3 ms·

I don’t see that it is a question of perspective. The scale of Russian losses is well documented, and we know that Russia has failed to remove Zelensky from pow

by foldr 5y ago

I don’t see that it is a question of perspective. The scale of Russian losses is well documented, and we know that Russia has failed to remove Zelensky from power or occupy a significant area of Ukraine. Thus by any reasonable measure the whole Russian operation has been a disaster so far. Could that change in future? Sure. I’m afraid this subthread is an example of HNers being too clever by half. Sometimes the simple narrative that you find in major media outlets is the truth. It’s honestly quite interesting to see the mental gymnastics that people have to engage in to somehow convince themselves that this war is going well for Russia - and not because they support Russia, but merely because they hate the idea of agreeing with the New York Times.

marvin 5y ago
And it's not even that clever just to deny the facts for the sake of being contrarian. There's definitely a pro-Ukranian bias in Western media and on twitter, but there's still more than enough signal in there to determine that the war isn't going well for Russia. Hell, just looking at Putin's facial expressions tells you as much, and that's just one tiny piece of information. A little bit of selection bias doesn't mean that the signal disappears.
michaelt 5y ago
> I don’t see that it is a question of perspective. A sunk battleship is a sunk battleship, no doubt about that. And I certainly haven't heard any reports claiming the Russian attack is going well. But the first time I heard a "top general" had been killed, my mind naturally went to generals I've heard of - the MacArthurs and Zhukovs of this world. If instead it was a one-star general and the Russians have 200 other generals just as capable, the loss might be far less consequential. There are also a lot of figures floating around that are ripe for causing such confusion. Javelin missiles have a 90-95% kill rate; Ukraine has received 17,000 antitank missiles and says they need 500 per day; any yet, only 400 russian tanks have been destroyed in total?
- rjsw 5y ago
  Even in WWI and WWII, generals getting killed in combat was unusual.
- signatoremo 5y ago
  I haven’t heard of a Russia’s “top general” being killed. What is your source? Rather, several lower ranked generals were killed, which is still objectively bad. There are only two US generals killed in the entire Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and one of them was by an insider in the same room.
native_samples 4y ago
You can believe the information coming out of the war zone is too corrupted to draw conclusions without being motivated by wanting to disagree with the New York Times. There have been several major, heavily hyped stories about the war so far that just weeks later were admitted to be deliberate lies to booster Ukrainian morale. The Ghost of Kiev and his many kills: never existed. The "fuck you Russian battleship" guy who turned out to be captured, not heroically self sacrificed. Etc. These events weren't mere exaggerations, they were entirely made up. Given this it's pretty reasonable for rational people to assume we have no idea how the war is going. After all, for every made up Russian kill that gets detected there must be many more that don't. And the same in the opposite direction with Russian state media of course.
- foldr 4y ago
  >These events weren't mere exaggerations, they were entirely made up. They were also completely inconsequential stories as far as the overall progress of the war is concerned. You're cherry picking some incomplete or inaccurate stories then using these as a (poor) justification for disbelieving well-confirmed facts about Russian losses.
mattmanser 4y ago
You asked what it meant, I answered. It's not me adopting a position or even my position and I'm not arguing against you. No-one's saying the war is going well for Russia, we're giving you examples of the pro-Ukraine spin a lot of stories were taking. Especially in the early days when most professional observers were afraid Russia would turn it around, but Western governments needed a lot of public support to spend a lot of money. One can still hope and wish for a free Ukraine while doing it with our eyes open. You can read the news while being aware of the bias in the media. In future, just don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the truth. The only mental gymnastics going on is you reading far too much into people attempting to answer your question.
- foldr 4y ago
  With respect, you didn't actually answer my question, which was what it would mean in concrete terms for 'most of these stories [of Russian military incompetence]' to be Ukrainian propaganda. Your response said very little about the Ukraine conflict specially, except to make the general (and I suppose irrefutable) point that Russian successes 'might be' exaggerated. What I'd really like to know is what people who believe that the Russian military has acted competently believe about the situation on the ground. Do they think, for example, that Russia is actually in control of large areas of Ukraine and is making significant advances? Do they think that Zelenski is close to capitulating? Or do they somehow believe that the Russian armed forces have failed to achieve all of their strategic goals and yet not actually been incompetent?

