John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Russia doesn’t have a choice, China still wants some Russian tech but can develop stuff on their own. Unless China decides to jump on the green wagon, Russian energy is the only long term attraction.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
GermanHerman
Active Member
I dont want to derail the thread and we have been asked by moderators to keep the discussion about Oryx out of this thread.
If this is seen as derailing I apologize and would ask the Moderators to remove the post.
What seperates the scientific historian from the enthusiast is the ability to study, critique and Interpret a source in order to draw own conlusions. Today this skills are needed by everyone who wants to navigate the informationsphere.
First step in evaluating infromation is to study the source
- what informations are present, what informations are absent?
Oryx:
- we see a russian tank in a field.
- we do not see if the tank is crewed, If the field is in ukraine or are able to evaluate which year the picture was taken or what it's source is.
PL:
- We can see that he is transported in an car marked with a redcross while accomoanies by armed personal clearly not on a medical Mission.
- We can see a lot of Battle damage, we can locate the streets they walk and say they are clearly unser russian control. We can see some Interactions between civis and him.
- we do not see the alleged arrest He talks about. But is that realy the primary question we ask when we study this source? "Was a man arrested in Mariopol"? I dont think so.
Next step is source criticism.
How reliable is the source? To establish the reliability of a source there are quite some principles: objective > narative, primary > secondary > tertiary, the closer the source is to the event the more reliable it is.
- Oryx does not provide us with his primary source. We therefore cannot reasonably investigate his claims.
- we know that it's a secondary source though and we know a secondary source is less reliable then a primary source.
- to make matters worse it's one dependent on narrative. Narative is Always less reliable then an objective / relic. But once again, as Oryx dosnt provide his source we cant even qualify this photo with the added classifictaion as a secondary source
- In the end Oryx adds it's own narative when he categorizes the picture and therefore _creates_ his own context.
Once again: narative (his claim what the photo Shows) is less reliable then objective evidence (the Photo itself) which in conlusion represents secondary / tertiary evidence which is less reliable then a primary source. So we already See how far away we are from counting this as a reliable source.
- next, what can we say about oryx? He is biased. A biased source, you guessed it: is less reliable then a neutral one.
So inconclusion: we cant take this as a reliable source for what is claimed to be shown on the picture. The evidence is not there.
PL:
- The videofotage is a primary source on its own which can be analyzed Independently from the added narative.
This makes it a rather reliable source for specific questions (auch as: was this street under russian control at X hour on Day Y)
- We do know that PL is at least heavily biased. Therefore we know we have to apply scroutiny when looking at the footage.
- We know because of his biase the narative is propably very questeniable and shouldnt be used as a foundation for a broader conlusion without Independent sources that are supporting his claims.
- He is unreliable. Yet, this only means we have to expect that his footage ist edidet:
The next step is Interpretation of the source.
We combine the study and the criticism and come up with out own conlusion what the source proves / indicates and what Not.
Here we See in the case of the picturer Tank, oryx dosnt Proof or indicate anything. It's a completly worthless data point.
In case of the Video from PL we cant take it as evidence that the locals are not unfriendly towards the russians only because his footage dosnt show it. We have to asume that because of his biase he might omit certain footage. We can however see it as a reliable source that certain areas of the city are under russian control as the soldiers walk around without harassment. We can also use it as a source for the destruction of civilian infrastructure etc.
I think you get the methodology and why I dont like oryx. From a scientific point of view he is far worse thene Wikipedia and everyone knows Wikipedia is not a credible source. I dont trust PL but hisw footage contains enough information to actualy draw your own conclusions seperate from his added narative.
The principles of source criticism are long standing and can be applied to the reporting on current events.
I hope this somehwat clears up why I think PL footage has value and why it's Not based on "my bias".
This kind of thinking should always be applied, especially when it comes to information so elusive as the once that are discussed in this topic.
