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 -
It looks that this forum either missed, or lacked interest in latest OSINT/spook world apocalyptic scandal.
Normie introduction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Pentagon_document_leaks
Twitter thread with more links:
https://twitter.com/RidT/status/1645048624294895619
TL;DR: Classified Pentagon documents suddenly appeared out of nowhere on
front page of New York Timesobscure Discord server. From this place, they circulated among less and less obscure Discord servers until they, in about a month, percolated into Russian Z telegram channels (who, in fit of genius, crudely changed in photoshop the casualties numbers, to make Russia look less bad).According to Pentagon insiders and online autists, the documents look genuine - internal consistency, consistency with open source information, the style, the powerpoint presentation, the bureaucratic lingo - all is correct. It is either work of expert team who studied Pentagon documents for their whole lives, or it is the real deal, the real leak.
The frantic behavior of TPTP - banning the responsible telegram channel, scrubbing the documents from Twitter and similar desperate fortifying the barn door when the horse is far beyond the horizon, also suggests authenticity.
How important they are? If FSB or GRU were monitoring "Thug Shaker Central" Discord channel and got the info when it was fresh, it could have very serious consequences. Now it is mostly of historical interest. Big mistake.
Now, the implications.
1/ US OPSEC is not as shitty as usual, it is getting worse. Any loser could walk around with his phone, take pictures of everything he wants and no one GAF. It is fortunate that no enemy agents managed to infiltrate Pentagon, only gamers who want to impress their buddies.
2/ Quality and loyalty of US personnel is getting way worse. The man responsible is supposed to be /pol/ style racist gun nut. Exactly the kind of person who is not wanted by the system, who should be stopped by even most basic background check. Another F for failure.
3/ Ukraine is not US puppet, Ukrainian government is in charge and keeps their plans and information for itself. Pentagon does not have any insider knowledge what is going on there - even their classified info is copy of official UKR announcements.
Now, what will be the consequences?
Not good for anyone. No one responsible will be punished (except the leaker, who will be made example of), and hammer will hard on anything resembling racism, transphobia and other unapproved thought. Take care.
Edit: leaker is named.
As expected. Racial science discovered long ago that while Hispanics are noble oppressed victims of white racism, Lusitanics are no good and should never be trusted.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/09/15/who-is-hispanic/
The original NYT, JapanTimes and Greyzone reporting show the Ukrainian casualty figure as 70k and the Russian as 17k. I’m more tempted to believe this happened and then the West retconned the numbers, as opposed to Russia frantically and successfully retconning the numbers and tricking the original journalists.
The version you are thinking of is a rather obvious photoshop of the original.
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry but I don't buy it. I feel like if the neo-soviets really were inflicting a greater than 4 to 1 casualty rate on their opponents they would have won by now.
More options
Context Copy link
That would make prolonged fighting for control of an elevator shaft next to a bombed out train station that much more embarrassing for Russia.
More options
Context Copy link
It'd be pretty shocking for Russia to have a 4:1 casualty ratio in their favor and for the war to be going this poorly for them.
The Ukrainians have been drafting very intensively: the Economist points out a case in which they tried to draft a man who'd lost both hands until a social media storm forced them to stop. Draft officials have been snooping all over the place, including military funerals. This would suggest that manpower is being expended rapidly.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/02/26/ukraine-finds-stepping-up-mobilisation-is-not-so-easy
The Russians have a major advantage in firepower, they've been firing at least 4x more shells than Ukraine and they're still on their first wave of mobilization. It's unclear (at least to me) how many waves of mobilization Ukraine is on, they're on at least their 5th.
This later part isn't quite correct, as the the Russians are still doing their normal conscription cycles, as well as attempting what some have called 'stealth mobilization' efforts. The conscription cycle is more relevant to your point, since the war started at the first normal conscription levels, and the 'first wave' was more about replacing losses than actually expanding the force... which makes it more or less equivalent to the normal conscription waves once you implement stop-loss measures like the Russians have.
Russia is currently entering it's normal spring conscription cycle, which is yet another mobilization wave in practice, and will likely consider the need for another out-of-cycle mobilization based on the Ukrainian spring offensive (if there is one).
It's possible that the Russians don't implement a 'mobilization wave', but stick to their lower-level efforts, not out of a manpower concern, but mutual munition shortfalls. While Russia has been firing more shells than Ukraine, both have reportedly been extremely constrained, and Russia's scope for offensive capacity via artillery lessened with the generally failed offensive of he last two months.
Munition shortfalls is one of the reasons why stormtrooper detachments have been reintroduced, and stormtrooper tactics require a constant influx of mobilized troops to replenish the losses.
The new electronic mobilization law is a way to avoid attention-drawing mobilization waves. With a push of a button, you can summon as many men to the draft stations as you need, and if they don't present themselves, they get slapped with a whole roster of restrictions: their driving license is suspended, they can't buy a train or plane ticket, their business license is suspended etc.
I don't disagree (with you).
I'd disagree that these are actually stormtrooper tactics, though this could be the pedantic in me.
WW1 stormtroopers depended on heavy artillery support to suppress enemy forces so that the stormtrooper detachments could approach, fix, bypass, and then clear the enveloped positions, and it was extremely high attrition on higher-quality troops even when 'successful.' The Russian adoption seems to invert this- it's being done because of a shortage of the pre-requisite (suppressive fire munitions), and it's being done with inferior rather than higher quality forces (ie. those least able to carry the momentum). If you take away what made stormtroopers effective, you get less storm and more Somme.
Rather than a countermeasure for artillery shrotages, my read is that this is the Russian army trying to adopt what seemed to work from the Wagner approach with prisoners as part of pushing out Wagner in the ongoing turf battle, but what Wagner did wasn't stormtrooper strategy as much as turn-based strategy micromanagement. Hyper-focused individual infiltration and attack plans against specific battle position attacks would be planned, surveilled, suppressed, attacked, and re-suppressed at a squad level. This did indeed get results over time... but these results were the Wagner casualty ratios that the Russians dismissed because, well, prisoners.
My feeling is that there's a bit of a political disconnect between the Russian army, the Wagner 'stormtroopers', and Putin. Wagner got 'results' because it was willing to spend huge numbers of casualties doing so. Putin was willing to accept the prisoner casualty rates because it was politically low cost due to being 'Wagner' and 'prisoners,' not 'conscripts' or 'good Russians.' The Russian army won't get equivalent results without equivalent casualties, but they can't endure equivalent casualties with equivalent political cost.
I'm not saying Putin sincerely cares about the casualties, but he does care about the political costs of various mobilization actions, hence the various efforts to skirt around mobilization the first place, and transitioning the entire Russian Army to Wagner tactics is neither going to produce great victories or keep the political costs below the level of increased mobilization.
This I fully agree with, and I think it's going to serve as a case study of what digitized governance can do to try and coerce people into supporting the state... and the limits thereof.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Wehrmacht in 1943-44 was putting up impressive casualty ratios all the way back to the Vistula.
Sure, but Russia is fighting a country with a fifth of its population and Germany was fighting several countries with I think a much larger combined population.
Russia is fighting a country with a third of its population.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What I've heard was that it was pro-russian posters online that edited the document, presumably to own their online pro-ukrainian opponents, not the actual Russian government.
I'd say that's entirely believable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link