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 -
Vadym Ivchenko, Member of Committee on National Security, Defence and Intelligence of Ukrainian parliament has said, in public and over the internet, that Ukrainian armed forces have likely sustained at least half a million dead.. He is from Tymoshenko's party, with a pro-Western record.
So, at least around 2.5x more than is the Mediazona estimate of Russian casualties, and assuming identical age distributions, the per capita losses are 10x higher.
Seems like Russians are employing a simple if sound strategy to win a war of attrition as manoeuvre is sort of dead because nobody has enough counter-surveillance technology. The only remotely safe way of moving forces up to the front is sending infantrymen in small groups into prepared positions.
According to this report on Ukrainians training in Poland, nobody told NATO, at least the lower ranks, that the nature of war has changed.. Even though it's been 3 years of heavy recon drone use in Ukraine, NATO units still mostly trains and operate as if the drones weren't there, which is surprising to observe in a force that prides itself on being reliant on technology and good training.
Crude translation but this is pretty brutal. I swear I've been reading articles like this for the last year where the NATO trainers go 'drive around the minefield lol' or similar. Nothing seems to be learnt, it's very slow going. Later in the article they say 'oh the Ukrainian command never said anything was wrong with our training, we totally include drones' but it's always the military officials talking, not the soldiers journos are speaking to on the ground. It is warming me to the '140 million population Russia poses a threat to 600 million population Europe' idea we see so much.
More options
Context Copy link
Has anybody covered the whole proposed ceasefire situation at present on the Motte? Can't remember seeing it in last week's thread
Well, here's a quick summary:
That's about where we are. Right now, all we know is that it's a 19-point proposal now and the question of frozen Russian assets has been dropped from it. Presumably, the most sensitive points (Donetsk oblast withdrawal and NATO (non-)membership) will be discussed between Zelensky and Trump.
The most likely outcome is that Trump is once again not able to get off Mr. Bones' Wild Ride: he can't force a ceasefire through but can't wash his hands of the war either. A few more Ukrainian towns are turned into rubble, let's meet again in three months.
Yes, either Zelensky will be successful in convincing Trump that completely unrealistic demands on Ukraine's behalf should be added, in which case Putin will reject it and the neocons will push Trump for more sanctions. Or Z fails and Trump has an excuse to finally bail and pull intel and support, dumping it on Europe. Either way the war continues and the outcome is the same, just the timeline changes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Probably not going to happen. The European proposal is delusional. The Russians probably don’t have an actual interest in ending the war at this point and their own proposal is only being made because they know that Ukraine will refuse.
Why is it delusional? What I mean is, what has the state of the war to do with Europe's willingness to concede anything? Say countless Ukrainians are dead, and the Ukrainians are nearing collapse. Not Europe's problem. I wouldn't even give russia a guarantee that Ukraine not join nato. All the pressure is on ukraine, and russia. Europe will just go along with ukraine’s decision. All the leverage europe has over russia (sanctions, confiscated assets) has been gifted to ukraine, to do with as they please. I have no idea why everyone acts like europe is the one who gets to decide to keep fighting.
It is Europe’s problem, or at least they feel it is. That’s why they got involved in the first place. There’s a big strategic difference between Russia controlling Donbas, and Russia controlling Ukraine all the way to the Polish border.
But why?
Anyway, the I don’t think Europe was thinking about this as logically as you are, I suspect they just don’t know how bad things really are.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There was some discussion. I think the consensus was that it was a joke, and people were arguing over which side ought to take it seriously.
More discussion from last month. Personally, I think that analysis still holds.
There’s also the Transnational Thursday threads to consider.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The main problem isn’t the drones, it’s the massive imbalance in tube artillery. HIMARS systems are neat but they are vulnerable to counter-battery fire and can’t substitute for Russia having ten times as many standard howitzers. NATO’s main advantage is air power, which is politically untenable to deploy and logistically untenable to give to Ukraine.