@GermanHerman EDIT: Warning removed. Given in error. My apologies.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Capt. Ironpants
Active Member
I've been feeling pretty depressed lately about how unlikely any peace deal is in the foreseeable future. After Biden labeled Putin a "war criminal" and "butcher" and said he "cannot remain in power" things look very bleak on the peace front. Now Putin may be all those things, but:
Sun Tzu — 'Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.'
Biden -- 'Back your nuclear-armed opponent into a corner and poke him with a sharpened stick.'
Yes, the White House staff tried to walk back the regime change remark, saying he'd gone off script, and Macron distanced himself from it, too, but once a thing is said, it's out there, and the remark has reportedly been looped over and over on Russian TV for domestic consumption. We Americans know Biden is gaffe-prone -- he also misspoke to our soldiers in Poland, saying they would "see" all the terrible things happening in Ukraine as if they would soon be going there, and he said that if Putin used chemical weapons we "would respond in kind" -- but in times like these a simple gaffe can cause huge problems. Let's hope his staff does not let him go "off script" again.
---
Interesting read from Scottish historian Niall Ferguson (yes, the link below works):
www.bloomberg.com
Short version:
I fear the American plan really is 1. drag out war --> 2. bleed Russia --> 3. regime change. I have suspected this for quite some time. Things could go very, very wrong in this scenario. And what about poor Ukraine? Nothing but suffering grass for elephants to trample? I agree with Ferguson. This plan is certainly both shamefully cynical and overly optimistic.
He also offers some interesting insights about Cold War I vs Cold War II. This got me thinking about Putin's nuclear sabre rattling at the opening of hostilities. At the time, I was a bit concerned about his mental state (not that I thought he'd gone mad or anything, just concerned where he'd gone in his head). Now, remembering how in early days of Cold War I, US/NATO properly declined to sign a "no first strike" pledge (the USSR had formidible conventional forces at its disposal at the time and had we signed and kept a "no first strike" pledge, it might have been seen as a permission slip for those conventional forces to roll into Western Europe), I am less concerned. Yes, we did, in practice quietly adopt a "no first strike" policy over time. Now, during the first "hot war" of Cold War II, the situation is reversed and NATO possesses superior conventional forces in Europe. I suspect Putin's sabre rattling was a somewhat ham-handed way of letting us that now the shoe is on the other foot and he is tossing aside "no first strike" in the same way and for the same reasons we once did.
-----
A Polish analyst sees things in somewhat the same way as Ferguson, but extends the timeline out for years. For some reason, Google translate repeats some chunks of text -- my apologies -- but well worth the read:
wpolityce-pl.translate.goog
This future does not seem terribly appealing, but I suppose we must accept we have well and truly entered Cold War II. There are many questions, of course. Yes, it's true that once we impose sanctions we tend to leave them in place indefinitely. But for how long can the West bear the costs? How long can the poorest countries, especially those dependent on Russia for wheat, hold out? Not long at all! Already we see food prices spiking and reductions in spring planting due to fertilizer shortages. Not only will the West have to absorb higher energy and food prices, invest more heavily in its militaries and support and rebuild Ukraine (all together, quite a price tag), we will have to see to it that Africa does not starve, and starve it will if we do not aid those poor countries. How long will China be willing to support Russia through sanctions? These are all open questions. The road ahead looks pretty darn rocky. Just when we were emerging from the gloom and doom of Covid ... ah well, stuff happens.
----
Strange story. US State Department says it was not poisoning, but something environmental or possibly even microwave exposure. Bellingcat says it was low-grade poison gas exposure (chemical weapon). The Ukrainians "poured cold water over the report" and cautioned not to trust "unverified information."
news.sky.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/GKBLW4M435L37CJ5IG53A2GAQI.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Sun Tzu — 'Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.'
Biden -- 'Back your nuclear-armed opponent into a corner and poke him with a sharpened stick.'
