site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   32044 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Other estimates put Ukraine's KIA higher, certainly, but I haven't seen a method that compares Russia vs Ukraine like for like without the ratio being in Ukraine's favor.

Ukrainians admitted Russia has a parity in drone quality and quantitative superiority. Ditto for artillery. It follows that if they are basically comparable in terms of intelligence and doctrine, but have less weapons they're going to suffer more.

drones (Economist)

other weapons (Guardian, Syrsky interview)

Has Russia ever come up with peace terms that are close to credible?

Yes, they very credibly claim they're going to kill every single person who is going to prevent Russia from ensuring there are no foreign troops based on Ukrainian soil. Their peace terms right now were: Ukraine neutral, Russia keeps the 4 oblasts and Crimea, borders recognized.

I do note that Syrsky interview isn't dated in your screenshot, but is shortly after his appointment so presumably over a year ago now? Plus, not sure on your economist article, but they have changed their tune more recently: https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/12/02/how-ukraine-uses-cheap-ai-guided-drones-to-deadly-effect-against-russia and I think most estimates don't put Ukraine behind on drone integration.

The balance since then has shifted sharply, and not in Russia's favor https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/04/07/rheinmetall-secures-nitrocellulose-supply-amid-european-ammo-scramble/ (edited to a better link), plus systems like Excalibur and the GMLRS/ATACMS really don't have any qualitative peer in the Russian artillery arsenal (hence why they had to pause and restructure their logistics around them) - I just don't think either of those sources come close to suggesting Russia has and had always a qualitative and quantitative edge that comes close to evening its casualty disadvantage as an attacker. It's also possible that Syrsky was being a slight doomer then to highlight the need for ongoing aid in early 2024...

On the credibility of Russia's claims, they also demand many other things do they not? Some of which include the end to sanctions, rolling back NATO's deployments, the right to veto legislation in Ukraine and more, all of which are still in effect as of their last announcements unless something has really changed behind the scenes (Dmitri suggests not: https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/67fb81259a794798c0cc6be5 *(edited to avoid screwing up the link))? That seems highly non credible, and well well beyond what you say, which would themselves require Russia to achieve a breakthrough it has not managed since Spring 2022. For example, taking two oblast capitals, one of which was never theirs and the other behind a now fortified huge river, that they themselves flooded. That is what I mean by non credible.

systems like Excalibur and the GMLRS/ATACMS really don't have any qualitative peer in the Russian artillery arsenal

I don't think this is true. Russia has their own guided arty shell (Krasnopol) and systems such as Iskander that are comparable (or in the Iskander's case, superior in range) to ATACMS.

I'm not necessarily claiming that they are quite as good as their US counterparts (although – Iskander is probably superior to ATACMS, just due to range), but the idea that Russia doesn't have their own guided artillery is just wrong.

What Russia doesn't have is the (not-technically-part-of-the-war) US ISR apparatus that enabled the Ukrainians to utilize their guided weapons so effectively.

The CEP and kill chain are very different for the systems, and like you say that's also due to the full GPS/ISTAR package around the systems. I really do think that Ukraine had a clear advantage in precision fires from 2023 at least. But it's a bit of a niche point.

"2027 (geplant) Produktionskapazitäten" is pulling a lot of weight in that chart.

Also that image is going to die when the /k/ shilling thread does, you may want to archive

*2027 I assume? But you're right, how about this one: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/04/07/rheinmetall-secures-nitrocellulose-supply-amid-european-ammo-scramble/

I'm a bit annoyed at the Germans and their pace, but Russia's low GDP and sanctions are not great for a war of attrition, and they really have burnt through most of their stored equipment in many categories.

Doctrine can’t be the same because they’re trying to accomplish different things. All else equal, the guy who’s entrenched has an advantage. As evidence I present all of WWI.

More specifically, consider a town defense like Khorramshar. The Iraqis were forced to expose their armor to RPGs and Iranian tanks if they wanted to get anywhere. As a result, they suffered much heavier casualties despite a numerical advantage.

Actually, I suspect the First Gulf War Iran/Iraq War would provide a lot of insight into the Ukraine invasion, but I’d need to do a more careful reading.

Actually, I suspect the First Gulf War would provide a lot of insight into the Ukraine invasion, but I’d need to do a more careful reading.

Purely for the interest of clear communication - do you mean the Iran/Iraq War or the First Gulf War?

The former. I thought specifying “First” would distinguish from the Coalition invasion, which was definitely an outmatch.

Generally speaking I've seen the Coalition Invasion referred to as the "First Gulf War" with some people referring to the 2003 invasion as the Second Gulf War.

All else equal, the guy who’s entrenched has an advantage.

What about the guy who is being flanked and cut off from supplies and retreat? He's just an amateur but I regularly keep up with Weeb Union's daily map updates on Youtube and in the winter of 2024-25 for example it was just encirclement after encirclement.

Oh, that’s a recipe for a real bad time.

If so, I’d believe that Ukrainian casualties were much worse than Russian ones over that period. I can’t really tell from these maps, though. January 2 looks pretty much like Feb 2 looks like April 13.

I found an example. The battle over Velyka Novosilka: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NzHZ-afKmbo?si=QgQ8PNVy6hAO9FFN

Once the Russians achieve an effective encirclement (as in cut off the roads, open fields can still be crossed at great risk) the tables are turned and the Ukrainians are now the ones taking on fortified positions trying to break the siege and resupply their men.

I have no idea how many men are committed in each stage so the Ukrainians could well still be trading favourably, but it looks like reason to doubt any straightforward assumptions.

Thanks. This is definitely a disastrous position. I see what you mean.

The encirclements are at the scale of clusters of towns, you would need to zoom in enough at least to see where the roads are.

Try Suriyak maps, Deepstate maps, or just keep an eye on WeebUnion videos. If I remember right all three include fortifications on their maps too.

all else equal, the guy who’s entrenched has an advantage Both are entrenched. The war is mostly hammering enemy till he gives up with remote weapons, then taking over the position.

Actually, I suspect the First Gulf War would provide a lot of insight into the Ukraine invasion, but I’d need to do a more careful reading.

No? Incomparable.

An initial blitz by a superior opponent. Immediate slowdown and a transition to entrenched warfare. Brief offensives and counteroffensives failing to stop the enemy. Inability for either side to secure the airspace. Huge reliance on foreign arms.

Key weapons have changed, but that doesn’t mean everything has.

Russia had nothing like the air power US had then. Force densities were way lower too. Competence level also a lot lower on both sides, likely.

Ah, ok, I get it. You called Iran/Iraq war the 'First Gulf War' ..that's not that common.

Mea culpa. Fixed it.

Was going to say, I think the US in Gulf 1 was probably the peak of military might of any nation in human history when measured by troop competence and weapon technology and intelligence capabilities. Tech and intel have improved in most ways, but I doubt modern US troops are ready for a conflict in the same way they were immediately after the end of the Cold War.

I'd argue the Gulf War 1 US army would get wrecked in modern-Ukraine as well, from either direction. Gulf War 1 depended on air superiority, but never had to deal with the degree of anti-air capability that the Soveit block had and that the c-UAS environment has built upon. The Gulf War era army would also be eaten alive by modern drone combat.

Agreed. We rode that high for a decade. Then we decided to retool everything for flattening hill villages and surviving IEDs. It’s fixable, but not trivial in the slightest.

This is a topic that would probably reduce the more sensitive officers to tears if alcohol were involved.

Or do I gather from the complaints. Cutbacks in force, morale wrecked, pgm weapon edge eroded... it's a clear picture of decline.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats