Jump to content

Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine


maqroll

Recommended Posts

Well worth a watch.  

I have been following this channel since the start of the war.  There has been a definite shift in attitudes. 
 

The girl on 3:28 knows exactly what’s going on.  She also appears later in the video.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 18.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bickster

    1816

  • magnkarl

    1484

  • Genie

    1273

  • avfc1982am

    1145

The various groups invading Belgorod has now 'liberated' 4 settlements and a total of 200 square kilometers of ground.

Give it some time now and they'll have Belogorod under siege.

In other news, Ukraine has already liberated a large chunk of Southern Bakhmut. Well worth 60.000 casualties to capture, eh Vlad?

Edited by magnkarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Genie said:

What do we think is most likely to happen?

1) Full scale withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine

or

2) Full scale mobilisation of Russians to further support the invasion?

2. If Putin withdraws now he is finished (and he knows it). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Isn't Putin finished if he authorises full scale mobilisation too? 

That was part of my thinking, it might the the straw that causes the uprising. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65806152

Russia says it thwarted major Ukrainian offensive

Quote

Russia's defence ministry says it has thwarted a major Ukrainian offensive in Donetsk, claiming to have killed 250 troops and destroyed armoured vehicles.

Video of what Russia says is the battle appears to show military vehicles coming under heavy fire in fields.

Quote

And it is unclear whether the alleged attacks indicate that the fresh push to recapture Ukrainian land from Russian forces has begun in earnest.

The Russian defence ministry said Ukraine had launched the "large-scale offensive" in the Donetsk region on Sunday using six mechanised and two tank battalions.

 

Quote

It claimed the Ukrainians tried to break through Russian defences in what Kyiv saw as the most vulnerable part of the frontline but that it "did not achieve its tasks, it had no success".

Moscow claimed Ukraine had lost 250 troops as well as 16 tanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the BBC really just publishing Russian propaganda now?  The one caveat they add, that the report has not been independently verified is simply not enough. Anything Russia say should come with a massive propaganda health warning or god forbid be verified before publishing. An uncritical repetition of a Kremlin press release is shoddy as hell journalism if you ask me.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Straggler said:

Are the BBC really just publishing Russian propaganda now?  The one caveat they add, that the report has not been independently verified is simply not enough. Anything Russia say should come with a massive propaganda health warning or god forbid be verified before publishing. An uncritical repetition of a Kremlin press release is shoddy as hell journalism if you ask me.

They are presenting news in a factual way. The Russian ministry has made a claim yesterday. The BBC has said ‘The Russian ministry has made a claim but it cannot be verified’. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

They are presenting news in a factual way. The Russian ministry has made a claim yesterday. The BBC has said ‘The Russian ministry has made a claim but it cannot be verified’. 

A factual way of presenting news is not good journalism. Presenting the words of a known liar as a valid point of view and surrounding it with other facts gives those lies credibility it does not deserve. Uncritical repetition of press releases presented as news is a big part of what has let us down in modern times. The race to present the latest "news" let's utter bs get the same treatment as facts. 

Good journalism around a Kremlin press release should have some sort of statement about the known history of the veracity of the source of the news. Simply saying it has not been verified implies that it will be. Pointing out that this source has not published anything remotely approaching a fact for the entire war in Ukraine and that this release should be approached with a great deal of scepticism until verified is better journalism.

To my mind if dealing with a known propaganda arm, the press release should not be published until verified. Getting the news out quickly is not the same as doing a good job with the news.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Straggler said:

A factual way of presenting news is not good journalism. Presenting the words of a known liar as a valid point of view and surrounding it with other facts gives those lies credibility it does not deserve. Uncritical repetition of press releases presented as news is a big part of what has let us down in modern times. The race to present the latest "news" let's utter bs get the same treatment as facts. 

Good journalism around a Kremlin press release should have some sort of statement about the known history of the veracity of the source of the news. Simply saying it has not been verified implies that it will be. Pointing out that this source has not published anything remotely approaching a fact for the entire war in Ukraine and that this release should be approached with a great deal of scepticism until verified is better journalism.