Yes, the White House staff tried to walk back the regime change remark, saying he'd gone off script, and Macron distanced himself from it, too, but once a thing is said, it's out there, and the remark has reportedly been looped over and over on Russian TV for domestic consumption. We Americans know Biden is gaffe-prone -- he also misspoke to our soldiers in Poland, saying they would "see" all the terrible things happening in Ukraine as if they would soon be going there, and he said that if Putin used chemical weapons we "would respond in kind" -- but in times like these a simple gaffe can cause huge problems. Let's hope his staff does not let him go "off script" again.
---
Interesting read from Scottish historian Niall Ferguson (yes, the link below works):
Putin Misunderstands History. So, Unfortunately, Does the U.S.
Biden is making a colossal mistake in thinking he can bleed Russia dry, topple Putin and signal to China to keep its hands off Taiwan.
www.bloomberg.com
Short version:
I fear the American plan really is 1. drag out war --> 2. bleed Russia --> 3. regime change. I have suspected this for quite some time. Things could go very, very wrong in this scenario. And what about poor Ukraine? Nothing but suffering grass for elephants to trample? I agree with Ferguson. This plan is certainly both shamefully cynical and overly optimistic.
He also offers some interesting insights about Cold War I vs Cold War II. This got me thinking about Putin's nuclear sabre rattling at the opening of hostilities. At the time, I was a bit concerned about his mental state (not that I thought he'd gone mad or anything, just concerned where he'd gone in his head). Now, remembering how in early days of Cold War I, US/NATO properly declined to sign a "no first strike" pledge (the USSR had formidible conventional forces at its disposal at the time and had we signed and kept a "no first strike" pledge, it might have been seen as a permission slip for those conventional forces to roll into Western Europe), I am less concerned. Yes, we did, in practice quietly adopt a "no first strike" policy over time. Now, during the first "hot war" of Cold War II, the situation is reversed and NATO possesses superior conventional forces in Europe. I suspect Putin's sabre rattling was a somewhat ham-handed way of letting us that now the shoe is on the other foot and he is tossing aside "no first strike" in the same way and for the same reasons we once did.
-----
A Polish analyst sees things in somewhat the same way as Ferguson, but extends the timeline out for years. For some reason, Google translate repeats some chunks of text -- my apologies -- but well worth the read:
Rosyjski plan zwycięstwa na Ukrainie i w wojnie z Zachodem
Wydaje się, że Rosja zrezygnowała nie tylko z idei zdobycia kontroli nad Ukrainą i ustanowienia w Kijowie przyjaznego jej rządu, ale również godzi się z myślą, iż demilitaryzacja Ukrainy, narzucona jej w ewentualnym tra…
wpolityce-pl.translate.goog
This future does not seem terribly appealing, but I suppose we must accept we have well and truly entered Cold War II. There are many questions, of course. Yes, it's true that once we impose sanctions we tend to leave them in place indefinitely. But for how long can the West bear the costs? How long can the poorest countries, especially those dependent on Russia for wheat, hold out? Not long at all! Already we see food prices spiking and reductions in spring planting due to fertilizer shortages. Not only will the West have to absorb higher energy and food prices, invest more heavily in its militaries and support and rebuild Ukraine (all together, quite a price tag), we will have to see to it that Africa does not starve, and starve it will if we do not aid those poor countries. How long will China be willing to support Russia through sanctions? These are all open questions. The road ahead looks pretty darn rocky. Just when we were emerging from the gloom and doom of Covid ... ah well, stuff happens.
----
Strange story. US State Department says it was not poisoning, but something environmental or possibly even microwave exposure. Bellingcat says it was low-grade poison gas exposure (chemical weapon). The Ukrainians "poured cold water over the report" and cautioned not to trust "unverified information."
Roman Abramovich and Ukrainian peace negotiators were reportedly victims of poisoning - but US casts doubt
Symptoms included red eyes, constant and painful tearing, and peeling skin on their hands and faces.
