Ukraine War Watch Thread

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[andmar74]

Take this with a huge grain of salt, it's just a Youtube comment. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable Russia is limited by the number of pilots and not the number of (on paper) fighterplanes.

It's not the aircraft it's the pilots. My Russian is a bit rusty, but I was reading a discussion between Russians and more than once I saw that they were estimating that Russia only had between 300 - 500 trained combat pilots at the outset of the war. Now I'm not sure if that is fixed wing pilots or both fixed wing and rotary pilots. If it's both, then it is entirely possible that Russia has lost 20% of their trained combat pilots in the last two weeks.

[wjfox]

[R8Z]

In the Ukraine Conflict, Fake Fact-Checks Are Being Used to Spread Disinformation

Even a furry knew why that was the case (2020): https://toddofmischief.blogspot.com/202 ... hless.html

Fact checkers are basically a way to reinforce something that their side would like to believe. I am actually happy that Russia has been using these tactics with great success against the western media: using fact-checkers to point out "lies" (propaganda vs propaganda), claiming their actions are against "nazis" (dehumanizing their opponents) & debunking obvious lies/propaganda that they (western media) have spread these last few weeks (the same media that claims to be on the side of truth with plenty of fact-checkers).

The more people stop thinking that fact checkers are anything but comfy parrots of their own ideals, the better.

[caltrek]

In the Ukraine Conflict, Fake Fact-Checks Are Being Used to Spread Disinformation

Even a furry knew why that was the case (2020): https://toddofmischief.blogspot.com/202 ... hless.html

Fact checkers are basically a way to reinforce something that their side would like to believe. I am actually happy that Russia has been using these tactics with great success against the western media: using fact-checkers to point out "lies" (propaganda vs propaganda), claiming their actions are against "nazis" (dehumanizing their opponents) & debunking obvious lies/propaganda that they (western media) have spread these last few weeks (the same media that claims to be on the side of truth with plenty of fact-checkers).

The more people stop thinking that fact checkers are anything but comfy parrots of their own ideals, the better.

I am actually finding your post a little hard to understand. You are happy that "Russia has been...claiming their actions are against 'nazis' (dehumanizing their opponents"?

Am I understanding that correctly?

In any event, I am not a great fan of this post-modern idea that truth is all relative to the beholder and by implication that we should just give up on the idea of knowing the truth. While I agree that there is false propaganda being perpetuated on both sides, I think there is still a basic truth at which we can arrive. I suspect that basic truth is something along the lines that Russia under Vladimir Putin engaged in an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, and that much human suffering is needlessly proceeding from that fact. Further, that this invasion is being presented to the Russian people wrapped in a cocoon of distortions and outright lies.

Sure, we should be on guard against propaganda from the other side that is also distorting the truth. Still, as the article I quoted demonstrated, that there is such propaganda is a point that is itself being exaggerated by Russian sources of disinformation. "Western media" may not be perfect, but I give it much higher marks than the Russian disinformation machine.

[R8Z]

In the Ukraine Conflict, Fake Fact-Checks Are Being Used to Spread Disinformation

Even a furry knew why that was the case (2020): https://toddofmischief.blogspot.com/202 ... hless.html

Fact checkers are basically a way to reinforce something that their side would like to believe. I am actually happy that Russia has been using these tactics with great success against the western media: using fact-checkers to point out "lies" (propaganda vs propaganda), claiming their actions are against "nazis" (dehumanizing their opponents) & debunking obvious lies/propaganda that they (western media) have spread these last few weeks (the same media that claims to be on the side of truth with plenty of fact-checkers).

The more people stop thinking that fact checkers are anything but comfy parrots of their own ideals, the better.

I am actually finding your post a little hard to understand. You are happy that "Russia has been...claiming their actions are against 'nazis' (dehumanizing their opponents"?

Am I understanding that correctly?

I any event, I am not a great fan of this post-modern idea that truth is all relative to the beholder and by implication that we should just give up on the idea of knowing the truth. While I agree that there is false propaganda being perpetuated on both sides, I think there is still a basic truth at which we can arrive. I suspect that basic truth is something along the lines that Russia under Vladimir Putin engaged in an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, and that much human suffering is needlessly proceeding from that fact. Further, that this invasion is being presented to the Russian people wrapped in a cocoon of distortions and outright lies.

Sure, we should be on guard against propaganda from the other side that is also distorting the truth. Still, as the article I quoted demonstrated, that there is such propaganda is a point that is itself being exaggerated by Russian sources of disinformation. "Western media" may not be perfect, but I give it much higher marks than the Russian disinformation machine.

I am happy that the same tactics from mainstream media that have being in use since 2016 are being used against the original perpetrators (check on google trends: "fake news"). This delegitimizes them and brings to light how fake fact-checkers actually are.

