NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 30 2023 05:10 Ghostcom wrote: I think the entire argument is dumb, but I really do hate to see bad inferences being made from data.
What is reported is the least changes to the frontlines. Whether or not that equates to less winning remains to be seen as it depends on a number of other factors such as losses, reserves, replacement rates, troop morale, popular opinions, political opinions etc.
You'd also have to be pretty incredibly naive to not understand that measuring "frontline" in m^2 is genuinely ridiculous. Ukraine is focusing all their effort into a very specific part of the frontline in order to achieve some very specific goals, which is to get their short range artillery close enough to cut off supply routes first to the front, and then to Crimea. If they get pushed back elsewhere, it genuinely doesn't matter. Russia isn't going to be pushing all the way to Kyiv any time soon. Ukraine would trade 100 meters up north for an additional 100 meters down south any day of the week
And that's on top of everything you just listed. As people have pointed out repeatedly numerous times already, in both WW1 and WW2, the frontlines barely moved for a very long time, until something collapsed, and then it all came barreling down at once.
But it's understandable for people like Zeo to keep harping on about this, because there is genuinely nothing else he could use to talk up Russia. By every other measurement and standard, Russia is doing incredibly poorly. Poorly thought out arguments, bad sources and logical leaps is all he can argue with, because there just isn't anything else.
Seeing the slow decline of mental gymnastics of the most fervent pro-Kiev talking heads here has been interesting to study. And we can see more and more desperate attempts to downplay evidence and fact based assessments of the failure of this years offensive by Ukrainians forces. We've come to the point where feelings and imaginary victories on Twitter without any kind of evidence to back it up is more important than a realistic sober look at what went wrong and maybe stop this many people dieing in these kinds of assaults in the future. For four months now you've been looking at a map barely changing and Kiev forces going into minefields and killing fields like Sideshow Bob into rakes and you are still holding onto straws that have nothing to do with the reality on the ground.
On September 30 2023 05:10 Ghostcom wrote: I think the entire argument is dumb, but I really do hate to see bad inferences being made from data.
What is reported is the least changes to the frontlines. Whether or not that equates to less winning remains to be seen as it depends on a number of other factors such as losses, reserves, replacement rates, troop morale, popular opinions, political opinions etc.
But it's understandable for people like Zeo to keep harping on about this, because there is genuinely nothing else he could use to talk up Russia. By every other measurement and standard, Russia is doing incredibly poorly. Poorly thought out arguments, bad sources and logical leaps is all he can argue with, because there just isn't anything else.
Well, he could be criticizing Russia for sending tens of thousands of L/DNR men in meat waves without equipment or ammunition, like one of the Russian mercenaries popular on Telegram, since zeo is so concerned about the people of Donbas. ;-)
We have had this talk before regarding fake Telegram accounts, it was cringe to source them then, its even more cringe today.
On September 30 2023 23:36 maybenexttime wrote: And here's one of the DNR leaders calmly explaining Russia's genocidal intent, for all the peacemongers in this thread (from 3:30 onwards):
Obviously you have no idea who Pavel is. He is a random guy who proclaimed himself some kind of peoples mayor early on in the anti-Maidan uprising and was swiftly locked out of any kind of position once actual institutions were formed in the Donbass. He had his 15 minutes of fame and has been milking it ever since. What he is saying is no different than what the attention seekers on the Ukrainian side have been saying ad-infimum. We will do this and that even if Putin send 5 million Russians to die here *beats chest* *puts on sunglasses*. Its stupid posturing and one one takes any of it seriously especially from someone with no influence on anything like Gubarev. But it gets the clicks going and paints a narrative.
If a minority of ultra-nationalists baring neo-Nazi and Nazi symbols took over Capitol Hill January 6th and started banning the Spanish language and rounding up anyone that didn't know English for deportation and repression - I'm sure the people self organizing their defense would be a colorful bunch for a wide range of backgrounds. Some would be normal, some would be criminals, idealists, insane, smart ect. People starting revolutions and civil wars have to have the balls for it.
On September 30 2023 05:10 Ghostcom wrote: I think the entire argument is dumb, but I really do hate to see bad inferences being made from data.
What is reported is the least changes to the frontlines. Whether or not that equates to less winning remains to be seen as it depends on a number of other factors such as losses, reserves, replacement rates, troop morale, popular opinions, political opinions etc.
