Ukraine Conflict - "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

[kanisatha]

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-officers-killing-their-own-wounded-say-captured-soldiers-video-1707074

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russian-commanders-shooting-wounded-soldiers-26973695

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn9D_m4bxEs

The Metro article merely links to and reports what the Ukrainians were saying. It's not Metro's own story.

So, lmfao "guy"

[Malcador]

So the Mirror and Newsweek huh. Hm.  Anyway, if you have non crappy media, use that instead, not all that difficult. If I see an article in The Sun, I'll check to see if a non-dross paper has it (also, need to deny them clicks).

Edited May 17, 2022 by Malcador

[xzar_monty]

12 minutes ago, Malcador said:

People do use them as one here, though, you've not noticed that in all these threads ?

Apparently they do, yes, so that was my bad. (I'm not going to disable my adblocker, so I'm not clicking on any of those links, so it seems I'm ignoring them more comprehensively than I should.)

Edited May 17, 2022 by xzar_monty

[kanisatha]

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

Well then lead with that, then ? Not a hard concept.

People can easily find this out for themselves by clicking on and reading the link, and then judging for themselves, instead of posturing and preening.

[kanisatha]

5 minutes ago, Malcador said:

So the Mirror and Newsweek huh. Hm.  Anyway, if you have non crappy media, use that instead, not all that difficult. If I see an article in The Sun, I'll check to see if a non-dross paper has it (also, need to deny them clicks).

Except for that I don't have some mental list of which are okay and which are not, especially given that people often label sources as not acceptable purely on the basis of their personal ideologies and partisan politics. So instead, I base my judgments on each individual story, and not on some abstract and general notion pushed on me by others on whether a source is "acceptable" or not.

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, kanisatha said:

I'm really happy to hear of this. When Hitler began doing this same thing, that's what hastened Germany's military collapse. So Putin micromanaging his war is the best news we can get.

I just read a good article where a military expert made the same Hitler comparison (while pointing out that earlier on in his war, Hitler made good tactical decisions, unlike Putin).

However, the military expert also pointed to the fact that no sources have been properly reported, which suggests that this may be wishful thinking comparable to reports about Putin's ill health (which themselves may or may not be wishful thinking). So there's that, and that's unignorable for now.

The expert also kind of agreed with you in the sense that if the reports are true, they certainly appear to be good news for Ukraine. I suppose we'll find out eventually. Damn fog of war.

[Malcador]

5 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

Except for that I don't have some mental list of which are okay and which are not, especially given that people often label sources as not acceptable purely on the basis of their personal ideologies and partisan politics. So instead, I base my judgments on each individual story, and not on some abstract and general notion pushed on me by others on whether a source is "acceptable" or not.

You should have a mental list - if just for no other reason than to starve them of attention.  People do label a lot of media as bent trash for good reasons other than their ideology - try reading the Sun or Mail and then think you're taking in quality work (in the case of the Sun it's written for people that didn't reach HS...).   In any case, a bit off field now.

But it has been a good source of amusement for me in this war watching people discuss it. On another forum, a guy tries to balance out the cheerleading by posting Russian sources or pro-Russia takes and people lay into him.  But then you'll see people post some similar stuff that is pro-Ukraine or Ukrainain statements and everyone acts as if its gospel.   

Why I just rely on Kofman, analysis seems suitably cold blooded.

 

[BruceVC]

Im glad the surviving soldiers from Mariupol are being evacuated, they can go back to the Ukrainian lines and continue the war. Very brave soldiers. After Putins War the Ukrainians must create a statue in recognition of their fortitude and the stand they made 

[213374U]

9 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

 especially given that people often label sources as not acceptable purely on the basis of their personal ideologies and partisan politics.

This is absolutely priceless considering the context of this whole exchange. I mean, I was here giving Darkpriest **** for posting edgy ZH stuff before it was cool. But whatever, don't let me get in the way of this inspiring exercise of critical thinking and grand showcase of journalistic excellence.

bonus: here's what British tabloids have to say on the subject of POW interviews.

[Malcador]

5 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Im glad the surviving soldiers from Mariupol are being evacuated, they can go back to the Ukrainian lines and continue the war. Very brave soldiers. After Putins War the Ukrainians must create a statue in recognition of their fortitude and the stand they made 

Assuming they are swapped.  You know the Russians are so evil they are going to line the streets in Moscow with them crucified...

But seriously, I thought it wasn't confirmed that they were going to be swapped for Russian POWs.

