5 ms·

This sounds like outright coping. As far as I can tell (having paid next to no attention to this conflict), the media got the entire invested US population hype

This sounds like outright coping. As far as I can tell (having paid next to no attention to this conflict), the media got the entire invested US population hyped up about some Ukrainian counter-offensive, retaking Bakhmut, Russian army out of ammo...and this is the result? Spinning the loss of the city while realizing the aftermath was near as makes no difference a human woodchipper? I really hope we have an Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon, because far too many people are up to their chins in moral hazard by walking straight into the fog of war equipped with only talking-head propaganda and Hollywood-informed notions of how and why wars are fought.

fauxpause_ 3y ago
If it would convince you otherwise, I’m happy to provide citations of third party analyses and Ukrainian defense statements stating Bakhmut had little strategic value months prior and that it was being used to pin Russian troops in a costly offensive. Edit: the Russia being out of ammo thing was an internal politics thing of Prigozhin claiming Russia MoD was not supplying Wagner with enough ammo. It was not a western talking point. Nor was it particularly true.
- netbioserror 3y ago
  I'm happy to distrust every source you'll try to cite, and wait 10 years until this is both over and we obtain enough document leaks that we can more closely approximate the truth than we could using anything available now.
  - fauxpause_ 3y ago
    The truth of third party analysis?
  - pjc50 3y ago
    > I'm happy to distrust every source you'll try to cite This, not AI, is why debate is becoming increasingly worthless.
  - archagon 3y ago
    Then why are you here? You've just explicitly declared this a no-op discussion, where nobody gets convinced of anything.
    - wsc981 3y ago
      Well, the first casualty in war is always the truth.
lawn 3y ago
You've got a lot of opinions for someone who hasn't paid any attention to the conflict. For those who have been following, it's pretty clear it's been disastrous for Russia.
- kornhole 3y ago
  If you ask US Colonel Douglas MacGregor, who has been following this war vary closely, he puts Ukrainian deaths at over 315K with about 5 to 7 dead Ukrainians per every Russian. Russia can not lose this war and will throw everything at this fight which they see as an existential threat.
  - lawn 3y ago
    MacGregor is hopelessly pro-Russian and it's impossible to take what he says seriously. This quote from the beginning of the war did not age well for instance: > If they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them. Or how to he thought the Russian military was "too gentle" (after the countless reports of rape, torture and murder of the civilian population). Stop listening to Russian propaganda, or those who repeat it.
    - kornhole 3y ago
      He is a colonel of the US military with much combat experience and a PHD in foreign relations. You are telling me not to listen to anyone questioning or disagreeing with neocon NATO propaganda. OK will do..
      - lawn 3y ago
        The counter to NATO propaganda isn't Russian propaganda...
- netbioserror 3y ago
  A cheery declaration. You definitely seem "invested," and I do mean that pejoratively. For everyone "invested" in this conflict, their first thought is to the first-order effects on Russia. Never mind the disastrous worldwide second- and third-order effects the war (and its proxy involvements) are having on the average person in the rest of the world. And since I can already hear the response that it's all on Putin's shoulders, I should remind you that we're the ones printing hundreds of billions in USD, sending veritable mountains of arms and aid to spin the woodchipper even faster.
pjc50 3y ago
> Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon How exactly? Given that it was chosen and started by Russia, and the initial fightback of the first few days done by Ukraine, what US decision do you want rolled back?
- netbioserror 3y ago
  Does our hundreds-of-billions in contributions of armaments and aid, and the open-secret contribution of manpower and expertise, not speak for itself? Or are we all going to make the disingenuous assumption that the US has not involved itself in any way?
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Before or after Russia started the war?
    - stunt 3y ago
      No major military power will tolerate another military coalition on its border. Unfortunately, that is the way it works and it's very sad. If the Russian and US positions were reversed in NATO, the US would attack Mexico the moment NATO decided to arm them.
archagon 3y ago
Who is "we"? We (the US) are not at war. Ukraine is trying to survive as a nation. Who cares what the US population thinks?
- netbioserror 3y ago
  Does our hundreds-of-billions in contributions of armaments and aid, and the open-secret contribution of manpower and expertise, not speak for itself? Or are we all going to make the disingenuous assumption that the US has not involved itself in any way?
  - archagon 3y ago
    > the media got the entire invested US population hyped up about some Ukrainian counter-offensive > far too many people are up to their chins in moral hazard by walking straight into the fog of war equipped with only talking-head propaganda Your comment makes it sound like military aid to Ukraine in the NATO sphere was primarily spurred by short-sighted, media-driven, populist frenzy in the US. My impression, as someone who does pay attention to the war, is that these decisions were made rationally by elected leaders across numerous countries as a direct result of Russia's blatant disregard for international law, and that there was plenty of support in the EU for military aid even without the US's involvement. "The media" is not the causal factor for practically anything in this war. > sounds like outright coping Who is coping? Are you under the impression that US/EU/NATO military leadership were certain that Bakhmut would be a piece of cake, and that they're now scrambling to justify Ukraine's commitment when this turned out not to be the case? Moreover, do you believe that whatever the population is "hyped up" about at any given moment has any bearing on their decision-making? I've certainly seen no evidence of any of this; in fact, the majority of public comments from US military leadership regarding the war seem to be on the side of tempering expectations. The only people I see "coping" are war junkies in Reddit discussions, whose opinions have no bearing on... pretty much anything, really.
tptacek 3y ago
Nobody in the US knows what Bakhmut is, let alone where it is, let alone its strategic importance. Whatever the reasoning behind contesting it, none of it ties back to US sentiment.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I really hope we have an Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon (1) there was never a mea culpa over Iraq, though there should have been, and (2) while it would also be nice for the lying aggressors to admit they were, well, lying aggressors in this war, Putin’s not going to do that any more than Bush the Younger did.

