4 ms·

Completely lost on whose side?

Arnt 2y ago
Not going to say "lost", myself, but Russia looks oddly weak. It's the country that planned the fight in advance and could stock up, yet is buying from Iran and North Korea and AFAICT its own latest tank model still hasn't even been used once. It's the country that has a large air force and is using waves of untrained infantry attacks instead of air power. It's the country with the larger population yet recruiting mercenaries abroad. It's the country that's lost control of the Black Sea against an opponent that has no navy.
- pydry 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Arnt 2y ago
    Weasel words. When were Russian aircraft last seen over Kharkiv? Has the Russian navy kept or lost the ability to blockade Ukrainian shipping? You can say it was just a few missile attacks, but did the Russians keep their ability to blockade or not? And so on.
    - pydry 2y ago
      Theyre glide bombing all along the line of contact.
      - Arnt 2y ago
        Right. Basically shooting from within Russian territory. Doesn't that seem like oddly limited use of an air force?
        pydry 2y ago
        Not especially. The bombs are cheap, accurate, devastating and there are no defences against them.
pydry 2y ago
Probably the side that is expanding conscription and routinely kidnapping men off the street and throwing them onto the front lines with weeks or less of training. Thats something that either happens routinely if youre desperate and short of men or doesnt - because it's deeply unpopular and you wouldnt do it if you didnt have to. There are many signals which lack meaning (e.g. land taken) or can be fudged (e.g. casualties) but there are some signs of weakness like this one which can't be bullshitted or concealed.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Probably the side that is expanding conscription and routinely kidnapping men off the street and throwing them onto the front lines with weeks or less of training. That'll be "both of them". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_mobilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_mobilization https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/16/russia-mobilization-men/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/16/russia-mobil... https://www.newsweek.com/russia-troops-complain-lack-training-putin-ukraine-1786014 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-troops-complain-lack-trainin...
  - pydry 2y ago
    One Washington post article from 2022 that relies heavily on implication is about equivalent in evidence to one RT article from 2022 that does the same. If you follow the unfiltered war reports there are thousands of videos of Ukrainian kidnappings and zero Russian.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > If you follow the unfiltered war reports there are thousands of videos of Ukrainian kidnappings and zero Russian. The WaPo article has direct video evidence of at least some. I follow a wide variety of unfiltered news sources about the war, and "zero" is a bald lie. (Side note: callling conscription "kidnapping" is a little silly, too.)

Arnt 2y ago

Not going to say "lost", myself, but Russia looks oddly weak. It's the country that planned the fight in advance and could stock up, yet is buying from Iran and North Korea and AFAICT its own latest tank model still hasn't even been used once. It's the country that has a large air force and is using waves of untrained infantry attacks instead of air power. It's the country with the larger population yet recruiting mercenaries abroad. It's the country that's lost control of the Black Sea against an opponent that has no navy.

pydry 2y ago
[flagged]
- Arnt 2y ago
  Weasel words. When were Russian aircraft last seen over Kharkiv? Has the Russian navy kept or lost the ability to blockade Ukrainian shipping? You can say it was just a few missile attacks, but did the Russians keep their ability to blockade or not? And so on.
  - pydry 2y ago
    Theyre glide bombing all along the line of contact.
    - Arnt 2y ago
      Right. Basically shooting from within Russian territory. Doesn't that seem like oddly limited use of an air force?
      - pydry 2y ago
        Not especially. The bombs are cheap, accurate, devastating and there are no defences against them.

pydry 2y ago

Probably the side that is expanding conscription and routinely kidnapping men off the street and throwing them onto the front lines with weeks or less of training. Thats something that either happens routinely if youre desperate and short of men or doesnt - because it's deeply unpopular and you wouldnt do it if you didnt have to. There are many signals which lack meaning (e.g. land taken) or can be fudged (e.g. casualties) but there are some signs of weakness like this one which can't be bullshitted or concealed.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> Probably the side that is expanding conscription and routinely kidnapping men off the street and throwing them onto the front lines with weeks or less of training. That'll be "both of them". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_mobilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_mobilization https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/16/russia-mobilization-men/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/16/russia-mobil... https://www.newsweek.com/russia-troops-complain-lack-training-putin-ukraine-1786014 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-troops-complain-lack-trainin...
- pydry 2y ago
  One Washington post article from 2022 that relies heavily on implication is about equivalent in evidence to one RT article from 2022 that does the same. If you follow the unfiltered war reports there are thousands of videos of Ukrainian kidnappings and zero Russian.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > If you follow the unfiltered war reports there are thousands of videos of Ukrainian kidnappings and zero Russian. The WaPo article has direct video evidence of at least some. I follow a wide variety of unfiltered news sources about the war, and "zero" is a bald lie. (Side note: callling conscription "kidnapping" is a little silly, too.)