"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

R RogerdeLluria You're posting a lot of unsubstantiated tweets from Twitter. This is hardly a reliable source of anything.

How to avoid falling for and spreading misinformation about Ukraine


Slow down!

Do not hit that share button. Social media is built for things to go viral, for users to quickly retweet before they're even done reading the words they're amplifying.


Check the source

Look at who is sharing the information.

Make a collection of trusted sources

Trust the professionals. Legitimate mainstream news organizations are built to vet these things for you.

Seek out context

Try to augment all these one-off clips or stories with broader context about what is happening.

Vet videos and images

Look for multiple edits and odd cuts, listen closely to the audio and run it through a third-party tool such as InVid, which helps check the authenticity of videos.

Use fact-checking sites and tools

Keep an eye out for content warnings on social media sites for individual posts. Look up individual stories or images on fact-checking sites.
And keep in mind that even so-called reliable sites are susceptible to confirmation bias, agenda-pushing and suppressing inconvenient information that is counter-narrative.
 

After an assault on Kyiv was defeated in March by strong Ukrainian resistance, Russia poured more troops in for a huge offensive in the east last month. But Russian gains have been slow at best, and Western arms are flooding into Ukraine for an expected counter-attack.

Western military experts - many of whom initially predicted a quick Russian victory - now say Moscow could be running out of fresh troops. A full declaration of war would let Putin activate reservists and send conscripts.

"What rhetoric Putin used in his speech is immaterial. If he didn't declare war, or a general mobilisation, that's what (is) important," tweeted Phillips O'Brien, a professor of strategic studies at Britain's University of St Andrews.

"Without concrete steps to build a new force, Russia can't fight a long war, and the clock starts ticking on the failure of their army in Ukraine."



Never mind the fact that he's already been using conscripts. I agree that if he doesn't call up reserves he won't have the manpower to take and hold Ukraine.

Thinking about this this morning, it seems to me that the closer Russia edges to defeat, the closer we are to seeing them deploy WMDs of one sort or the other.
 
And --


Russian forces have not made any significant progress in Moscow's new offensive in eastern Ukraine, a situation partly due to poor morale and some troops "refusing to obey orders," a senior U.S. defense official said Monday.

"We still see anecdotal reports of poor morale of troops, indeed officers, refusing to obey orders and move and not really sound command and control from a leadership perspective," the official told reporters.

The official later said "midgrade officers at various levels, even up to the battalion level" either have refused to obey orders "or are not obeying them with the same measure of alacrity that you would expect an officer to obey."

Russian forces have struggled to make major gains in the Donbas region of Ukraine since beginning a new offensive in the area last month.

On top of dealing with morale issues that have lingered since the start of the war on Feb. 24, the Kremlin also is struggling to resupply its troops and move its weapons and equipment in muddy spring weather, the official said.

Still, Moscow continues to send operational battalion tactical groups (BTGs) into Ukraine, with 97 such groups in the country, up from 92 late last month, according to the official. Each BTG typically consists of about 700 to 800 soldiers.



This struck me as germane considering the debate upthread about how many Russian troops were in-country. It also underscores the continuing Russian difficulty with logistics.
 
...it seems to me that the closer Russia edges to defeat, the closer we are to seeing them deploy WMDs of one sort or the other.
It won't be a tactical nuke, but I wouldn't rule out a chemical weapon attack. Of course the prevailing wind would send any large strike straight into the Donbas region. A smaller chemical attack, like we saw in Iraq or Syria can't really be considered a WMD attack.
 
A smaller chemical attack, like we saw in Iraq or Syria can't really be considered a WMD attack.

I'd disagree, considering that chemical weapons are considered part of the triad of NBC WMDs. Even a small chemical attack, if verified, is using a WMD.

Their use in Syria, and earlier in the Iran-Iraq war, wasn't punished because no one gave a damn about the folks killed so much as to take action. I think that'll be a little different here.
 
In the Donbas, the Russian effort is described as "incremental and somewhat anemic." The Russians have relied on their traditional doctrine, which calls for artillery shelling to soften up Ukrainian positions in advance of a Russian ground offensive.


1917 called, it wants its tactics back.
 
FSU_-q8XwAUUHJi.jpg
 
I was pleased to see Canada sending top government folks to Ukraine. We have a lot of Ukrainians and their descendants in Canada, including my wife (and our kids, though only part, as an ex-pat Brit I'm the first non-Ukie in the extended family).



Freeland is Trudeau's likely success as PM when he tires of the work, and the camera (and some might say showmanship) and hits the lucrative lecture circuit with Obama. No foul there, smoke them if you've got them.

I would like to see Canada deploy more forces to the Baltics or Poland asap. Our hundred odd Leopard II tanks are of no use in Canada, for example.

I am amazed and shocked that media tart Trudeau did not wear a Zelensky fleece and T shirt and I am even more surprised that he took Chrystia Freeland with him and shared the "glory" with any Canadian that has a higher profile in Ukraine than he does.
 
I'd disagree, considering that chemical weapons are considered part of the triad of NBC WMDs. Even a small chemical attack, if verified, is using a WMD.

Their use in Syria, and earlier in the Iran-Iraq war, wasn't punished because no one gave a damn about the folks killed so much as to take action. I think that'll be a little different here.
What would the reaction of the US and NATO be in this case? There's still no Article 5 to fall back on. My guess is some NATO members would want to march into Ukraine right up to the pre-Feb 2022 borders, whilst others will want to do nothing.
 
What would the reaction of the US and NATO be in this case? There's still no Article 5 to fall back on. My guess is some NATO members would want to march into Ukraine right up to the pre-Feb 2022 borders, whilst others will want to do nothing.

It rather depends on where any such weapons are employed. If there's risk of WMD effects spreading beyond the borders of Ukraine, then it'll be a red line for most if not all NATO members and I think it would trigger an Article 5 discussion.

Things get a little more ticklish if the WMD is used well within Ukrainian borders with no risk of it spreading outside the country...although hawks within NATO (probably led by the US and UK) would still view it as a red line. Hungary and others may take a different view.
 
The fact that they haven't been used yet when Russia has been more than happy to deploy Chemical weapons against civilian targets is almost astonishing. I wouldn't mind placing a bet on the Russians already having been told that if they use them, then there will be consequences.
In any war there are backdoor conversations
Yes! That's almost certainly the case. They've been informed that it's a red line.
 
The fact that they haven't been used yet when Russia has been more than happy to deploy Chemical weapons against civilian targets is almost astonishing. I wouldn't mind placing a bet on the Russians already having been told that if they use them, then there will be consequences
It will be hard to argue that you're invading to save the local Russian-speaking populace when you've just gas them. Mind you, blowing their cities to sh#t doesn't help that either.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back