Yes, reality is objective. Language and human nuance is not, actually very far from it. Using objective words for things that could be considered a gradient might be the most simplified explanation why fact-checkers aren't worth much. For example, you've used the words "unprovoked war". I could write a 10.000 word essay why that is not true and label your post as false (maybe deplataform and ban you if that were my intentions in the first place). Not that I care though, it's just an example.

By the way, fact checkers have been creating blatantly fake stories and debunking them to mud the waters since the very beggining. Other than that there's quite a lot of propaganda on this thread already, of course only for the Ukrainian side as we're only receiving that side of the spectrum.

War is bad, both sides are ugly, the (currentl) attackers are just slighly uglier.

[andmar74]

It looks like there's some real talks going on between Russia and Ukraine. Russia needs to get out of this, they must have realised now they can't win, and their economy is getting crushed.

[wjfox]

For example, you've used the words "unprovoked war". I could write a 10.000 word essay why that is not true and label your post as false

So you believe this blatant violation of international law is somehow justified?

UN member states (which include both Russia and Ukraine) are prohibited from the use of force against other states, unless acting on a UN Security Council resolution.

Perhaps you don't believe international laws matter? We should go back to the free for all that existed pre-1945?

Other than that there's quite a lot of propaganda on this thread already, of course only for the Ukrainian side

Examples?

War is bad, both sides are ugly, the (currentl) attackers are just slighly uglier.

"Slightly"? Russia is slaughtering innocent men, women and children. These are war crimes. Why are you trying to excuse these atrocities and make it appear like there's some "balance" here?

[caltrek]

Yes, reality is objective. Language and human nuance is not, actually very far from it. Using objective words for things that could be considered a gradient might be the most simplified explanation why fact-checkers aren't worth much. For example, you've used the words "unprovoked war". I could write a 10.000 word essay why that is not true and label your post as false (maybe deplataform and ban you if that were my intentions in the first place). Not that I care though, it's just an example.

I think you make a fairly interesting point with your example. At a certain level, my response would be to go ahead and write your 10,000 word essay and post it. I will then read it and inform you as to what I agree with and with what I disagree. Now, as to "unprovoked war." That is my opinion and I will stand by it. Does that mean I think that I believe that I have received the absolute truth through some means of divine revelation?

No. It just means that is the truth as I personally see it. I further refer to the scientific method as a way of arriving at a closer and closer approximation
of an understanding of the truth. That involves observation of reality, formulation of an hypothesis, testing such an hypothesis through experimentation and/or further observation, etc.

I would agree that just because somebody calls themselves a fact checker doesn't mean that we should automatically grant them an uncritical endorsement of all that they write. I have seen a lot of fact checking wherein I disagreed with some of what was written in the fact-checking analysis. What I do favor about the idea of fact checking is as a means to contain rampant dis-information. So, I do not personally believe in "deplataforming" somebody just because they make one or two statements with which I happen to disagree. Still, there may be instances where that becomes appropriate. Those instances should be kept to a minimum. Again, "fact-checking" is one way to keep such absolute debarment to a minimum.

If you go back and read my other posts, I think you will find that I advocated a great deal of tolerance for other conflicting opinions on the subject at hand. The "Russian" view point may now be unrepresented here, but that seems to be for reasons that have nothing to do with how this site is being administered. So, I don't fault those who are running this site on that count. Rather, it seem to have been either a choice to no longer participate in this forum, or one result of all the efforts to close off Russia from outside influence and contact. If it is the second, then that should in and of itself serve as further evidence of who supports open debate and an exchange of perspectives and ideas, and who is frightened of such an encounter.

[Maximus]

What the science says: Could humans survive a nuclear war between NATO and Russia?

Russian leader Vladimir Putin has suggested that he would consider using nuclear weapons if confronted with a NATO military response in Ukraine, or if faced with a direct threat to his person or regime. If the war spreads to a NATO country like Estonia or Poland a direct US-Russia confrontation would take place, with a clear danger of runaway nuclear escalation.

The world is therefore arguably now closer to nuclear conflict than at any time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. So what would a full-scale nuclear exchange look like in reality? Is it truly global Armageddon, or would it be survivable for some people and places?

Many scientists have investigated this question already. Their work is surprisingly little known, likely because in peacetime no one wants to think the unthinkable. But we are no longer in peacetime and the shadows of multiple mushroom clouds are looming once again over our planet.