To my mind if dealing with a known propaganda arm, the press release should not be published until verified. Getting the news out quickly is not the same as doing a good job with the news.

You are arguing to abandon fact based journalism in favour of more editorialising based on the ideology of the news outlet. 

I would suggest you have it the opposite way round. More clinical fact based reporting and less emotive editorialising would help with trust in credibility of the media source. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Isn't Putin finished if he authorises full scale mobilisation too? 

Not sure about that.  Not in the short term anyway.  Many Russians are heading across to e.g. Georgia to avoid call-up and I can't see a mass uprising in Moscow itself, not without a helluva lot of bloodshed. 

In my opinion, the only way this monster is going to be removed is from the inside so to speak if/when he loses the war.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something with this talk of full mobilisation? I thought that 95% of their army was already in Ukraine? Does everyone mean conscription?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

You are arguing to abandon fact based journalism in favour of more editorialising based on the ideology of the news outlet. 

I would suggest you have it the opposite way round. More clinical fact based reporting and less emotive editorialising would help with trust in credibility of the media source. 

But what the BBC is doing is not clinical fact based reporting. It is repeating the propaganda of a known deliberate spreader of false news and presenting it in the same way it presents news from trusted sources. 

It would still be factual reporting to point out that the news has come from a source that cannot be trusted. There is nothing emotive about putting context around a statement. This is the same source that said Ukraine is run by Nazi's and that it is purely a defensive war by Russia. This is factual analysis that provides an important service to the public. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Am I missing something with this talk of full mobilisation? I thought that 95% of their army was already in Ukraine? Does everyone mean conscription?

Yes, exactly that, mobilization is the russian term for conscription.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bickster said:

Yes, exactly that, mobilization is the russian term for conscription.

Ah, thanks. 

Quite presumptuous as a term, eh? Like they were already part of the army, just not yet given a gun and a map. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Straggler said:

Are the BBC really just publishing Russian propaganda now?  The one caveat they add, that the report has not been independently verified is simply not enough. Anything Russia say should come with a massive propaganda health warning or god forbid be verified before publishing. An uncritical repetition of a Kremlin press release is shoddy as hell journalism if you ask me.

Why single out the BBC?

Sky News has similar (and I expect many other major news outlets).

Russia claims to have thwarted major Ukrainian offensive and killed hundreds.
Russia has claimed its forces have thwarted a major Ukrainian offensive at five points along the front in the southern Ukrainian region of Donetsk and killed hundreds of Ukrainian troops.

It was not immediately clear whether the reported attack represented the start of a promised Ukrainian counteroffensive to recapture territory taken by Russian forces after the invasion began in February last year.

The Ukrainian defence ministry and military have not yet responded to Moscow's claims.

Sky News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

They are presenting news in a factual way. The Russian ministry has made a claim yesterday. The BBC has said ‘The Russian ministry has made a claim but it cannot be verified’. 

There is something different to their usual reporting on Ukraine though, they are usually 1 or 2 days behind the curve on battlefield news and precisely because they do insist on fact checking, that doesn't appear to have happened here

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, trekka said:

Why single out the BBC?

Sky News has similar (and I expect many other major news outlets).

 

 

Because the quotes used came from the BBC. I'm perfectly happy to level the same criticism at Sky.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Straggler said:

Because the quotes used came from the BBC. I'm perfectly happy to level the same criticism at Sky.

It’s the same in the Guardian or any other reputable news outlet. 

Quote

Russia has claimed to have repelled a “major offensive” in the Donetsk region and to have killed hundreds of Ukrainian troops, but the claims could not be independently verified.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/05/russia-claims-to-have-fought-off-major-ukrainian-offensive-in-donetsk
 

If you want your news to say “Russia are making big claims but they are a bunch of liars” You’d probably need to go to a Ukrainian blogger for your news. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â