't breach the minefield without first airstriking everything remotely enemy shaped within 100km, and then go on to airstrike anything remotely shaped within 1,000km before they even contemplated the breach.
So the real lesson here is that if you don't have air superiority, offense is really really fucking hard. Defense was always powerful in the modern era, but with drones it got even better
Russia lacks the force projection ability to really pose a threat to the US, but I don't think the US would be capable of invading Russia and winning in a conventional military engagement. Their supply chains and logistics would be far too vulnerable in any kind of protracted conflict, and I don't think the US can actually stop the newest hypersonics. That said I think the only thing I can say with real confidence is that no matter what happens the US would have lost a lot more money than Russia did. And of course this assumes that nuclear weapons have been disabled by a kindly wizard too, otherwise the conflict only ever ends in "everybody loses".
Hypersonics dont do shit. SSM intercept rates are low enough to begin with, yet they fail to consistently degrade tactical level CNC nodes meaningfully, let alone operational. The idea that Russian hypersonics will lock down the backline is entirely out of step with platform count and magazine depth. What is a hypersonic supposed to cripple, an airfield? A big tent labelled "HQ"? A carrier battle group? Russia throwing Shahed (I know they have a local name I refuse to use it because these worthless copycats need to be continually reminded that they prostrated before Iran to get ANFO tipped glorified microlights) is proof of total incapability, not genius adaptation.
Wunderwaffen don't matter. If Russia wants to really cripple the USA now, investing in flashy hypersonic shit that pops off a few times and then gasses out isn't worth it. That Poseidon thing sounds much better, since you can annihilate US/Western economic overmatch by choking off Panama, Suez or North Sea, not to mention cutting underwater cables or pipes. Pity that stuff is not sexy enough for the retards staffing the Russian MOD. Shoigu! Gerasimov! Where is my wunderwaffen!
Are you sure?
I don't think we're really going to have a productive discussion here because we disagree on some of the basic assumptions about reality. I think that hypersonic missiles ignore a lot of existing missile interception technology and will have a huge impact in any kind of fight with the western powers. At the same time, I think Russia is far better and more experienced at using drones in warfare than the US - how long has it been since the US military actually fought a near-peer competitor?
Poseidon is an extremely interesting weapon system, but I didn't bring it up because as a nuclear weapon it once again just ends the debate and replaces it with a showing of Threads.
You're right that we both perceive reality differently. I live in a different information space that prioritizes different facts than even the me of yesteryear, so there is no point in considering value matrices. We do however live in common physical reality, and that is where the subject of wunderwaffen often breakss.
Existing ordinance is already hypersonic at terminal phase and interception is at this end phase because thats where the targets and thus the defenses are. Intercepting at glide isn't done even for normal long range missiles because no one knows what the target is at that point and detection out that far is spotty.
The objective of a weapon is to destroy a target. To do that you must hit a target. but also do enough damage. There simply aren't enough Russian hypersonics to actually make a difference against static targets. Again, what are we trying to destroy? An airfield? That gets repaired 30 minutes after a barrage ends, and you need dozens if not hundreds to kill the field. A HQ? We don't live in command and conquer where you have a big juicy target known in advance. Something moving? Not happening. Hypersonics materially change the theoretical interception calculus at the phase where interception doesn't happen anyways, so in the end what matters is your magazine depth. That is what Russia lacks and why I dismiss Russias hypersonic arsenal as wunderwaffen.
And Russian drones are good as terror weapons and ambushes. Not as peer conflict combined arms enablers. We aren't going to see Russia sniping individual vehicles or soldiers marching openly in contested territory. because NATO simply does not fight that way. Russian drone support at the squad level is definitely operationally tighter than NATO doctrine with the combination of organic support at squad level upwards, but drone grenade droppers or fpv ambushers simply aren't relevant against a competent force (which the Ukrainians are not). If drone spam was easy against competents then Hamas would have spammed drones against IDF. Iran did the thousand black shahed drones of allah spam against Israel for limited effect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Russians have actually tried a bunch of large armored assaults recently and they got shredded by drones and arty directed by drones immediately.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link