Russia invades Ukraine

[Huntingwhale]

For those that still think negotiating with russia is a smart idea, perhaps a reminder.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1722513404600950931

[nik-]

Russia doesn't negotiate to gain peace, it negotiates to buy time.

[Cheese]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723007390797193381

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723063055318233342

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723060546931413074

[Cheese]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723663033409376337

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723654380627304550

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723698092975755601

[activeStick]

Reports now from the Washington Post that it was Ukraine that bombed the Nord Stream pipeline and not the US.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...ipeline-attack

A senior Ukrainian military officer with deep ties to the country’s intelligence services played a central role in the bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline last year, according to officials in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, as well as other people knowledgeable about the details of the covert operation.

The officer’s role provides the most direct evidence to date tying Ukraine’s military and security leadership to a controversial act of sabotage that has spawned multiple criminal investigations and that U.S. and Western officials have called a dangerous attack on Europe’s energy infrastructure.

I personally think this is more America being done with supporting Ukraine and further throwing Ukraine under the bus and pushing out this message with their vast propoganda machine.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I personally think this is more America being done with supporting Ukraine and further throwing Ukraine under the bus and pushing out this message with their vast propoganda machine.

Well its an interesting story, its been around for a while. There is no smoking gun that Ukraine did it (published yet) but there are a lot of stories pointing to that scenario. The source is interesting for this, basically its 'people who would know', no specifics.

As for the US 'pushing out this message with their vast propaganda machine' - The US isn't China, the Federal govt does not direct the Washington Post' news articles.

[activeStick]

We'll agree to disagree on that last part. All countries push out propoganda via their own country's media channels.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by activeStick

We'll agree to disagree on that last part. All countries push out propoganda via their own country's media channels.

Yup. There are significant differences in how it works in practice in China vs US (for example), and those differences matter in that there's more limits to what the US government and agencies can do to control/affect the media.

The most significant difference is that while the West can pretty easily push their own preferred narratives, it's harder for Western governments to silence unfavorable narratives or to bury topics they wouldn't want discussed. Not impossible, but harder.

This relative freedom of press of course has the downside that it's almost trivially easy for Russia to push it's own propaganda into the western media environment.

[Cheese]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723977332354863212

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723774116744847552

https://twitter.com/user/status/1724017249923604992

[Francis's Hairpiece]

^^
Beautiful use of "Mein Herz Brennt".

[Cheese]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723955170365632578

https://twitter.com/user/status/1724385845250007102

https://twitter.com/user/status/1724385847225487747

https://twitter.com/user/status/1724092874290053436

[Red Slinger]

It's hard to understand the state of the war through all of the data.

Is Russia winning? Ukraine? Stalemate? What are the long-term prospects currently?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

It's hard to understand the state of the war through all of the data.

Is Russia winning? Ukraine? Stalemate? What are the long-term prospects currently?

The fact that Ukraine is still a state and not currently a Soviet Puppet points to them "winning", IMO.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

It's hard to understand the state of the war through all of the data.

Is Russia winning? Ukraine? Stalemate? What are the long-term prospects currently?

Putin's 3 day operation is now at 629 days. Ukraine has reclaimed 74,443 km2 of territory, but Russia still controls 18% of Ukraine's territory including Crimea.

Ukraine's counteroffensive this summer failed to meet its objective and ran out of steam, mainly as a result of giving Russia way too much time to prepare its defenses, which is a multi layered defense system with millions upon millions of mines, making Ukraine the most heavily mined country in the world. Russia deciding to take Avdiivka at all costs with one of the largest assault seen since the beginning of the war with disastrous results (arguably even more so than Bakhmut as this battle included a lot more tanks).

Most of the current extremely high casualties numbers come from this battle.

Russia's current plan seems to be to get as much territory as possible to sit on and win in a ceasefire / peacetalk agreement, no matter the cost (to likely break it and attack as soon as they regroup). Logic has long disappeared from Russian plans.

Ukraine, with the offensive failing to reach any major breakthrough, is in a tough spot this winter as Russia gets more time to build defenses, while western allies are growing increasingly weary of sending weapons to Ukraine (note how we are no longer getting big news about large amounts of tanks being sent).

Ukraine will have F-16 in their possession in 2024 as Ukraine pilots are currently being trained on them, where a potential 2024 summer offensive with air support is the likely next major move.

