One sided commentary about how the war is going? What kind of fantasy world do you live in where reality and unreality have equal journalistic weight.
As for your understanding of how war works, it’s about as bad as your understanding of journalism and propaganda. The fact that Russia pushes past the areas that it now occupies is how it came to occupy those areas. You don’t march your forces to a line and just stop. You clear far ahead of what’s defensible, set up your defenses, and hold. That’s what you’re seeing in that map and the idea the Russia is losing because of that is, quite literally, lying Western propaganda.
One sided commentary about how the war is going? What kind of fantasy world do you live in where reality and unreality have equal journalistic weight.
I could send you ten different accounts of Russian soldiers going through their own version of the hell this guy was going through. If I did that, would you say they should have equal “journalistic weight” as this guy’s (assumedly very real) suffering?
Edit: I ask this because your separation of what information into “reality” and “unreality” is a very, very effective propaganda technique when those terms are given a certain type of definition. My suspicious is that accounts of suffering Russian soldiers or Russian losses, no matter how well-documented, would be classed as “unreality” or rejected for some other reason. My way of looking at the world is that as long as it’s pretty well-documented, either “side” of information can be accepted. A propagandistic view of the world is that only one “side” can be accepted, and the other side is “unreality” or has some similar reason for being dismissed. For that reason it’s a pretty important question.
You clear far ahead of what’s defensible, set up your defenses, and hold.
The west side of the Dnieper river is “cleared” by Russian forces, is it? Is that what you’re saying?
Edit: Actually, let me ask it differently. So your assertion is that “winning” a war looks like pushing your forces over a river, advancing a few tens of km, then engaging in fighting and pulling back to the far side of the river, then having your enemy’s troops cross the river and entering into a protracted monthslong stalemate on your own side of the river. That’s the intended goal of the operation (“how war works”) when you’re winning; is that your assertion?
You mean holding the ethnically Russian territory and then settling in for a long conflict to drain your opponent of materiel? When your primary advantages are size, production, population, and patience? Yes. I would say that the particular position of the Russian army is achieving it’s strategic objectives quite well.
So the intended strategy is to “settle in” on their own side of the border and spring-2022 frontline, to patiently drain Australia, the EU, Canada, and the USA of materiel, until we are all exhausted by the limitless might of the Russian industrial economy?
Ukraine has problems in the war, to be sure. (A shortage of men in the war of attrition being one of them, absolutely.) But that way of explaining the strategy doesn’t make it sound like winning to me.
Considering the US is clawing back munitions from allies, UK has announced multiple shortfalls of ammo and personnel, Germany has deindustrialized, and multiple fronts have opened up against the West (Niger, Palestine, etc) and Russian production is in full swing, it sounds like a winning strategy to me. Every war the West has lost they lost against an entrenched enemy.
UK has announced multiple shortfalls of ammo and personnel
Probably true. Russia has suffered more severe shortfalls, although since their government and military aren’t subject to Western-democracy-style oversight, I doubt they’ve “announced” anything. This is another one-sided approach, where one (accurate) aspect of the problem gets magnified as if it existed in isolation without putting it in context or examining counterbalancing factors on “the other side.”
Want me to make an effort to compare and contrast supply levels on the Russian vs Western side?
Germany has deindustrialized
What on EARTH are you talking about?
multiple fronts have opened up against the West (Niger, Palestine, etc)
Yeah, we’ll have to pull all our troops out of Ukraine if it keeps up, and we might need to pull some warships out too, so we can send them to the Red Sea, and supplement all our existing forces in Palestine.
So: I’m starting to notice a pattern in the flow of this conversation. Honestly, I’m comfortable with calling it a day with the viewpoint I’ve laid out so far. If you don’t want to agree, and feel like Russia is dominating in this war, that’s your right to think that, and I won’t stop you.
Questioning the deindustrialization of Germany is… Rather silly tbh. Have you seen Germany’s manufacturing PMI? That’s after an absurd amount of energy subsidies from the government.
Because Russia is not subject to the anarchy of production for profit that the West is, weapons manufacturing is nationalized and directed by strategic plans and oversight to ensure more efficient and more effective production.
This is another one-sided approach, where one (accurate) aspect of the problem gets magnified as if it existed in isolation without putting it in context or examining counterbalancing factors on “the other side.”
You haven’t done this (putting it context / counterbalancing). You made no attempt at sourcing anything. You only demand to hear things that make you feel better and when you only hear things that make you feel worse you automatically assume ill intent from the message.
Want me to make an effort to compare and contrast supply levels on the Russian vs Western side?
Honestly, I’m comfortable with calling it a day with the viewpoint I’ve laid out so far
That’s because you don’t have a viewpoint based in reality but instead prefer to live in the world of comfortable narratives masquerading as fact.
If you don’t want to agree, and feel like Russia is dominating in this war, that’s your right to think that, and I won’t stop you.
And here’s my evidence. You leap to strawman. No one ever said Russia is dominating, least of all me. I said Russia is achieving its strategic objectives (no country can join NATO while engaged in an active border dispute), Russia is not running out of munitions, the West is running out of munitions, the West is suffering economically, the West failed to open multiple fronts against Russia et. al, and multiple fronts have successfully been opened up against the West. None of this stuff is in dispute and none of it says Russia is dominating. If that’s what you think it says, that’s on you. What it says to me is the West is failing to meet its strategic objectives, militarily and economically. If you can’t handle that and require all journalism to also write some narrative about how those resisting the West are inevitably losing and suffering just as badly or worse and also they’re stinkydoodoo heads, well, then I think you’re making the right choice by ending the conversation here.