[Chilloutman]

all right, I am always willing to search for truth and one thing I know Ukraine is not sharing is amount of their loses, do someone have some 'unbiased' source on those data? (EG. not Russian state media or Ukraine official data)

[xzar_monty]

Here's an interesting juxtaposition suggesting that Russia's understanding of its capacities has taken a step towards realism.

First, we have the president of Finland commenting on how Putin's strong demands made late in 2021 were an important factor in Finland's decision to apply for NATO membership: https://yle.fi/news/3-12446141

Second, we have Lavrov saying how Finland and Sweden joining NATO makes no big difference: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-lavrov-says-finland-sweden-joining-nato-makes-no-big-difference-2022-05-17/

If this means that Lavrov is essentially saying, "Well, we can't do anything", then that's quite different from Putin's earlier message of, "You can't join NATO".

[xzar_monty]

17 minutes ago, Malcador said:

You should have a mental list - if just for no other reason than to starve them of attention.  People do label a lot of media as bent trash for good reasons other than their ideology - try reading the Sun or Mail and then think you're taking in quality work (in the case of the Sun it's written for people that didn't reach HS...).   In any case, a bit off field now.

Off field, yes, but I'll continue for just a little longer. I used to have a rule whereby any printed media that ever uses exclamation marks on its front page is to be ignored forever. There used to be quite a few of those in the UK. Also, the Sun, on its own, has committed so many journalistic "sins" that it's definitely to be ignored forever.

Btw, speaking of high school, I think it's wonderful that the Sun caters to its readers to the extent that it's prepared to "dumb down" its language even when it quotes people. There's a (linguistically) famous example from 1985 when a member of the royal family commented on an unpleasant event, saying, "I shall have to live with it". The Sun quoted her as saying, "I will have to live with it". That's delightful.

[Mamoulian War]

43 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

all right, I am always willing to search for truth and one thing I know Ukraine is not sharing is amount of their loses, do someone have some 'unbiased' source on those data? (EG. not Russian state media or Ukraine official data)

US estimates on April 19 were 5500-11000 casualties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

 

[Chilloutman]

I would not consider US 'neutral' or not invested

[kanisatha]

56 minutes ago, Malcador said:

You should have a mental list - if just for no other reason than to starve them of attention.  People do label a lot of media as bent trash for good reasons other than their ideology - try reading the Sun or Mail and then think you're taking in quality work (in the case of the Sun it's written for people that didn't reach HS...).   In any case, a bit off field now.

And how would I go about creating this list? Okay, perhaps for some sources in the country I happen to live in, and may be a few other countries associated with my country (so US + other 'Anglo' countries?), I could potentially make such an abstract judgment for at least some sources. But what about sources from the Middle East, or Asia, or Africa, or Latin America? I read a LOT of stories from a LOT of different sources from around the world on a DAILY basis, on every conceivable world affairs issue or event. How am I to pre-judge all those sources? And then you also have non-news media sources online, that include academics and experts and think-tanks and organizations, but also a lot of garbage. How do I pre-draw the line? So the system I have learned over many, many years is to not pre-judge the source but instead to judge the story, and it works very well for me.

[kanisatha]

An interesting bit of related discussion: after a very long time my contact in Russia's Sputnik News emiled me just now asking for my comments on precisely the story of Erdogan blocking Finland and Sweden in NATO and also about the consequences of their joining NATO for Russia's future relations with the West.

And even though Sputnik News is a Russian government controlled news outlet, that doesn't matter to me and I am happy to continue engaging with them and trying to get a different viewpoint across to their audience through them. So I wrote back to her an extensive response to her set of questions for me, and am hopeful she will quote me accurately and fairly and in context.

Btw, I have also given interviews to Iranian news media in the past. I knew they were looking to use me and manipulate me as an American academic who may speak against some of Trump's policies toward Iran, and that their story would be very one-sided, but that didn't stop me from at least trying to engage with them and to expose them to an alternative pov.

[Mamoulian War]

14 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

I would not consider US 'neutral' or not invested

Compared to UA numbers, they are more plausible. Also they numbers are more plausible than UA numbers for Russian casualties as well

[Malcador]

On a funny and very tangentially related note, BIS got some marketing care of McCaffrey

Edited May 17, 2022 by Malcador

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Chilloutman said:

all right, I am always willing to search for truth and one thing I know Ukraine is not sharing is amount of their loses, do someone have some 'unbiased' source on those data? (EG. not Russian state media or Ukraine official data)

There is no unbiased data, only guesses by different people. 