This is a war of attrition though, something that Ukraine really cannot win over time as is where they recover all their territories lost.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Putin's 3 day operation is now at 629 days. Ukraine has reclaimed 74,443 km2 of territory, but Russia still controls 18% of Ukraine's territory including Crimea.

Ukraine's counteroffensive this summer failed to meet its objective and ran out of steam, mainly as a result of giving Russia way too much time to prepare its defenses, which is a multi layered defense system with millions upon millions of mines, making Ukraine the most heavily mined country in the world. Russia deciding to take Avdiivka at all costs with one of the largest assault seen since the beginning of the war with disastrous results (arguably even more so than Bakhmut as this battle included a lot more tanks).

Most of the current extremely high casualties numbers come from this battle.

Russia's current plan seems to be to get as much territory as possible to sit on and win in a ceasefire / peacetalk agreement, no matter the cost (to likely break it and attack as soon as they regroup). Logic has long disappeared from Russian plans.

Ukraine, with the offensive failing to reach any major breakthrough, is in a tough spot this winter as Russia gets more time to build defenses, while western allies are growing increasingly weary of sending weapons to Ukraine (note how we are no longer getting big news about large amounts of tanks being sent).

Ukraine will have F-16 in their possession in 2024 as Ukraine pilots are currently being trained on them, where a potential 2024 summer offensive with air support is the likely next major move.

This is a war of attrition though, something that Ukraine really cannot win over time as is where they recover all their territories lost.

There are also issues of getting force concentrations large enough to create a breakthrough, even if you clear the mine fields. The number of drones in the sky removes any element of surprise. The kamikaze drones/bomb drones also start destroying advances as soon as they start to move. (See Avdiivka).


Ukraine has made Sevastapol untenable for the Russian Black Sea Fleet and has sunk several ships, but that doesn't really translate into land gains.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Itse

Yup. There are significant differences in how it works in practice in China vs US (for example), and those differences matter in that there's more limits to what the US government and agencies can do to control/affect the media.

The most significant difference is that while the West can pretty easily push their own preferred narratives, it's harder for Western governments to silence unfavorable narratives or to bury topics they wouldn't want discussed. Not impossible, but harder.

This relative freedom of press of course has the downside that it's almost trivially easy for Russia to push it's own propaganda into the western media environment.

Sorry, but any notion that the Federal Government directs Washington Post articles is tinfoil hat territory to me. No disrespect of course. To think China and the US are the same with small differences when it comes to freedom of the press is completely incorrect.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by activeStick

We'll agree to disagree on that last part. All countries push out propoganda via their own country's media channels.

They push out government statements and feed information to journalists. But in liberal democracies governments don’t control what is and isn’t published. Even state-owned organizations like the CBC have editorial independence.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They push out government statements and feed information to journalists. But in liberal democracies governments don’t control what is and isn’t published. Even state-owned organizations like the CBC have editorial independence.

Well, on paper at least.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

Well, on paper at least.

So tell me how it really works.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So tell me how it really works.

In practice governments have a lot of ways to put pressure on media and individual journalists, and especially in the post 9/11 era and especially around peak wikileak era. Some used those powers at times very aggressively, at times even resorting into things like raids and seizures. Also, just harassment like putting people on no-fly lists, or simple scare tactics like threatening anonymous phone calls and obvious surveillance.

That stuff was pretty big news at the time, if you read the news at all. The Guardian for example was raided by British intelligence around the Snowden leaks, and had it's all it's office hard drives destroyed. Some journalists were arrested and kept under interrogation for hours "suspected of terrorism" around the same time. Extreme and rare example of course, but it showed free media everywhere that this is on the table when government thinks it's necessary.

You can also simply blackmail individual journalists. If the journalists have personal secrets, there's a good chance the surveillance state knows about it. (Ķind of the point of the Snowden leaks really.)

More typically of course it's just your average corruption and soft power. Making nice with not just journalists but also editors and the owners of news outlets, getting them to "see things your way".

Access is also a highly valuable currency for journalists, so journalists who you give access to material and interviews you don't give just anyone have a high motivation to play nice. They're quite likely to write roughly what you would like and not write about what you don't to be written about.

You can also just find the journalists who already see things your way and who will write what you want because they're already "patriots" or something, and give them the info you want to put out there.