You'd also have to be pretty incredibly naive to not understand that measuring "frontline" in m^2 is genuinely ridiculous. Ukraine is focusing all their effort into a very specific part of the frontline in order to achieve some very specific goals, which is to get their short range artillery close enough to cut off supply routes first to the front, and then to Crimea. If they get pushed back elsewhere, it genuinely doesn't matter. Russia isn't going to be pushing all the way to Kyiv any time soon. Ukraine would trade 100 meters up north for an additional 100 meters down south any day of the week
And that's on top of everything you just listed. As people have pointed out repeatedly numerous times already, in both WW1 and WW2, the frontlines barely moved for a very long time, until something collapsed, and then it all came barreling down at once.
But it's understandable for people like Zeo to keep harping on about this, because there is genuinely nothing else he could use to talk up Russia. By every other measurement and standard, Russia is doing incredibly poorly. Poorly thought out arguments, bad sources and logical leaps is all he can argue with, because there just isn't anything else.
Seeing the slow decline of mental gymnastics of the most fervent pro-Kiev talking heads here has been interesting to study. And we can see more and more desperate attempts to downplay evidence and fact based assessments of the failure of this years offensive by Ukrainians forces. We've come to the point where feelings and imaginary victories on Twitter without any kind of evidence to back it up is more important than a realistic sober look at what went wrong and maybe stop this many people dieing in these kinds of assaults in the future. For four months now you've been looking at a map barely changing and Kiev forces going into minefields and killing fields like Sideshow Bob into rakes and you are still holding onto straws that have nothing to do with the reality on the ground.
On September 30 2023 05:10 Ghostcom wrote: I think the entire argument is dumb, but I really do hate to see bad inferences being made from data.
What is reported is the least changes to the frontlines. Whether or not that equates to less winning remains to be seen as it depends on a number of other factors such as losses, reserves, replacement rates, troop morale, popular opinions, political opinions etc.
But it's understandable for people like Zeo to keep harping on about this, because there is genuinely nothing else he could use to talk up Russia. By every other measurement and standard, Russia is doing incredibly poorly. Poorly thought out arguments, bad sources and logical leaps is all he can argue with, because there just isn't anything else.
Well, he could be criticizing Russia for sending tens of thousands of L/DNR men in meat waves without equipment or ammunition, like one of the Russian mercenaries popular on Telegram, since zeo is so concerned about the people of Donbas. ;-)
On September 30 2023 23:36 maybenexttime wrote: And here's one of the DNR leaders calmly explaining Russia's genocidal intent, for all the peacemongers in this thread (from 3:30 onwards):
Obviously you have no idea who Pavel is. He is a random guy who proclaimed himself some kind of peoples mayor early on in the anti-Maidan uprising and was swiftly locked out of any kind of position once actual institutions were formed in the Donbass. He had his 15 minutes of fame and has been milking it ever since. What he is saying is no different than what the attention seekers on the Ukrainian side have been saying ad-infimum. We will do this and that even if Putin send 5 million Russians to die here *beats chest* *puts on sunglasses*. Its stupid posturing and one one takes any of it seriously especially from someone with no influence on anything like Gubarev. But it gets the clicks going and paints a narrative.
If a minority of ultra-nationalists baring neo-Nazi and Nazi symbols took over Capitol Hill January 6th and started banning the Spanish language and rounding up anyone that didn't know English for deportation and repression - I'm sure the people self organizing their defense would be a colorful bunch for a wide range of backgrounds. Some would be normal, some would be criminals, idealists, insane, smart ect. People starting revolutions and civil wars have to have the balls for it.
Any other dumb takes? ;-) What he's saying is not different from what Russian propaganda or Russian politicians are saying.
On October 01 2023 15:18 Uldridge wrote: Has anyone ever thought about just giving Putin a hug? Perhaps he's just lashing out with his entire everything because he just kind of like, you know, feels sad or something low dimensional psychopaths can't ever seem to grasp.
Or open the window to give him fresh air?
Russian windows are treacherous things. They have very low parapets and you are in constant danger of falling out
For those of you who are sympathetic to Russia's "side" in this conflict, can you give me the gist of what the downside would be if Russia just kind of removed all Russian military stuff from Ukraine? Including the "ethnically Russian" parts? What would be the negative result of that?
I'm essentially trying to be as open minded as possible and trying to understand the mindset of folks who believe it is a positive thing for Russia to send more soldiers to Ukraine. Every situation has a pros and cons list. We don't need to get into the cons. But what are the current pros for the Russian side of things?
