Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

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

That was what felt odd to me when I heard the report this morning.

There is a time lag usually with the BBC as they attempt to verify info. But this morning there was a reading out of a Russian claim, albeit with warning it was unverified. But that was it, they’ve been championing their verification and geo ation abilities over the last few weeks for all manner of stories. They’ve had stories about how they verify stories. Then this morning, they’re telling us there’s no proof but Russia say they’ve killed 250 troops and blown up a number of tanks and repelled an attack at what was supposed to be the weakest area of their defences.

It might yet all prove to be accurate. If it isn’t, the BBC will get a spanking for this.

I’d have to add, the same needs to be done on both sides. We can’t be the Ukraine’s PR machine either. 

[pas5898]

My Father in Law (former Russian military shooting instructor), but is Lithuanian since the break up of the soviet union has been approached to rejoin the Russian army. He received mail to his joint family holiday home in Russia. Safe to say he will never see that house again - He lives in Leicester now.

If they are approaching him in his condition and age, they must be near conscription and seriously running out of man power.

Edited June 5, 2023 by pas5898

[Straggler]

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

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

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. 

That the standard of journalism is low across the industry doesn't make it good practice. The race to publish is trumping the quality of the work. None of them want to be the outlet that misses out on the clicks. 

Allowing the public to understand the veracity of the information they are being presented should be a huge part of the work of the media. That they are not doing it is shoddy IMO. It is why propaganda is so effective. The same thing happened with Brexit with all the think tanks quoted saying Brexit was a brilliant idea without noting that the think tank was a paid arm of pro Brexit campaigns. 

I don't really understand why you are so determined to allow propaganda to spread so effectively. Is there a problem if the news points out that a source they are using is known to be unreliable?

[Genie]

Last chance to get out Russia for 18-40 year olds. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Another round of mobilisation looks necessary.  Ukraine seems to be able to walk over the border at will in some places.  There is also a complete lack of armed forces to put down rebellion or secure vital assets within  Russia. 

But mobilisation will kill an already fragile economy and lead to skill shortages in certain sectors. Russia admitted that the last round cased 250,000 people to leave Russia.  The EU estimated the figure to be much higher.  Some who can't flee might be tempted to join Partisan Groups as an alternative. 

My biggest fear is that Putin will simply buy a large number of soldiers from North Korea instead.  Or allow Wagner to do that under the smokescreen of private military contractors.  

Russia is far from spent as a military power against a force the size of Ukraine.  But its now at a point where NATO could probably destroy the entire conventional armed forces of Russia in days.  

[bickster]

57 minutes ago, Genie said:

Last chance to get out Russia for 18-40 year olds. 

I thought they stopped that a good while back after the "partial-mobilisation"

[Straggler]

Ok, I’m going to deep dive on my opinion on the state of journalism around this Russian press release. Long post coming up.......

For context I have a degree in history and have spent much of my professional career analysing source material so I have I believe a decent handle on how to do this, but am always up for a debate on my interpretation. Also I’m doing this quickly and without siting sources.

I’m going to do the basics of how to approach analysing source material which goes all the way back to my GCSE days.  Who, What, Where, When, Why and for Whom.

Who:

The Kremlin via (in this one sample via the BBC)

What:

A Ukrainian advance on Russian positions has been halted with massive loss of life and material on the Ukrainian side. No mention of losses on the Russian side other than to say there was “no success”. At this stage the “what” is unverified.

Where:

Global press release. 

When:

Right at the start or possibly just before the start of the much anticipated Ukrainian counter attack.

Why:

The Defence Ministry in Moscow is part of the war effort. A press release from there needs to be viewed from within the context that it is to aid in the Russian objectives and the information war.

For Whom:

It can be safely assumed that this was very much intended for an international audience rather than a release through Russian channels to keep morale up at home.

To dive a bit further into analysis, is the Defence Ministry in Moscow a reliable source?  Simply put, no it is not.  Russia is a known distributor of false information and has a long history of manipulating media globally to advance its own interests (US elections and Brexit referendum).  Whilst elements of truth have been used to give the direct lies credibility, any source directly aligned with the Kremlin needs to be treated with a great deal of scepticism.  The ever-shifting justifications for starting the war in Ukraine are a good example of this (Denazification / defensive war / historical maps / Russia is fighting all of NATO).

So what is the true purpose of this press release?  The biggest impediment to Russian objectives in Ukraine is aid from the west.  Without the significant supply of western weapon, intelligence, training and ammunition, Ukraine would almost certainly be forced into a settlement or simply lose the war over time.  One of Russia’s major objectives has to be to try and stem the flow of this aid.  At the start of the war the main tactic to prevent western involvement was threats.  The threat of nuclear war, the threat of the war spilling into countries like Finland and Sweden and energy security.  With the perception of Russian military might shifting considerably, those threats are now considered empty and are largely discounted.  They certainly are not working from the perspective of the Kremlin.  Therefore a different approach was required.  One of these approaches was simply to wait out, or grind down interest in the west for helping Ukraine. An effort to grind out the war until the help ran out and Russia could proceed unimpeded against an isolated Ukraine.