One sided commentary about how the war is going? What kind of fantasy world do you live in where reality and unreality have equal journalistic weight.
As for your understanding of how war works, it’s about as bad as your understanding of journalism and propaganda. The fact that Russia pushes past the areas that it now occupies is how it came to occupy those areas. You don’t march your forces to a line and just stop. You clear far ahead of what’s defensible, set up your defenses, and hold. That’s what you’re seeing in that map and the idea the Russia is losing because of that is, quite literally, lying Western propaganda.
I could send you ten different accounts of Russian soldiers going through their own version of the hell this guy was going through. If I did that, would you say they should have equal “journalistic weight” as this guy’s (assumedly very real) suffering?
Edit: I ask this because your separation of what information into “reality” and “unreality” is a very, very effective propaganda technique when those terms are given a certain type of definition. My suspicious is that accounts of suffering Russian soldiers or Russian losses, no matter how well-documented, would be classed as “unreality” or rejected for some other reason. My way of looking at the world is that as long as it’s pretty well-documented, either “side” of information can be accepted. A propagandistic view of the world is that only one “side” can be accepted, and the other side is “unreality” or has some similar reason for being dismissed. For that reason it’s a pretty important question.
The west side of the Dnieper river is “cleared” by Russian forces, is it? Is that what you’re saying?Edit: Actually, let me ask it differently. So your assertion is that “winning” a war looks like pushing your forces over a river, advancing a few tens of km, then engaging in fighting and pulling back to the far side of the river, then having your enemy’s troops cross the river and entering into a protracted monthslong stalemate on your own side of the river. That’s the intended goal of the operation (“how war works”) when you’re winning; is that your assertion?
You mean holding the ethnically Russian territory and then settling in for a long conflict to drain your opponent of materiel? When your primary advantages are size, production, population, and patience? Yes. I would say that the particular position of the Russian army is achieving it’s strategic objectives quite well.
So the intended strategy is to “settle in” on their own side of the border and spring-2022 frontline, to patiently drain Australia, the EU, Canada, and the USA of materiel, until we are all exhausted by the limitless might of the Russian industrial economy?
Ukraine has problems in the war, to be sure. (A shortage of men in the war of attrition being one of them, absolutely.) But that way of explaining the strategy doesn’t make it sound like winning to me.
Considering the US is clawing back munitions from allies, UK has announced multiple shortfalls of ammo and personnel, Germany has deindustrialized, and multiple fronts have opened up against the West (Niger, Palestine, etc) and Russian production is in full swing, it sounds like a winning strategy to me. Every war the West has lost they lost against an entrenched enemy.
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Probably true. Russia has suffered more severe shortfalls, although since their government and military aren’t subject to Western-democracy-style oversight, I doubt they’ve “announced” anything. This is another one-sided approach, where one (accurate) aspect of the problem gets magnified as if it existed in isolation without putting it in context or examining counterbalancing factors on “the other side.”
Want me to make an effort to compare and contrast supply levels on the Russian vs Western side?
What on EARTH are you talking about?
Yeah, we’ll have to pull all our troops out of Ukraine if it keeps up, and we might need to pull some warships out too, so we can send them to the Red Sea, and supplement all our existing forces in Palestine.
So: I’m starting to notice a pattern in the flow of this conversation. Honestly, I’m comfortable with calling it a day with the viewpoint I’ve laid out so far. If you don’t want to agree, and feel like Russia is dominating in this war, that’s your right to think that, and I won’t stop you.
Questioning the deindustrialization of Germany is… Rather silly tbh. Have you seen Germany’s manufacturing PMI? That’s after an absurd amount of energy subsidies from the government.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
a pattern in the flow of this conversation
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3625683/us-department-of-defense-statement-on-japans-decision-to-transfer-patriot-missi/
Citation needed
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-increases-weapons-production-2023-despite-sanctions-armed-forces-1856938
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ramps-up-output-some-military-hardware-by-more-than-tenfold-state-company-2023-09-19/
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-increased-stock-long-range-missiles-faster-than-expected-isw-2023-11?op=1
Because Russia is not subject to the anarchy of production for profit that the West is, weapons manufacturing is nationalized and directed by strategic plans and oversight to ensure more efficient and more effective production.
You haven’t done this (putting it context / counterbalancing). You made no attempt at sourcing anything. You only demand to hear things that make you feel better and when you only hear things that make you feel worse you automatically assume ill intent from the message.
I would actually.
2022 https://www.economist.com/business/2022/09/11/germany-faces-a-looming-threat-of-deindustrialisation
2023 https://www.politico.eu/article/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-deindustrialization-of-germany/
Late 2023 https://www.ft.com/content/7095e5d7-7a72-483f-9464-52d36bac03f7
What on EARTH have you been reading?
That’s because you don’t have a viewpoint based in reality but instead prefer to live in the world of comfortable narratives masquerading as fact.
And here’s my evidence. You leap to strawman. No one ever said Russia is dominating, least of all me. I said Russia is achieving its strategic objectives (no country can join NATO while engaged in an active border dispute), Russia is not running out of munitions, the West is running out of munitions, the West is suffering economically, the West failed to open multiple fronts against Russia et. al, and multiple fronts have successfully been opened up against the West. None of this stuff is in dispute and none of it says Russia is dominating. If that’s what you think it says, that’s on you. What it says to me is the West is failing to meet its strategic objectives, militarily and economically. If you can’t handle that and require all journalism to also write some narrative about how those resisting the West are inevitably losing and suffering just as badly or worse and also they’re stinkydoodoo heads, well, then I think you’re making the right choice by ending the conversation here.