by foldr 5y ago

marvin 5y ago

And it's not even that clever just to deny the facts for the sake of being contrarian. There's definitely a pro-Ukranian bias in Western media and on twitter, but there's still more than enough signal in there to determine that the war isn't going well for Russia. Hell, just looking at Putin's facial expressions tells you as much, and that's just one tiny piece of information. A little bit of selection bias doesn't mean that the signal disappears.

michaelt 5y ago

> I don’t see that it is a question of perspective. A sunk battleship is a sunk battleship, no doubt about that. And I certainly haven't heard any reports claiming the Russian attack is going well. But the first time I heard a "top general" had been killed, my mind naturally went to generals I've heard of - the MacArthurs and Zhukovs of this world. If instead it was a one-star general and the Russians have 200 other generals just as capable, the loss might be far less consequential. There are also a lot of figures floating around that are ripe for causing such confusion. Javelin missiles have a 90-95% kill rate; Ukraine has received 17,000 antitank missiles and says they need 500 per day; any yet, only 400 russian tanks have been destroyed in total?

rjsw 5y ago
Even in WWI and WWII, generals getting killed in combat was unusual.
signatoremo 5y ago
I haven’t heard of a Russia’s “top general” being killed. What is your source? Rather, several lower ranked generals were killed, which is still objectively bad. There are only two US generals killed in the entire Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and one of them was by an insider in the same room.

native_samples 4y ago

You can believe the information coming out of the war zone is too corrupted to draw conclusions without being motivated by wanting to disagree with the New York Times. There have been several major, heavily hyped stories about the war so far that just weeks later were admitted to be deliberate lies to booster Ukrainian morale. The Ghost of Kiev and his many kills: never existed. The "fuck you Russian battleship" guy who turned out to be captured, not heroically self sacrificed. Etc. These events weren't mere exaggerations, they were entirely made up. Given this it's pretty reasonable for rational people to assume we have no idea how the war is going. After all, for every made up Russian kill that gets detected there must be many more that don't. And the same in the opposite direction with Russian state media of course.

foldr 4y ago
>These events weren't mere exaggerations, they were entirely made up. They were also completely inconsequential stories as far as the overall progress of the war is concerned. You're cherry picking some incomplete or inaccurate stories then using these as a (poor) justification for disbelieving well-confirmed facts about Russian losses.

mattmanser 4y ago

You asked what it meant, I answered. It's not me adopting a position or even my position and I'm not arguing against you. No-one's saying the war is going well for Russia, we're giving you examples of the pro-Ukraine spin a lot of stories were taking. Especially in the early days when most professional observers were afraid Russia would turn it around, but Western governments needed a lot of public support to spend a lot of money. One can still hope and wish for a free Ukraine while doing it with our eyes open. You can read the news while being aware of the bias in the media. In future, just don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the truth. The only mental gymnastics going on is you reading far too much into people attempting to answer your question.

foldr 4y ago
With respect, you didn't actually answer my question, which was what it would mean in concrete terms for 'most of these stories [of Russian military incompetence]' to be Ukrainian propaganda. Your response said very little about the Ukraine conflict specially, except to make the general (and I suppose irrefutable) point that Russian successes 'might be' exaggerated. What I'd really like to know is what people who believe that the Russian military has acted competently believe about the situation on the ground. Do they think, for example, that Russia is actually in control of large areas of Ukraine and is making significant advances? Do they think that Zelenski is close to capitulating? Or do they somehow believe that the Russian armed forces have failed to achieve all of their strategic goals and yet not actually been incompetent?