The downside would be that Russia loses international standing/soft force projection. Russia loses ground and basically have to give up on the Russian Empire vision.
From a Western perspective those are not relevant.
On October 03 2023 02:28 Yurie wrote: The downside would be that Russia loses international standing/soft force projection. Russia loses ground and basically have to give up on the Russian Empire vision.
From a Western perspective those are not relevant.
This is the easy answer, but I don't think its the full or common answer. I don't think it is possible for people to support the war purely from an optics perspective. The war has widespread support within Russia, so the question is what additional reasons beyond optics makes them feel like all of these people dying is worthwhile. My understanding is that even though Russia downplays their losses, its not like they are saying its only been 1000 or so losses. They are reporting huge losses, and yet people see the war as necessary. I am trying to better understand what other considerations lead to their support.
On October 03 2023 02:28 Yurie wrote: The downside would be that Russia loses international standing/soft force projection. Russia loses ground and basically have to give up on the Russian Empire vision.
From a Western perspective those are not relevant.
This is the easy answer, but I don't think its the full or common answer. I don't think it is possible for people to support the war purely from an optics perspective. The war has widespread support within Russia, so the question is what additional reasons beyond optics makes them feel like all of these people dying is worthwhile. My understanding is that even though Russia downplays their losses, its not like they are saying its only been 1000 or so losses. They are reporting huge losses, and yet people see the war as necessary. I am trying to better understand what other considerations lead to their support.
Strong patrioitism would be my guess, if I lived in russia I would probably have strong patrioitic feeling for the war, because I would be in that kind of society
That kind of society with Necropolis in the middle of the capital city, the one which prefers to live in the past and where you'll go to jail posting anti-war pic
It's not patriotism in a pure essence, it's rather a wild mixture of different things
On October 03 2023 02:28 Yurie wrote: The downside would be that Russia loses international standing/soft force projection. Russia loses ground and basically have to give up on the Russian Empire vision.
From a Western perspective those are not relevant.
This is the easy answer, but I don't think its the full or common answer. I don't think it is possible for people to support the war purely from an optics perspective. The war has widespread support within Russia, so the question is what additional reasons beyond optics makes them feel like all of these people dying is worthwhile. My understanding is that even though Russia downplays their losses, its not like they are saying its only been 1000 or so losses. They are reporting huge losses, and yet people see the war as necessary. I am trying to better understand what other considerations lead to their support.
There are two types: cynical supporters and lunatics. You've got your answer when it comes to the cynics. Are you sure you want to know what the lunatics think? Just read some posts from zeo, waffles, etc. You'll get the idea.
They think Eastern Europe belongs to them and that in their moment of weakness in 1991 the west stole it all away. They think they’re righting a wrong by retaking what was lost.
You don’t become the largest empire on earth by not believing nearby land belongs to you.
On October 03 2023 02:28 Yurie wrote: The downside would be that Russia loses international standing/soft force projection. Russia loses ground and basically have to give up on the Russian Empire vision.
From a Western perspective those are not relevant.
This is the easy answer, but I don't think its the full or common answer. I don't think it is possible for people to support the war purely from an optics perspective. The war has widespread support within Russia, so the question is what additional reasons beyond optics makes them feel like all of these people dying is worthwhile. My understanding is that even though Russia downplays their losses, its not like they are saying its only been 1000 or so losses. They are reporting huge losses, and yet people see the war as necessary. I am trying to better understand what other considerations lead to their support.
A lot of it is sunk cost at this point, it's: Ivan died a hero reclaiming rightful Novorossiyan clay vs Ivan died for the dumbest miscalculation in modern geopolitics
If they up and leave now, the losses weren't just for nothing, they were to make the situation even worse than if they hadn't done anything at all.
On October 03 2023 02:28 Yurie wrote: The downside would be that Russia loses international standing/soft force projection. Russia loses ground and basically have to give up on the Russian Empire vision.
From a Western perspective those are not relevant.
This is the easy answer, but I don't think its the full or common answer. I don't think it is possible for people to support the war purely from an optics perspective. The war has widespread support within Russia, so the question is what additional reasons beyond optics makes them feel like all of these people dying is worthwhile. My understanding is that even though Russia downplays their losses, its not like they are saying its only been 1000 or so losses. They are reporting huge losses, and yet people see the war as necessary. I am trying to better understand what other considerations lead to their support.
A lot of it is sunk cost at this point, it's: Ivan died a hero reclaiming rightful Novorossiyan clay vs Ivan died for the dumbest miscalculation in modern geopolitics
If they up and leave now, the losses weren't just for nothing, they were to make the situation even worse than if they hadn't done anything at all.
