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 -
I think I see some "citation needed" here. Probably their subs aren't too affected by this conflict, though how active that fleet is would probably be pretty secret. The NATO sub fleets might have an idea, but I don't think they're talking. Not gonna bet either way on their nuke arsenal, though I will note that the maintenance quality evident on the high-tech weapons they've tried to bring to bear in Ukraine has not been too impressive.
"Where is the Russian Air Force?" has been the
millionbillion-ruble question in this whole war. Pre-war, every serious defense analyst I could find expected them to systematically dismantle Ukraine in something that looked like the US Gulf War 1. They had the assets on paper to do it. Instead, they've been missing in action. Given the efforts Russia has gone to so far, I somehow doubt they're all sitting in hangers somewhere in perfect condition, with skilled pilots standing by to run complex missions with them as soon as Putin gives the order. It's all speculation on exactly what is going on, but I bet that either their maintenance has been such shit that only a fraction are airworthy, or they are terrified of losing a substantial fraction of them to Ukrainian air defense or otherwise looking incompetent, possibly both.There is no great mystery here. Russian conventional army is very mediocre because they are spending enormous amounts of their military budget (which isn't even that high) keeping up with the latest nuclear capabilities and missile delivery systems.
Yeah but no, again there is no great mystery. Their air assets were definitely present early in the war when they expected a quick victory with a small force. But Russian Air Force is small, and is not really fit for fighting against capable air defense. That is what happens when you have a limited military budget and spend it on very expensive nuclear systems. None of this was unknown.
Because they expected an invasion with near full power of the Russian army rolling across the border. This is not the invasion that actually took place and so what is the point of taking attrition to your valuable air assets when it is not going to accomplish anything because the army is not suited for it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link