Billionaire Abramovich, Ukrainian peace negotiators hit by suspected poisoning -reports
Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich and Ukrainian peace negotiators suffered symptoms of suspected poisoning earlier this month after a meeting in Kyiv, the Wall Street Journal and the investigative outlet Bellingcat reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter.
www.reuters.com
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
So does Abramovich get a reprieve from sanctions now assuming he really is a target? If true, it seems to send a message to other oligarchs not to deviate from Putin’s path.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
It is indeed designed to send a message to the potentially 'unfaithful', as Mr P. did using state controlled agents like Novichok and Polonium in the past.
It also sends another message, an inadvertent one, Mr P is getting desperate.
Capt. Ironpants
Active Member
If you read the links at the bottom of my last post, it's possible Mr. A was trying to get just that -- sanctions lifted. A little bleach, maybe stick your face in an open microwave oven, and voila. You can also buy chlorine dioxide to make a gas to get bad smells out of your car or home. I have some. You are not supposed to stay in the car (or room) while it does its thing, but apparently it won't kill you if you do. Or maybe Putin did it. Or maybe the Ukrainians. The US State Department and the Ukrainians seem quite adamant there's something fishy or it was just some environmental irritation.
EDIT: He made a trip to Moscow after this episode -- if he really thought Putin had given him a poison gas warning, would he have done that?
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
I don't think this has ben posted, an English language translation of an interview Mr Zelensky gave to Russian journalists over Zoom on the 28/3 'It's not just a war. It's much worse.' Volodymyr Zelensky's first interview with Russian journalists since the war began — Meduza The video in Russian is here (3) Владимир Зеленский — о переговорах, аргументах Путина , ситуации в Мариуполе и отношении к россиянам - YouTube He is certainly is an impressive leader, shows himself to be a real thinker and understanding the conflict in generational terms. It's not surprising the interview was banned in Russia by Roskomnadzor.
Sounds more like a room being cleaned from covid exposure not being cleared properly or having used cheap chemicals for that purpose. I would suspect caustic soda from the symptoms. Many chlorine based chemicals degrade to this over a relatively short time.
"Never attribute malice which can be explained by incompetence"
Ananda
The Bunker Group
The talk on China Xi by Western media taking big gamble on supporting Putin in fact bit opposite on the situation. Looking down on Chinese media, or their forums and online chatters, in fact many in China understand well the scenario that US want to use Ukraine to bleed Russia for regime change.
Because of that seems Xi action on supporting Putin position and China keep trading with Russia gain enough support from their public. In fact the scenario of US regime change scenario that seems taken by some Western media as surprised, is something that already circling around in many parts of Non US allies public. So far that's one of the reasons why in Non US allies public opinion has many supporting the action non to jump into US and Allies sanction band wagon.
Seems even Biden try to do more damage control.
Biden says his comment about Putin not remaining in power reflects moral outrage, not a policy change: March 28 recap
Russian troops have ceased making advances on the ground toward the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. Recap
www.usatoday.com
White House seems understand talking openly on Regime Changes now in public can be seen as counter productive not only within parts of US and Allies public, but also Internationally. For one thing it is going to be seems as obstacles for compromise. That will be seen as US gambling on Ukraine fate.
Last edited:
Pentaprism
Member
I think you're reading the same tea leaves as me. The War is terrible news for Ukraine and Russia.I've been feeling pretty depressed lately about how unlikely any peace deal is in the foreseeable future. After Biden labeled Putin a "war criminal" and "butcher" and said he "cannot remain in power" things look very bleak on the peace front. Now Putin may be all those things, but:
Sun Tzu — 'Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.'
Biden -- 'Back your nuclear-armed opponent into a corner and poke him with a sharpened stick.'
