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 -
Ukrainian OSINT guys counting memorials and such info claim RU KIA is 100k based on memorial messages and 165k based on probate data.
https://en.zona.media/article/2025/03/28/casualties_eng-trl
I would be very interested in your estimates, defined as you wish (KIA, KIA+wounded too badly to return to service or whatever) for both sides. What kind of ratio do you think it is?
Probably at least 2:1 in favor of Russians. Might be more depending on how good / bad their artillery has been throughout the conflict. Remember 2% of people in this war die to bullets. Rest is artillery and drones. Some say it's more than 5:1 but I doubt it.
Russians also did clever and unscrupulous things like lightly training their criminals and then expending them in Bakhmut against the better Ukrainian forces. They'd use drones to direct these guys close - Ukrainians who revealed themselves by fighting would get blasted. Most of the convicts died but that was okay - they paid their debt to society that way. The kill ratio wasn't too bad, it was maybe 1-2 convicts pre one Ukrainian soldier.
Do you think it's consistent to have A) a 2:1 ratio in favor of Russia, B) Russia possessing a larger military C) Russia unable to achieve an operational breakthrough since early 2022? I think A) can't exist with both B) and C), but I assume you have another thought on that? Is there a precedent for a larger army on the offensive being unable to advance (and even losing ground in mid to late 2022) despite killing at a 2:1 ratio?
There's also A) a 2:1 ratio in favor of Russia, with D) Oryx (or whatever other open source counting wrecks) showing vastly more equipment losses for Russia, but I assume you would discount that as Ukraine being less mechanized, or Russian footage not being available?
However, no worries if you don't want to go into the weeds on this, I really think we can't finally resolve it until the war ends.
Killing people is much easier than rapidly maneuvering large forces through heavily surveilled terrain against an adversary.
It's also harder than ever to achieve some big maneuver.
I think this misses the point myself and others raised in response to your thread. "Killing people" via constant attacks into fortified positions where the only reward is another trench to attack and wire to chew on is the failure state, all doctrine over the last century is basically attempts to create or restore options for maneuver rather than positional warfare as it fundamentally sucks for the attacker. The fact Russia is unable to do so shows the weak position it is in, and the massive losses it must be taking. Breakthroughs are hard, and the developments throughout the war have made them harder, but attacking without a breakthrough always causes huge losses and is always the less preferred option.
Russia still might grind out a victory under such conditions from an overmatch of manpower, but it's not a sign of doing well. Indeed, it's incompatible with a positive casualty ratio, if Ukraine has less manpower and that has been depleted faster than Russias for 3 straight years why haven't they managed to restore that maneuver? When Ukraine found gaps in the line they charged in, and slapped about the 4th Guards tank division so effectively that they captured more armor than Russia wanted to set as a maximum for post war Ukraine in their stupid peace conditions. Losses like those would leave a shadow, we are not seeing that shadow, so it seems very unlikely that the losses are there.
I guess those reading this might have changed some of their opinions, but we are something like a factor of 4 off (2:1 vs 1:2), so I guess we'll just have to see.
Sure, but if you have better logistics and more weapons you're going to 'win' at that failure state because enemy keeps losing more troops and as he's smllaer, you win the war in the end because the enemy force collapses and then you can claim all the oblasts you require.
That was the case before drones and artillery combo. It's not true anymore. Now it sucks for both equally, basically. Whether it 'sucks' depends on how good is your recon, camouflage and anti-drone defenses.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At that time, Ukraine had advantage in number people deployed (most of Russia's military not deployed in ru-ua war), because Russia started mobilizing more people only in septermber 2022. Now it's about same. I think 2:1 kill ratio is wrong and it's closer to 1:1.
There is also factor that Ukraine gets better intel from its allies. I don't think USA wouldn't listen to smartphones Russian generals use.
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