What makes them more vulnerable? Aren’t they supposed to be “highly mobile”?
This is a genuine question. I don’t fully understand how they’re utilized compared to traditional artillery. I know the U.S. is converting some howitzer battalions to HIMARS; they cite improved long-range lethality, which makes sense for the intel-heavy approach to fire support. But that’s not really a privilege enjoyed by Ukraine, is it?
Drones. Russia has finally been able to amass enough recon drones that HIMARSes have to keep well away from the line of contact. This subtracts a couple tens of kilometers from the GMLRS range, allowing Russian logistics to edge closer to the line of contact.
More options
Context Copy link
The fact that most of your artillery strike capacity is reliant on the survival of four vehicles. You lose one of those, now your strike capacity is down 25 percent (not a perfect figure since the Ukrainians do have some tube artillery of their own too, but you get the idea).They used to be pretty resistant to counter-battery fire due to their mobility, but the Russians developed better ways of tracking and eliminating them after a year or two. That’s why you don’t hear a lot about them anymore. There are only about 400-700 HIMARS systems in existence and the rumor is Ukraine has gone through about 75-100.
HIMARS ammunition capacity is a problem too. Plus the Russians got better at distributing logistics so there aren’t as many huge ammunition depos within strike range. HIMARS only carry about 4-6 rockets, and are best suited for strikes against a few large key targets, not doing 40 artillery strikes a day against small infantry positions for weeks at a time. French Caesar systems and other similar systems have the same issues. Intel isn’t much of a problem since they get live satellite coverage from US systems.
The few sources I saw showed closer to a 1:1 ratio on replacement. I’m not sure what effect that has on volume of fire. Sure, the HIMARS are only tossing 6 rockets each, but they’re much larger warheads than even the 155mm shells.
I agree that they’ve got to lose out on sustained fire, especially given the cost per round…but that’s a separate issue from vulnerability to counter-battery fire. Shoot and scoot should be much safer than setting up one of those monster cannons, right?
I'm not an expert, but it sounds like this isn't meta anymore in this war
counter battery radar seems to not be as strong/precise as "you have 2 minutes after you shoot before the place you shot from explodes". This could be a "lol Soviets" issue, or maybe a limitation of the systems in practicality. I also wonder if emitting as a counter battery radar is dangerous. So there isn't profound pressure to move after firing.
scooting is really really dangerous. The prevalence of ISR drones means ripping down a road is very dangerous. They might not find you if you pop out, fire, and pop back into your hide sight. It's much more likely they'll find you on one of the handful of roads in the region, which they're likely watching regardless. Plus your hide site can be hardened against drones.
More options
Context Copy link
They aren't that much larger.
The warhead is a mere 200 lb, twice as heavy as a howitzer round. While missiles can be thin-skinned and with fragmentation cover a larger area, it's not massively better than a common modern howitzer shell.
Very good against targets in the open, yes. If you wanted to target people in the basement of a reinforced concrete building, you could spend millions of $. Needless to say, the fragmentation warheads is probably useless even against sturdier dugouts, which must be hit with the unitary warhead.
It's a decent weapon especially with the ISR Ukraine is given, but they're getting too little ammo for some reason. Daily rate of fire was allegedly <10. Military artisanal complex strikes again!
The systems countering HIMARS is Tornado (250 kg warhead, 200km range) and Iskander (~500 kg, 500km range) are both similarly mobile and capable of leaving the launch site quickly. They're also vulnerable to stuff such as Lancet drones, but these are less common now, perhaps bc they can be intercepted with electric drone interceptors that are more common now.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, for each individual unit. But Russia has 4-5 thousand individual artillery pieces in the field, including around a thousand to fifteen hundred that are also self propelled (though not as accurate). Ukraine has 1500 tube artillery plus a handful of western MRLS systems. So individual Russian artillery pieces and systems get destroyed too, but it’s not going to change the overall disparity in volume of fire.
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