Yes, the White House staff tried to walk back the regime change remark, saying he'd gone off script, and Macron distanced himself from it, too, but once a thing is said, it's out there, and the remark has reportedly been looped over and over on Russian TV for domestic consumption. We Americans know Biden is gaffe-prone -- he also misspoke to our soldiers in Poland, saying they would "see" all the terrible things happening in Ukraine as if they would soon be going there, and he said that if Putin used chemical weapons we "would respond in kind" -- but in times like these a simple gaffe can cause huge problems. Let's hope his staff does not let him go "off script" again.
---
Interesting read from Scottish historian Niall Ferguson (yes, the link below works):
Putin Misunderstands History. So, Unfortunately, Does the U.S.
Biden is making a colossal mistake in thinking he can bleed Russia dry, topple Putin and signal to China to keep its hands off Taiwan.
Short version:
I fear the American plan really is 1. drag out war --> 2. bleed Russia --> 3. regime change. I have suspected this for quite some time. Things could go very, very wrong in this scenario. And what about poor Ukraine? Nothing but suffering grass for elephants to trample? I agree with Ferguson. This plan is certainly both shamefully cynical and overly optimistic.
America on the other hand can't believe their luck that Putin was stupid enough to take the bait. The only problem they are facing is running out of celebratory champagne.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,172
Both Medusa and YouTube are themselves banned. Censorship has ramped up in Russia in a startling way, and with far harsher penalties then pretty much ever before.
On the subject of accuracy, here is one of the seven allegedly KIA Russian Generals, Andrei Mordvichev, apparently well and alive, meeting with Kadyrov, near or in Mariupol'.
МИГ России
⚡️⚡️ А вот и подтверждение нашей информации — Глава ЧР Рамзан Кадыров прибыл в Мариуполь и встретился с командующим 8 армии, Генералом Мордвичёвым. Кадыров лично руководит спецоперацией, встречается с бойцам и намечает планы штурма. @opersvodki
t.me
The issue, as has been stated over and over again, is that they're allowed to organized, arm, and are supported and funded by the state. This is a problem that quite mainstream western media outlets were perfectly happy to acknowledge until this war started. Now far less so.
Capt. Ironpants
Active Member
I have been seeing reports on social media the Russian attack around Slavyansk today was brutal, but all I can find in the Western media are glowing reports of Ukrainian counterattacks and successes. If the reports on social media from Slavyansk area are true, the carnage is ... not pretty. Which is t?Both Medusa and YouTube are themselves banned. Censorship has ramped up in Russia in a startling way, and with far harsher penalties then pretty much ever before.
On the subject of accuracy, here is one of the seven allegedly KIA Russian Generals, Andrei Mordvichev, apparently well and alive, meeting with Kadyrov, near or in Mariupol'.
МИГ России
⚡️⚡️ А вот и подтверждение нашей информации — Глава ЧР Рамзан Кадыров прибыл в Мариуполь и встретился с командующим 8 армии, Генералом Мордвичёвым. Кадыров лично руководит спецоперацией, встречается с бойцам и намечает планы штурма. @opersvodki
The issue, as has been stated over and over again, is that they're allowed to organized, arm, and are supported and funded by the state. This is a problem that quite mainstream western media outlets were perfectly happy to acknowledge until this war started. Now far less so.
Edit: If the Russians can take Slavyansk, it looks dire for the Ukrainians. To me. But what do I know? Western media seems confident the Russians are still stalled and failing, but what I'm seeing on social media looks bad for the Ukrainians. I am confused.
Last edited:
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
In war do not to believe anything you hear or read, everyone has a perspective they want you to believe for whatever end. To get a clear picture you'll probably have to wait a till a few years after the war when all the generals and ex SAS have their memoirs out on how they won it single handed.
Don't start me, I've got a whole collection of them.
CumbrianRover
New Member
I'm at a loss with the Western reporting, certainly, with Feanor it is possible to see a lot of damage to Ukrainian forces which is largely unreported and the Ukrainians taking a good kicking.