Well, that's some terrifying reading. Another study published just last year says this:

Soot aerosols spread globally after they are injected into the upper atmosphere, blocking shortwave radiation and causing global cooling. In NW-150Tg, a nearly 120 W m−2 reduction in global mean monthly downwelling solar radiation is simulated (Fig. 1a), accompanied by a nearly 10 °C reduction in global mean monthly surface temperatures over the course of the next two years (Fig. 1b). The spatial patterns of temperature (Fig. 1c) and precipitation (Fig. 1d) anomalies are characterized by extreme cooling and reduced precipitation over most of the globe.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00088-1

I've also been reading up on criticisms of nuclear winter, and mostly it comes down to this: how likely is it areas hit by nukes will catch fire. I mean, really catch fire. Raging firestorms that go on for days and spew soot into the upper atmosphere. That's all nuclear winter is apparently. Nothing to do directly with the nukes themselves, rather, it's a consequence of firestorms started by them. The question of course is, how reasonable is the firestorm assumption? The Wikipedia article does a good job of summarizing both points of view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#2021). Basically, researchers don't agree on this assumption. It seems most models rely on a worst-case scenario assumption regarding firestorms, including how long the soot remains in the atmosphere and other factors. Everything would have to go disastrously wrong. Take for example the 2021 study above:

We examine in total 6 nuclear war scenarios. In the United States and Russia nuclear war scenario, 150 Tg of pure black carbon is injected into the 150 hPa to 300 hPa layer over the United States and Russia as a worst case scenario.

I mean, there are good reasons for this assumption. Yes, we need to make nuclear war look like insanity, because even without apocalyptic nuclear winter, hundreds of millions would still die from the actual blasts, radiation, collapsed supply chains, collapsed food chains and so on. Second, the worst-case models may be right. The firestorms may last weeks, and the soot they inject into the atmosphere may linger there for years. I certainly don't want to find out if they're wrong or not.

I feel like this discussion is derailing this thread though, it would be nice to have a thread for discussing this topic though given it's likely to become an everyday part of our lives now we're in Cold War 2.0. Is there a thread already?

[BaobabScion]

I feel like this discussion is derailing this thread though, it would be nice to have a thread for discussing this topic though given it's likely to become an everyday part of our lives now we're in Cold War 2.0. Is there a thread already?

Yeah, discussions about a nuclear holocaust should take place somewhere else.

[raklian]

Discussions about nuclear weapons in general should continue in here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1840

[weatheriscool]

Russia strikes close to NATO member's border
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk ... 125419271e
"Russian airstrikes hit a large military base near the western city of Lviv, which is close to the Polish border, killing 35 people and leaving more than 130 in hospital."

[weatheriscool]

US officials say Russia has asked China for military help in Ukraine
Source: Financial Times

Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington AN HOUR AGO

Russia has asked China for military ​equipment to ​support its invasion of Ukraine, ​according to US officials, sparking concern in ​the White House that Beijing ​may undermine western efforts to help Ukrainian forces defend their country.

US officials told the Financial Times that Russia had requested military equipment and other assistance since the start of the invasion. They declined to give details about what Russia had requested.

Another person familiar with the situation said the US was preparing to warn its allies, amid some indications that China may be preparing to help Russia. Other US officials have said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine extends into its third week.

The White House did not comment. The Chinese embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for a comment.

Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/30850470-8c8 ... il:content

[Yuli Ban]

[Xyls]

My prediction is that the ceasefire comes after Mariupol falls... My guess is Russia has determined Kyiv has no chance of falling nor does Kharkiv. However, securing a land bridge from Donetsk to Crimea will occur if Mariupol falls and they have Kherson to get water supplies to Crimea. Ukraine saying they won't join NATO would also probably allow Putin to present this whole shit show as a victory...

Russia does not have the soldiers to occupy Ukraine or to install a puppet government... also a default must be concerning Putin deeply...

Expect the fighting around Mariupol to become VERY ferocious in the next few days...

[weatheriscool]

[Yuli Ban]

[Maximus]

U.S. Warns ‘Full Force’ of NATO Would Respond if Russia Hits Poland

WASHINGTON—U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan warned of a full-fledged NATO response if a Russian strike were to hit member-state Poland, after an attack on a Ukrainian military base roughly 10 miles from the border.

“If there is a military attack on NATO territory it would cause the invocation of Article 5, and we would bring the full force of the NATO alliance to bear in responding to it,” Mr. Sullivan said in an interview Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” He was referring to the provision of the treaty that provides that if any NATO member is the victim of an armed attack, every other member will consider it to be an attack on all members.

The Russian airstrike, which killed 35 people near the Polish border early Sunday, came one day after Moscow warned the West that it would consider arms deliveries to Ukraine as legitimate targets.

Mr. Sullivan said the U.S. will continue supporting Ukrainian forces with military assistance.

He also reiterated President Biden’s vow that the U.S. and its allies will “defend every inch” of the NATO territory and would respond even in the event of an accidental or unintentional strike by Russia.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia ... Rx5QiKilww

Holy shit.