US intelligence agencies have given following estimate

5,500–11,000 killed, 18,000+ wounded    24 February – 19 April 2022

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/19/world/europe/russia-ukraine-donbas-strategy.html

[Zoraptor]

5 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Also interesting how the natural counterpoint (i.e. coming out every time in a knee-jerk reaction) to Russian propaganda is a "British tabloid". As if someone here is using that a source.

The other issue apart from people using them as a source is that if the information is salacious enough other papers use them as a source. Then people quote the NYT* and The (London) Times and Grauniad to show that it's in all the 'respectable' press as well and thus has to be taken seriously. Case in point, Putin's phantom resignation in January 2021 where the ultimate source was... anonymous intelligence official, talking to The Sun; ie modern Kelvin McKenzie's left buttcheek.

The flip side is state media, which isn't trustworthy but can be useful to see what the other side wants people to think. Tabloids though, the only thing you get from them is what they think will sell the most copy.

*favourite newspaper of record moment: being told that a NYT article claiming unions were illegal in New Zealand had to be true because it was in the NYT who do exacting fact checking, and the legislation webpage of the NZ government saying they were legal had to be incorrect. Strangely enough the NYT reporter was actually wrong... and that was well after all the Nigerian Yellowcake etc fake intelligence laundering done through the NYT in 2002-3.

4 hours ago, Chilloutman said:

all right, I am always willing to search for truth and one thing I know Ukraine is not sharing is amount of their loses, do someone have some 'unbiased' source on those data? (EG. not Russian state media or Ukraine official data)

There isn't any. It's possible that the UN or ICRC has some and they'd more or less qualify as unbiased, but they don't release such data independently and for the vast majority of information received will be aggregating biased/ controlled sources if they did release.

[xzar_monty]

8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The other issue apart from people using them as a source is that if the information is salacious enough other papers use them as a source. Then people quote the NYT* and The (London) Times and Grauniad to show that it's in all the 'respectable' press as well and thus has to be taken seriously.

This is true. There is a certain "small world" phenomenon going on, i.e. papers using each other as sources and thus both inadvertently and deliberately creating a veneer of credibility. (David Lodge's superb novel Small World is depiction of certain academics justifying and enabling their existence essentially by quoting, commenting on and referring to each other's work, without any connection to the wider world.)

The situation with the press is getting both better and worse, and it's hard to know what to do or sometimes even think about it. For instance, The Guardian is head and shoulders above quite a few English rags, but then The Guardian itself has sunk into political correctness to such an extent that it's become an utter embarrassment in many ways; very hard to read.

[BruceVC]

43 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

This is true. There is a certain "small world" phenomenon going on, i.e. papers using each other as sources and thus both inadvertently and deliberately creating a veneer of credibility. (David Lodge's superb novel Small World is depiction of certain academics justifying and enabling their existence essentially by quoting, commenting on and referring to each other's work, without any connection to the wider world.)

The situation with the press is getting both better and worse, and it's hard to know what to do or sometimes even think about it. For instance, The Guardian is head and shoulders above quite a few English rags, but then The Guardian itself has sunk into political correctness to such an extent that it's become an utter embarrassment in many ways; very hard to read.

No Im not confused or uncertain by Russias war crimes or military failures. Their are literally dozens of embedded journalists in Ukraine  and live footage is corroborated by numerous sources

Their is real truth about most of Putins War except when it comes from the likes of RT and other Ruskie controlled media houses or links  from Zerohedge like Dark posted 

So their is no  real credibility concerns from my side 

[xzar_monty]

I am not uncertain about Russia's war crimes or military failures, either. I don't see any reason to doubt them, given the overwhelming evidence.

However, every individual story has the potential to raise questions about whether it's true or not. Questions about Putin's health or Shoigu's heart attack(s), for instance, are very much in the air.

[BruceVC]

17 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

I am not uncertain about Russia's war crimes or military failures, either. I don't see any reason to doubt them, given the overwhelming evidence.

However, every individual story has the potential to raise questions about whether it's true or not. Questions about Putin's health or Shoigu's heart attack(s), for instance, are very much in the air.

Yes but thats not confirmed stories, they make for interesting talking point and they ostensibly could be true

But personally I dont have an absolute opinion on those types of stories that influences my view  of Russia or Putin as a terrible leader until the stories are confirmed true

For example until the Moskva sunk I didnt believe it was going to sink