However, secondly, opinions on here that this is something the Americans wanted based on counter factuals:
Q. Should the US wish to bleed the RAF, why not supply the 70 Migs?
Could someone answer that one?
I feel pretty sure that if there were any truth in this take on events, the Poles would be shouting from the roof tops.
However, secondly, opinions on here that this is something the Americans wanted based on counter factuals:
Q. Should the US wish to bleed the RAF, why not supply the 70 Migs?
Could someone answer that one?
I feel pretty sure that if there were any truth in this take on events, the Poles would be shouting from the roof tops.
The Migs would only end up bleeding UA more than Russia. They are easier targets, both the bases they will fly out of and the planes themselves.
Consider how limited the RAF operations are and Ukraine is achieving that with their ever depleting supply of older versions of Buks and S-300s. Russian Air defenses are significantly better, the new upgraded S-300s and S-400s have much greater range. UAF planes operating in large numbers will be nothing but cannon fodder.
The current method of bleeding Russia seems to be working better than anything else. Quick moving teams with ATGMs are wreaking havoc, they are harder to spot and take out. The valuation of these shoot and scoot teams are much cheaper too. The missiles are cheaper than planes, dont need infrastructure to operate and it takes much less time and money to train an entire team of ATGM operators than it does to train a single pilot.
If anything Ukraine should request more drones, and artillery systems. Their artillery has been causing a lot of damage to Russia if their released videos are anything to by.
On that note, I have seen a recent uptick of Russian air force videos on a platform which tries their best to delete almost any progress of the Russian military, so I am guessing the Russian air froce has intensified their operations recently. @Feanor has there been any indication that the russian Airforce has been more active in the last week? Or is this just the russians releasing more videos recently?
Last edited:
CumbrianRover
New Member
T.C.P. da Devil thanks for that reply, as someone who started in infantry, I take your point on shoot and scoot, counter balance that with pictures posted by Feanor of shot up humvies and the question is, where is balanced reporting of the issues.
Do Mig 29s have rough airstrip capability, they can certainly operate from motorways and even boast of doing so - now take your point about Russian AD - where is the balance?
Balanced reports are almost no where to be found, I get my Russian progress news from this thread and I use reddit's r/combatfootage for Ukraniain progress, and I take the reddit one with mountains of salt. That being said, the past 24 hours had some amazing footage from the russian side on reddit, it appears the mods have finally been able to stem the heavy Ukraine propaganda a little over there. combatfootage used to be one of my favourite subs, that along with r/syriancivilwar allowed me to look at the syrian conflict live in an unprecedented way. There were pro various Islamist groups, pro Kurds, pro Syrian Army, pro FSA and pro Turks all sharing videos at the same time, at the height of the conflict. It was surreal. Like one day a random fsa group would post videos of their bunkered positions and attacks on SAA and the next day you would see a video of the FSA positions overrun and you could see the dead bodies of the guys in the previous days videos. Insane.
Back to topic on the migs. I am no expert, but wouldnt it be hard to keep them from getting blown up while on the ground? The Russians seem to have great intel on Ukrainain ammo and weapons storages and we have seen plenty of those being blown up. With the proliferation of Russian surveillance drones, satellite and other surveillence equipment, and ground intelligence, could the Ukrainians even hide their Migs long enough for them to see some air action. I dont know if Ukraine has enough secret tunnels built to hide Fighter aircraft like Taiwan does. We saw videos of Orlans and other drones track S-300s, Buks and MLRS systems back to their hideouts and then Iskanders and Khalibres taking them out. And those things are way more mobile on the ground.
Also does Ukraine have enough trained pilots left to fly 70 migs? They used to have a large enough airforce in the past, but if I recall it was mostly mothballed for a long time. Are there enough trained pilots left to take so many planes into the sky?
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
A Russian BTR-82 in action in Mariupol. Funny to see a soldier helping an old woman to cross the road in the first seconds.
More Mariupol videos under this video.
More Mariupol videos under this video.