fauxpause_ 3y ago

If it would convince you otherwise, I’m happy to provide citations of third party analyses and Ukrainian defense statements stating Bakhmut had little strategic value months prior and that it was being used to pin Russian troops in a costly offensive. Edit: the Russia being out of ammo thing was an internal politics thing of Prigozhin claiming Russia MoD was not supplying Wagner with enough ammo. It was not a western talking point. Nor was it particularly true.

netbioserror 3y ago
I'm happy to distrust every source you'll try to cite, and wait 10 years until this is both over and we obtain enough document leaks that we can more closely approximate the truth than we could using anything available now.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  The truth of third party analysis?
- pjc50 3y ago
  > I'm happy to distrust every source you'll try to cite This, not AI, is why debate is becoming increasingly worthless.
- archagon 3y ago
  Then why are you here? You've just explicitly declared this a no-op discussion, where nobody gets convinced of anything.
  - wsc981 3y ago
    Well, the first casualty in war is always the truth.

lawn 3y ago

You've got a lot of opinions for someone who hasn't paid any attention to the conflict. For those who have been following, it's pretty clear it's been disastrous for Russia.

kornhole 3y ago
If you ask US Colonel Douglas MacGregor, who has been following this war vary closely, he puts Ukrainian deaths at over 315K with about 5 to 7 dead Ukrainians per every Russian. Russia can not lose this war and will throw everything at this fight which they see as an existential threat.
- lawn 3y ago
  MacGregor is hopelessly pro-Russian and it's impossible to take what he says seriously. This quote from the beginning of the war did not age well for instance: > If they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them. Or how to he thought the Russian military was "too gentle" (after the countless reports of rape, torture and murder of the civilian population). Stop listening to Russian propaganda, or those who repeat it.
  - kornhole 3y ago
    He is a colonel of the US military with much combat experience and a PHD in foreign relations. You are telling me not to listen to anyone questioning or disagreeing with neocon NATO propaganda. OK will do..
    - lawn 3y ago
      The counter to NATO propaganda isn't Russian propaganda...
netbioserror 3y ago
A cheery declaration. You definitely seem "invested," and I do mean that pejoratively. For everyone "invested" in this conflict, their first thought is to the first-order effects on Russia. Never mind the disastrous worldwide second- and third-order effects the war (and its proxy involvements) are having on the average person in the rest of the world. And since I can already hear the response that it's all on Putin's shoulders, I should remind you that we're the ones printing hundreds of billions in USD, sending veritable mountains of arms and aid to spin the woodchipper even faster.

pjc50 3y ago

> Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon How exactly? Given that it was chosen and started by Russia, and the initial fightback of the first few days done by Ukraine, what US decision do you want rolled back?

netbioserror 3y ago
Does our hundreds-of-billions in contributions of armaments and aid, and the open-secret contribution of manpower and expertise, not speak for itself? Or are we all going to make the disingenuous assumption that the US has not involved itself in any way?
- pjc50 3y ago
  Before or after Russia started the war?
  - stunt 3y ago
    No major military power will tolerate another military coalition on its border. Unfortunately, that is the way it works and it's very sad. If the Russian and US positions were reversed in NATO, the US would attack Mexico the moment NATO decided to arm them.

archagon 3y ago

Who is "we"? We (the US) are not at war. Ukraine is trying to survive as a nation. Who cares what the US population thinks?

netbioserror 3y ago
Does our hundreds-of-billions in contributions of armaments and aid, and the open-secret contribution of manpower and expertise, not speak for itself? Or are we all going to make the disingenuous assumption that the US has not involved itself in any way?
- archagon 3y ago
  > the media got the entire invested US population hyped up about some Ukrainian counter-offensive > far too many people are up to their chins in moral hazard by walking straight into the fog of war equipped with only talking-head propaganda Your comment makes it sound like military aid to Ukraine in the NATO sphere was primarily spurred by short-sighted, media-driven, populist frenzy in the US. My impression, as someone who does pay attention to the war, is that these decisions were made rationally by elected leaders across numerous countries as a direct result of Russia's blatant disregard for international law, and that there was plenty of support in the EU for military aid even without the US's involvement. "The media" is not the causal factor for practically anything in this war. > sounds like outright coping Who is coping? Are you under the impression that US/EU/NATO military leadership were certain that Bakhmut would be a piece of cake, and that they're now scrambling to justify Ukraine's commitment when this turned out not to be the case? Moreover, do you believe that whatever the population is "hyped up" about at any given moment has any bearing on their decision-making? I've certainly seen no evidence of any of this; in fact, the majority of public comments from US military leadership regarding the war seem to be on the side of tempering expectations. The only people I see "coping" are war junkies in Reddit discussions, whose opinions have no bearing on... pretty much anything, really.

tptacek 3y ago

Nobody in the US knows what Bakhmut is, let alone where it is, let alone its strategic importance. Whatever the reasoning behind contesting it, none of it ties back to US sentiment.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I really hope we have an Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon (1) there was never a mea culpa over Iraq, though there should have been, and (2) while it would also be nice for the lying aggressors to admit they were, well, lying aggressors in this war, Putin’s not going to do that any more than Bush the Younger did.