Which is why we should ramp up economic sanctions and military aid. To make them realize that things can only get worse for them and that defeat is inevitable. With the only difference being how many Russian men die senselessly in the process.
On October 03 2023 02:28 Yurie wrote: The downside would be that Russia loses international standing/soft force projection. Russia loses ground and basically have to give up on the Russian Empire vision.
From a Western perspective those are not relevant.
This is the easy answer, but I don't think its the full or common answer. I don't think it is possible for people to support the war purely from an optics perspective. The war has widespread support within Russia, so the question is what additional reasons beyond optics makes them feel like all of these people dying is worthwhile. My understanding is that even though Russia downplays their losses, its not like they are saying its only been 1000 or so losses. They are reporting huge losses, and yet people see the war as necessary. I am trying to better understand what other considerations lead to their support.
My answer to this is caught halfway between human stupidity and lack of clear information. On the side of human stupidity, it's a real possibility that the US re-elects Trump. Given that, I find it hard to blame other countries for seemingly equivalent stupidity, especially considering how getting shoved out of windows seems common there... which is where the other side of my answer comes in. If opposition is unpopular and may get you silenced, then we'll hear people falling in line a disproportionate amount. Couple that with the idea that Russia's got strong propaganda machines and it's surprising we even hear about things like the female newscaster speaking out against the war on air a year or so ago. I can't imagine myself in those shoes being brave or smart enough to be vocally against the war.
Some interesting things are happening with Russian economy:
It seems that the stop-gap measures they applied last year are now rearing their ugly head. What worked in the short term is now hurting them more and more in the long term. Rubble losing 66% value just this year is pretty harsh and their balance of trade is down almost 80% compared to last year.
And also an interesting take on the war from a more grand strategy perspective:
Explaining why Ukrainian offensive might seem slow and without much progress.
Jesus Christ the Youtube channel of this Joe Blogs guy. 402 videos about Russia in his playlist since Feb 24th thats mental hes been printing them out at one a day
I mean I've been scrolling through picking out at random but it never stops. Guy had 10k viewers before Feb 24th now averaging 200k, half the headlines are rehashed and reposted every two or three weeks.
Like what the hell is this even opening up a few of his videos is so disorientating you have no idea what month or year you are in all of them are the same. The whole copetuber industry formed around this conflict is insane, what hole did these hacks crawl out of, reminds me of the AI generated 'science' channels popping up all over the place with the same voices and same artstyles. Creepy as fuck
I don't know what you're missing but what are you confused about? Someone doing something successful keeps doing successful thing? There are pro-russian youtubers if thats the brand of cringe you're looking for. This isn't something new its like wondering why fox news is the way it is for 24 hours a day.
He's simply responding to someone who's taking the propaganda vods on that YT channel seriously. Call him out when he's crazy all you want, but here he seems to be right.
On October 04 2023 05:05 Elroi wrote: He's simply responding to someone who's taking the propaganda vods on that YT channel seriously. Call him out when he's crazy all you want, but here he seems to be right.
He take the same kind of material seriously when it benefits his narrative. Him expressing dismay at a youtube trend that's years older than the war is what hes crazy about.
In fairness he shouldn’t be posting that kind of sensationalist YouTube nonsense at face value, no matter where it comes from. If there’s a credible point being made by the YouTuber then he can find a credible source for it.
On October 04 2023 05:34 KwarK wrote: In fairness he shouldn’t be posting that kind of sensationalist YouTube nonsense at face value, no matter where it comes from. If there’s a credible point being made by the YouTuber then he can find a credible source for it.
Why I can't verify Joe Blogs' sources readily he seems to be a financial analyst who knows what he's doing. I'm trying to track several news sources from both sides and I discard all the incredulous ones. I'm not an economist myself but what he's saying makes sense even to a layman. I'm mostly posting this because I know there's plenty of people browsing this forum who are actually really good with finance in hopes they can chime in and either back or discredit those claims.
As far as the second video I posted goes it's a channel run by a political scientist (an associate professor in the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Political Science). Say what you want but this kind of people actually need to uphold their reputation as their livelihood and career depend on it (typically).
Unfortunately we live in a day and age where AI-generated content is flooding the Internet, thumbnails and titles are all made to be clickbait (regardless if they're legit or not) and it gets harder and harder to separate truth from fabrication.
EPT
