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 -
A phone call, of course, why didn't they think of that. Oh wait they did think of that, Russia invaded regardless. And then Lavrov gets snippy when the recorded call was released, because it clarifies just how disinterested in negotiation Putin was at the time.
Regardless if a call is made or not, I fully expect that given a second Trump administration we will immediately see the Kremlin bleating the need for a ceasefire. Russia's offensive strategy since Ukraine's culminated seems to be been to try and claw as much territory as possible, no matter the cost, on the gamble that a second Trump administration can bring Ukraine to the negotiating table. Russia wouldn't be seeking a ceasefire for lasting peace, but to give it time to lick its wounds.
"No matter the cost" is somewhat hyperbolic so I'll render it in clearer detail. US DOD estimates 350,000 killed or wounded between Feb 22 and June 24, estimates vary but the US is on the more conservative end. This might not look so bad from a glance at the map, after all Russia would end the war with a decent chunk of additional territory, but it made most of those gains in the opening stages and paid most of the cost in marginal gains. More pressing for Russia, most of its prodigious inheritance of Soviet equipment is running dry, which is manifesting itself in the repeated appearance of motorcycles in offensive action. Although if Russia finds itself on the defensive again, it will be the lack of artillery that will be most pressing. Russia can replace some lost equipment, but nowhere near enough to meet current consumption rates. The bottom line here is that Russia's warfighting potential has been trending downward since the beginning of the invasion and is only going to get worse in the near time.
On the other side Ukraine's warfighting potential has trended upward since '22. Over time its backers have been more willing to ship more and better materiel, and lift previous restrictions on how certain systems are used. This week the first transfer of F-16 should finally be completed, which is expected to improve Ukraine's situation re: glide bombs and cruise missiles. Ukraine has also made Crimea extremely costly for Russia to hold, and an abandonment by Russia (de facto or official) would be a huge political win for Ukraine, this is why Ukraine has invested so many of its highest quality and scarcest assets in making the peninsula untenable. A ceasefire would give Russia breathing room to undo much of the damage Ukraine has inflicted.
With this in mind what can the US do to bring Ukraine to the table? The naive answer is to simply cut off aid. Ukraine already experienced some very tough months without US aid, and while they were amongst the most difficult of the war and resulted in more territory lost than in the months with, there was no indication that the materiel shortage risked causing a total collapse. Judging the effect of a further extended period without US aid is anyone's game. Some things to consider are that Russia's fighting power declining means the loss of US aid hurts less over time. The European states also get a say. I expect that if a US administration were to cut off Ukraine entirely they would take measures to rebalance back in Ukraine's favour again. I think this is the scenario in which we are most likely to see European soldiers in Ukraine, in some fighting capacity. However more likely is the Europeans and other foreign partners would accelerate their existing efforts.
tldr: a Trump administration likely won't want to offer Ukraine any real carrots, and it's one good stick has clear limitations and drawbacks.
What? The Ukrainian air force is reduced to flinging Storm Shadows and similar at extreme range. They cannot even defend their capital against constant bombing. There's not much reason to think F-16s will change that, they're not stealth aircraft that can penetrate Russian air defences and they lack secure airbases to operate from. The Ukrainian power grid is in a complete shambles, their domestic military industry has been heavily degraded. The Ukrainian navy consists of some kamikaze drones which cannot really contest Russia in the Black Sea, even if they sink a few ships. Ukraine has been drafting extensively for the army, dragging men kicking and screaming into vans. Forty year olds and the disabled do not make for great assault infantry.
Russia has a land bridge to Crimea, a highway, a rail line and the bridge. Their position there is in no way untenable. It's really easy for them to hold and resupply it. The small initial Russian invasion force has been replaced by a much larger army. Apparently they can produce more shells than the US and EU. They've had much more materiel throughout the whole war, including artillery.
At the end of the day, this is a conventional war. The side with more soldiers and more equipment is going to win.
I'm not expecting F-16s to change a whole lot, but longer range munitions like AMRAAMs should at very least prove useful for intercepting cruise missiles, which improves their air defence picture as a whole. I mention them because they are a recent, high profile, example of the overall trend thus far.
Sea drones don't need to be able to 'seriously contest' the black sea fleet to be useful strategically. They make it harder for ships to resupply Crimea, force the black sea fleet to operate further away from Ukraine's coast and have likely been critical in preventing the fleet from blockading shipments of grain.
Something that I tried to stress in my previous comment was that this advantage is a one-time bonus that is running its course.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the F-16s will be better against Russian aircraft than the MiG-29s and maybe the Su-27s (if Ukraine has any left) because AMRAAMs but I don't expect that to make a difference in the overall posture of the war. I'm not even sure if Ukraine intends to use them in the counter-air role instead of just replacing the Su-24s in the "Storm Shadow launch platform" role.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link