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 -
Ukraine's military is the size of the French and military put together. Their military is 30% of the US military in size and currently fighting a high intensity war. The amount of resources required to sustain the Ukrainian military is astounding and completely unsustainable. They are consuming many systems at a much higher rate than they are produced. They will have to replace many soviet systems with western systems. Ukraine will need to retrain large portions of their military and continue to take in tens of thousands of recruits per year. Just the minimal training the European militaries have provided a small portion of the Ukrainian military has already had a real impact on the militaries of Europe.
Ukraine's military is heavily dependent on using its professional core. The officers and experienced soldiers are carrying their efforts. These soldiers have soon been at war for two years and are a draining resource.
The western militaries are coming out of 30 years of cutbacks and fighting in the middle east. The western militaries are in dire need of rebuilding themselves. Just sustaining the western militaries would have been hard enough before the war. Now dozens of brigades have to be rebuilt and equipped, several hundred mid and long range SAM systems are needed for Ukraine, millions of shells will be needed after the war to restock the Ukrainian military. Entire supply chains, bases and training facilities will have to be built up from scratch.
The price of Ukraine won't end when the war ends. The Ukrainian military will be getting aid for decades and decades to come after the war ends. It is going to be a constant black hole for resources. Rebuilding their losses and sustaining their new military will make building the Afghan military look like a cakewalk. This is nation building on steroids.
The main problem for the US is that the US military is old, has a decaying industrial base and has pushed long term costs forward for 30 years. At the same time the US is trying to handle multiple areas of conflict at once. The US military has the Ukraine problem, the middle east and China. While each individual conflict is manageable the US is failing to manage all of them at once.
“Completely unsustainable” is, like, our unofficial motto. Betting against the US MIC is not historically a good move.
I do agree that juggling multiple theaters has the potential to drain support for Ukraine. But until we get another priority, the magic sky money will probably keep pouring in.
More options
Context Copy link
Okay, now do the Russian side.
In the short run, Ukraine has depleted a lot of Western military stock. But in the longer run, it’s acting as a reason for the West to get its manufacturing and logistics in better shape. The US et al has been getting a pretty great ROI on Ukrainians destroying Russian military capability, and spending only treasure.
“Nation building” in a place like Afghanistan and “nation rebuilding” in a place like post-war Ukraine are both expensive, but the latter won’t be lighting money on fire.
The US isn’t “managing” several wars either, in any strong sense of the word. It’s supporting Ukraine in a major war, and Israel in a minor one (that seems unlikely at this point to turn into a major one). This isn’t Vietnam or Iraq. Our forces are not being depleted, or somehow becoming incapable of keeping a focus on China. Attention is split more, sure, but we aren’t fighting these wars or making commitments we can’t rapidly shift.
More options
Context Copy link
The amount of resources required to sustain the Ukrainian military is similar to that required to sustain the russian military, only the west is economically about 30 times greater. So assuming the russians go all-in and marshal about 50% of their economy for the special military operation effort, and Ukraine, the sanctions, and technological superiority do nothing, the west needs to assign 1,7 % to that nuisance. That’s relatively high but completely sustainable for a distant power like the US, and outright cheap for the threatened countries of europe.
Yet the west doesn't produce 30 times more artillery shells, doesn't have 30 times the capacity to train troops, doesn't produce 30x the amount of rocket artillery or the amount of SAM-systems. Russian systems tend both to be substantially cheaper, and Russia is spending a higher portion of its GDP. Considering purchasing power parity, Russia's GDP is 1/5 of the US GDP PPP. Money isn't necessarily the biggest bottle neck. The amount of surface-to-air missiles isn't only limited by money, it is primarily limited by production capacity. The west most definitely doesn't produce 30 times the number of artillery barrels or ATGMs.
The issue is that the US and Russia has completely different war aims. The US is trying to dominate the world and is running into a classic limit that large empires face, in which the upkeep of the empire is greater than the ability to sustain it. Russia may lose, Russia may suffer a lot more. However, the combined weight of maintaining the empire is beyond what is sustainable, and the war in Ukraine makes sustaining the empire a lot harder. Spreading queer theory in Afghanistan, having a larger force than the American presence in Vietnam at the peak in Ukraine fighting a much more intensive war and keeping up with China's industrial juggernaut is infeasible. The US is losing its empire at the edges, while costs are running away.
The US military is financed by borrowing money at almost five percent interest. With compound interest, that is destined to run away.
If the entire west doesn't have the industrial capacity to sustain a Ukraine-sized war, then the case for Ukraine aid becomes vastly more urgent, because we need to develop that capacity.
If you want to argue "not worth it, who cares about Ukraine", I disagree but ok, priorities are a thing. But if the argument is that the US, France, Germany, UK, Australia, Italy, etc, etc, etc can't match Russia even while someone else is providing the actual soldiers? That's a catastrophic indictment and we need to dectuple our spending on Ukraine immediately to get weapons manufacturing up to the level we need to be capable of.
