The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[rsemmes]

Et voilà!

A Québécois would send you to the guillotine...

 

[personaldesas]

@KipPotapych So would it be fair to say we land here: headlines oversell, substance holds more or less up, though we might disagree with the interpretation made. His statements were made in a public-facing forum within a private club, he likely got fired over them, and nobody in this thread I think is disputing his read is directionally reasonable, though I might weight it a bit heavier than you do. Is that a fair summary so far?

 

[KipPotapych]

@KipPotapych So would it be fair to say we land here: headlines oversell, substance holds more or less up, though we might disagree with the interpretation made. His statements were made in a public-facing forum within a private club, he likely got fired over them, and nobody in this thread I think is disputing his read is directionally reasonable, though I might weight it a bit heavier than you do. Is that a fair summary so far?

- Headlines (in this case) do not oversell, they sell what is not there (eg, no dissent)
- Substance does not hold up, in spite of words being directly quoted (eg, inequality improved, not worsened, 180-opposite, not “more or less”);
- There was no interpretation made by the media because information was selected and presented in this particular manner for a reason (eg, you cannot quote partial sentences and interpret those parts);
- Sure, public setting, but not in the sense of how it is reported (I will settle on “oversell” here though);
- Probably got fired because of it (will settle on “oversell” here again - eg, this is not a “crackdown”);
- I think his read is very reasonable (as opposed to what is being reported);
- Weight? I think we devoted way more time to it than it is worth; yet, the discussion is likely helpful.

Is that a fair(er) summary? Haha.


I will provide another, though different, example of headlines and reports selling what is not there:



Note how Google attached a note “highly cited”. It has been spreading like a forrest fire. Scroll down the list and there are numerous media outlets, reddit, X, facebook, other social media, you name it, with the exact or somewhat modified headline. The pattern is one and the same, always is.

The “highly cited” WP article via the archive: https://archive.is/xf6Ho

I should note that I (still) see Prokopenko as a very reasonable analyst. This article is strike one though, laughing. Seriously though, it may be two strikes in one go.

Here is a real, data-driven analysis of the subject at hand:




So is the report “more or less” in the ballpark? Substance? The answer is no, it is not in the ballpark and the substance is simply wrong. It ignores (purposefully avoids?) numerous (and obvious) factors. The data in the future may show that they have something there (highly unlikely, in my opinion), but today the article is complete horseshit. Does it really matter though? Not really. Yet, at the same time, it does a lot for public perception. One thing is to think that Russia, while, very realistically, under a lot of stress (from all angles), still doing relatively fine; it is another to think that it is going to collapse, Putin will be overthrown or drop dead from some disease he most certainly has, their banking system is about to evaporate, if not due to the WB strikes, then this bank run that is happening for sure, oh, and look, there is this guy publicly dissenting and proving it all right, the crackdown of the elite, and then there is September mobilization coming and… all the signs are there, etc. It is what it is, what are you gonna do.

 

[personaldesas]

@KipPotapych I don't agree with all of it, but as you said, we've spent a lot of time on this, and I'm not keen to relitigate media analysis. I also don't think where we differ matters much for the bigger picture.

What I'd actually be curious about: is there reporting on this you think did a good job? Or do you reckon secondary sources are a lost cause here altogether?