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 -
The WW2 example also had different acceleration dynamics that favored the Soviets.
In WW2, the allied powers got more capable of conducting offenses over time due to the increasing relative manpower and applied logistical throughput (i.e. actually giving manpower the equipment for mechanized warfare) compared to the Axis. This dynamic accelerated due to the relative tool up of the Allied war-economies vis-a-vis the earlier tool-up of the Axis economies that progressively lost access to resources as the war continued. Put in other terms, as the war continued, the Soviet logistical situation got better, and the German logistical situation got worse.
In the Ukraine War, the difference in warfighting capabilities has decreased, not increased, over time. Russia was at its maximum military-economic advantage in the earlier phases of the war, when it had not only the larger standing army but the larger standing stockpiles to match to it. Russia also began its war economy tool-up faster than the Ukraine coalition. However, as the stockpiles degraded and the military-mobilization phase reaches diminishing returns, Russia has gotten less capable of mechanized warfare advances over time. Similarly, the military-economic mechanics have played out Ukraine has gotten more capable of providing sustained resistance over time now that it's no longer limited by things such as a Soviet ammo standard and such.
There are some dynamics that could yet work in the Russian favor- que 'the Ukrainians will collapse any time now'- but there's a reason that last year's 'significant increases' in rate of territory change were still measured in positional rather than maneuver warfare terms.
Historically wars always start bad for Russia. No matter if they are on the offensive or defensive. Afterwards it is a coin flip if they win or lose.
More options
Context Copy link
afaik the shortening of the lines of communication brought on by the german retreat considerably improved german logistics.
You can't shoot an ammunition futures from a canon. At the end of the war Germany was starved for all and any resources.
More options
Context Copy link
Shortening the lines of communication shorted how far the logistics had to travel. Sustained aerial bombardment of industrial centers, naval blockades from receiving foreign materials including oil, and eventual capture of resource-input regions and industrial centers created far worse logistical capacity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That part isn’t true though. The initial invasion force had about 180,000 men, about half of what’s on the front line now. In some parts of the line in 2022 Ukrainian forces had a 6-1 numerical advantage. And if you still believe “confirmed vehicle losses” in the middle of a propaganda blizzard surrounding a war where both sides use the same military equipment, I don’t know what to tell you. There’s a reason that Oryx abruptly shut down in October of 2023 when it was just about to become obvious that they were full of shit.
Did you misunderstand the phrase 'military-economic' to mean 'manpower', per chance?
You specifically referred to a larger standing army and larger vehicle stockpiles, that inherently means manpower and equipment.
The key words in that being and equipment, as well as stockpiles, and the other economic factors implied within military-economic.
A rebuttal that focuses merely on the mobilized manpower at the start of the conflict is not a rebuttal of military-economic disparities. Particularly when the non-mobilization of reserves was a policy choice rather than a lack of availability.
Russia may have squandered many of its military-economic advantages at the start of the conflict, but that does not mean it did not have them.
That is perhaps a valid distinction, but I don’t see any indications that Russia’s military economic advantages have actually decreased over the course of the war. Their military manpower has increased, their armaments production capability has increased. I don’t see any evidence of major economic damage besides the occasional refinery potshot and a bunch of cope about the foreign exchange rate of the ruble.
Motivated prognosticators have been predicting that the Soviet stockpiles will run dry in two weeks for the past three years but it never actually seems to happen. Meanwhile Ukraine barely has any functional power or rail infrastructure left, is drafting double amputees, and has burned through the artillery and air defense supplies of the entire western world.
I’m sorry I’m so salty about this, but I spent a solid two years getting downvoted and /k/ope brigaded for the mere suggestion that it didn’t seem like Ukraine was winning a decisive victory. Now the NPC party line has effortlessly shifted to “frozen conflict frozen conflict stalemate stalemate” when that isn’t actually true either.
What does it matter that you don't see indicators when you regularly dismiss indicators you don't want to see?
In the last three posts alone, you have dismissed half of a category to fixate on a non-central non-counter, dismissed literal photographic evidence that you don't acknowledge could be processed to deal with your objection, and added a conditional to dismiss an indicator literally visible from orbit. Various elements of each of these can be supported by commercial satellite imagery from any country you choose.
Have I ever claimed that Ukraine was winning a decisive victory? Brigaded you on any /#/ board? Called on you to be downvoted?
No, and I don’t mean to imply that you ever did. I don’t know what your position was regarding Ukraine’s imminent victory (I only engage with current comments, I don’t scroll through anyone’s post history), but I do feel that was the mainstream position on the Motte two years ago, and on most of the rest of the internet.
Regarding my supposed confirmation bias, I believe it’s a necessity in a time where the information zone has been flooded with propaganda, and I believe my position will be vindicated by history.
Definitely not here. From the moment the blitzkrieg failed it the consensus was "the worst possible thing to have is meatgrinder, so this will turn into meatgrinder"
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link