Indeed. It's pretty shocking to me just how anemic our war production is. And yet... here we are. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-industry/2023/04/unprepared-for-long-war-us-army-under-gun-to-make-more-ammo/ Most of our 155mm artillery shells (the most common size, and probably the most important weapon for Ukraine) are all made from this one plant in Scranton. And the only reason that plant still exists is that it's on the National Historic Registry of Historic Places, so the building can't be knocked down or altered, and the locals wanted to keep it running for its high-paying jobs.
The numbers are pretty shocking.
So Russia really does outproduce the US in artillery. Ukraine is quickly burning through artillery shells faster than the US can produce it. Instead it's buying artillery shells from other countries, mostly former Soviet Bloc countries like Bulgaria that have a lot lying around. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EMEpxX7rS5I
All I can say is... it's a good thing those countries are on our side! Can you imagine if west to fight against all of these countries working together, back during the cold war? We would have been massively outgunned!
More options
Context Copy link
Money is not the issue. Cost disease and institutional inertia is. You're right it's a catastrophic indictment, but it's not one that can be fixed by allocating more spending or putting out large quantity bids. It's a question of long-term commitment, which requires credibility the US government no longer has and which US industry has totally given up on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Europe has a bigger economy in the sense that we produce luxury goods that are much more appealing and valuable. It doesn't mean that we just produce more of everything. This is particularly true in cost disease vulnerable sectors... Like defense. French winemakers are maybe more productive than Russian factory workers... But unlikely to win a war.
This isn't to say that Russia has the upper hand, but it's closer than the economic data gives credit for. That's how North Korea can be a threat to South Korea despite the economic imbalance.
We still have German heavy precision manufacturing. Anything there is dual purpose by default. Glock, Heckler and Kock, Beretta - all EU manufacturers. You have the various soviet arms manufacturers in Eastern Europe. Not sure how fast airbus could produce rafalle and eurofighter airframes, but I am willing to bet it is way faster than any EU adversary would like. I am not sure about how fast we can produce nitro compounds that make boom - but with Bayer and Merck being German - I guess fast.
And hell - we have inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder coming trough the Balkans and the mediterranean.
We could supply Ukraine with material and people no one cares about to be wasted in their east for ages without breaking a sweat. For one reason on another we don't want to.
They've ran away to Europe because they didn't want no wars. How exactly do you propose to incentivize them to fight in another one? Promise them citizenship? You would need to make staying as an asylum seeker or an illegal a terrible experience first.
Just press gang all of them, they’ll stop coming or they’ll comply. Win-win.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree. If Putin's plan is to run Germany out of machine tools, he isn't going to succeed. If the plan is to take advantage of the fundamental non-seriousness of the current German elite, he probably is.
The biggest known unknown is keeping the Russian factories going. We can see that Russia is still busting sanctions in order to import western-made spare parts - presumably because there are certain parts they need which don't have a direct Chinese equivalent (see the massive increase in German exports of machine tools to Kyrgyzstan - they aren't staying there!). We are already seeing Russian civilian airliners grounded due to lack of Western spare parts - does something similar happen to Russian shell-making machines if the EU gets serious about stopping back-channel sanctions-busting?
If the EU gets serious about stopping back-channel sanctions-busting their entire economy disintegrates overnight as they lose access to Russia-sourced fossil fuels. Right now they're paying a premium to India in order to evade the sanctions, but nothing was actually done to remove their dependence upon Russian energy. Right now Germany is subsidising domestic energy usage due to the massive cost spikes caused by the Ukraine war, and making that problem substantially worse is probably not going to do their manufacturing sector any favours.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Europe doesn't have anything. The entire EU together couldn't come up with its promised million shells. Meanwhile North Korea just pulls that out of its back pocket when Russia calls. It's not a video game, they can't just magically turn GDP into ammunition and arms factories instantly.
Funny that the other Korea is doing the same thing for the other side of the equation.
There's a limit on how long Korea can do that though. Yes they have a lot of shells but they also, you know, need them for their national defense. And like Ukraine, while they do have a lot of old shells stockpiled, they don't really have huge production to build new ones.
To which Korea is that most applicable you think?
Both to some extent, but NK has nukes for deterence and isn't bound by cost disease. They're probably much happier to trade their old shells for hard cash.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I do find the "it's a Korean peninsula proxy war" commentary to be amusing precisely because it's not completely wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn’t need to be instant. I haven’t seen this deficit of european arms and great north korean bonanza result in significant russian victories. To carry on war, three things are necessary: money, money, and yet more money.
You've seen the Ukranian counteroffensive flop while NATO officials openly tell you to "expect bad news" in days to come.
No, you need weapons, which come from factories, which the west by and large doesn't have anymore. The US hopes to produce 100k shells per month by fiscal year 2026, while Russia is expected to ramp up to 2 million per year in the next couple years. Meanwhile the EU says a lot of happy horseshit but gets dunked on by North Korea singlehandedly.
That would be disastrous for Russia if it's true, given the rate they're burning through their artillery stocks. However, you should take into account the possibility that Putin may be able to divert more of Russia's economy to shell production.
More options
Context Copy link
That’s what you pinned your hopes on, cryptic nato comments? Let’s just wait for this crushing north korean industrial superiority to bear fruit. Even if "the factories are gone!", it's helplful to have this low-stakes operation to reflect on and correct our weaknesses.
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