It is my theory that this press release is in part to aid in this effort.  Ukraine has been dominating the information war in the west.  The atrocities committed by the Russians in Ukraine and the bravery and stout defence mounted has inspired a groundswell of support certainly across NATO countries and much of Europe.  Support both financial and military has been driven for a variety of reasons, be it political expediency, ideological alignment, or simply a strong base of popular support.  The scale of support is significant and can reasonably be assumed to only be available for as long as there is public support.

The impending Ukrainian counter offensive will undoubtably have a major influence on how sustainable that support is.  The build up to this offensive is much anticipated, with expectation that significant gains can be expected and quickly.  The media has been full to overflowing with stories about how much more advance the NATO technology is and that the amounts sent have been impressive.  It could be argued that expectations are already beyond achievable limits, however even conservative estimates expect the counter offensive to make significant gains.  In this environment, should the counter offensive appear to be unsustainable or unsuccessful there could be a shift in international public and political support certainly at the levels that are being applied presently.  The idea of liberating Ukraine and handing a defeat to Russia over a relatively short time has strong public support.  The idea of an apparently endless war of attrition waged at the expense of NATO tax payers over the long term is almost certain to apply pressure to limit the cost or encourage a negotiation that will be more to the benefit of Russian objectives.

To this end a press release that gives the world the impression that the counter offensive is or will fail is a direct benefit to the Russian war objective.  I would argue the recently released announcement is part of this campaign.

For the objective of this press release to work it needs to get the Russian narrative into social media.  To begin the discussion that possibly the counter offensive is or will fail.  This is regardless of the truth of the event used.  Russia has great experience in manipulation of the worlds media, knowing that a press release will be repeated and reported upon with very little to no analysis applied, allowing the discussion to spread even if upon verification the claims were untrue or just an exaggeration.  The design is to have the Russian narrative spread, before the truth can catch up.

To my point that uncritical reporting of source material like this is problematic. To discuss this we need to debate a little what the 4^th Estate is for. 

The term Fourth Estate or fourth power refers to the press and news media both in explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues.

Stating the press release of one organization does nothing to frame political issues.  I would argue that to do what the BBC and other news organisations have done today is to actively advance the objectives of the Russian war effort at the expense of the populations they are supposed to be serving the news to.  The very fact that this press release was public and global is very clearly designed to have an impact on global public perception of the war.  The release does nothing to put the clash into context of the war or Ukrainian capability to advance.  It is a snapshot of one moment and it may or may not be true.  The narrative that Ukraine may not be able to push the Russians back is now though irretrievably in the public narrative.

The importance of the role of the fourth estate and the privileges aligned to that role are there to support a service that they are supposed to provide.  To provide not just the words of people in powerful places, but to be able to hold them to account and shine a light on proceedings that impact us all.  To be able to hold the powerful to account it must be possible to identify when the information they are proving is false.  To present false information uncritically or even to present the truth without checking its veracity or context is to fail in the role of the fourth estate. 

I do not expect this level of analysis to be applied and written into every article released, it is not practical to do so.  I do however expect a news organisation to be able to apply some critical thinking like this almost automatically.  This has taken a while to write, but very little time to apply in my head.

I do understand that in the modern age of internet news, the easiest thing to do is to copy and paste a press release and send it out with the minimum of comment.  There is indeed significant pressure to do so, as to not release this “news” as soon as possible is liable to present yourself as not current, to lose traffic and to cease to exist as a news organization.  This is however a reason, not an excuse.

I would conclude that to present the statements of a Kremlin press release without framing it properly is not simply presenting the facts.  It is propagation of propaganda and actively if unwittingly aiding in the objectives of the people releasing the information and therefore the Russian war effort.

[Delphinho123]

Given the state of play at present, how likely is it we'll see Putin launch a 'tactical' nuke anytime soon?

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, Straggler said:

to present the statements of a Kremlin press release without framing it properly is not simply presenting the facts.  It is propagation of propaganda and actively if unwittingly aiding in the objectives of the people releasing the information and therefore the Russian war effort.

The whole argument is well made, but flawed in terms of “sides” for at least 2 reasons. Firstly the same news networks have been reporting Ukraine claims and tagged them the same way (unverified). Secondly the news agencies are there to provide information on the situation, not to serve (only) Ukraine’s interests. Information may and frequently has included “Ukraine says”, or “Russia says” type stuff. To not allow statements or claims from one side is to reduce the level of information available to us, the readers.

Next, there’s essentially no one, not even in Russia, who believes the Russian state. It doesn’t need tagging by the BBC or anyone else as “possible fake news”

Next there’s the nature of the coverage, split between rolling news and then deeper analysis and reporting, including following up on rolling stories such as this one.

Finally there is a wider interest in keeping the war in the news, given its impact on our economy and lives and nation. If news coverage were to omit anything unverified or from either side’s (by definition) biased official channels we’d get next to no coverage. I don’t disagree with your analysis, only the conclusion you draw from it that this should either be tagged as propaganda or not printed at all.

[bickster]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

Next, there’s essentially no one, not even in Russia, who believes the Russian state.

George Galloway and friends enter the room  

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

George Galloway and friends enter the room  

“I’ll believe that if you pay me”

[Straggler]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

The whole argument is well made, but flawed in terms of “sides” for at least 2 reasons. Firstly the same news networks have been reporting Ukraine claims and tagged them the same way (unverified). Secondly the news agencies are there to provide information on the situation, not to serve (only) Ukraine’s interests. Information may and frequently has included “Ukraine says”, or “Russia says” type stuff. To not allow statements or claims from one side is to reduce the level of information available to us, the readers.

Next, there’s essentially no one, not even in Russia, who believes the Russian state. It doesn’t need tagging by the BBC or anyone else as “possible fake news”

Next there’s the nature of the coverage, split between rolling news and then deeper analysis and reporting, including following up on rolling stories such as this one.

Finally there is a wider interest in keeping the war in the news, given its impact on our economy and lives and nation. If news coverage were to omit anything unverified or from either side’s (by definition) biased official channels we’d get next to no coverage. I don’t disagree with your analysis, only the conclusion you draw from it that this should either be tagged as propaganda or not printed at all.

I hope I'm not saying in there that the news should serve Ukrainian interests, it's not my intention, I did describe it as an information war, both sides are fighting it. It should be treated in the same way.  I do however think that the reporting of this specific moment does serve the purpose of the Russians and was designed to do so. 

The purpose of news agencies aggregate and present events without comment is really part of the problem, one I have no idea how to solve. I understand why they exist and the demand for them, but they are being ruthlessly exploited to spread misinformation.

To the no one believes the Russian state. I agree in the main, but the problem is that after all of 10 seconds online it is "the BBC are reporting..." Or "I saw on the news that...." The source of the information becomes irrelevant and the narrative keeps going. If anything it is given credibility by being on the BBC and treated in the same way as other unverified but much more trustworthy sources.

I don't think it should not be printed at all, again I hope I have not advocated for that. I do think it should be reported even when from an aggregator of news as not just unverified but from an untrusted source. In an age when information is used so frequently as a weapon I don't think the news agencies are doing enough. The BBC's article has loads of extra information around what is the current situation in the war, it could easily had a few lines about the credibility or motivation of the origin of the story.

The news moves too fast to retrofit context, it does harm not to do it upfront. Otherwise we just shrug and allow them to manipulate us.

 

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, Straggler said:

it could easily had a few lines about the credibility or motivation of the origin of the story.

It says

Quote

if it is not what it seems, it is still an attempt by Moscow to take control of the narrative.

 

[Straggler]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It says

 

Ok 3 points on this

1. I completely missed that line when I read the article which may somewhat undermine my argument.  

2. If I can pretend briefly that I had comprehensively read the article I have just spent longer having a go at than reading.... It still doesn't say anything about the credibility of the source.

3. I can't find the quoted line in the article. 

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, Straggler said:

3. I can't find the quoted line in the article. 

[bickster]

 

[bickster]

Usual caveats apply but there's a bit of a riot going on in St Petersberg

 

[Xann]

22 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

Given the state of play at present, how likely is it we'll see Putin launch a 'tactical' nuke anytime soon?

Two curves.

The more desperate the situation gets for Putin personally, the more likely he'll lash out.

Balance that against Putin's declining stock within just about every strata of Russian society.

Would an order to use the really nasty gear trigger a revolt?

 

Putin's simply not delivered with his special military operation. Then another massive slap in the face, conflict has come to Mother Russia.

For Putin, the Belgorod incursion had to be seen to be punished, so lots of expensive munitions were fired at Kyiv.

The very next day Moscow was hit. It doesn't matter that there wasn't much damage, Ukraine had volleyed the conflict straight back to Moscow, through all of its defences.

In recent weeks Putin is not scoring in the game that he Zelensky and Prigozhin are playing, that we in the West don't readily understand. To the locals the symbolism of the Moscow attack might seem more important than the tactical advantage gained from forcing Russia to commit forces behind the front line, rather than on it, in order to respond to possible further incursions?

 

Russians do expect something from their leader. You can even be a crook,  just as long as Russia is seen to be strong?

If you're failing in attack and defence? You're not looking very strong.

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

[villa89]

3 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:

Given the state of play at present, how likely is it we'll see Putin launch a 'tactical' nuke anytime soon?

Zero chance.