euphronius posted:

enhance



hmm

Lord of Pie posted:

If you don't report the casualties, they didn't happen

bing bong, so simple

Danann posted:

mlmp08 posted:

The New York Times? This one?

March 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/05/world/russia-ukraine

May 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/briefing/russia-ukraine-war-end-negotiations.html

August 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-toll.html

September 2022. I went out of my way to find some of the NYT's more positive coverage for Ukraine. In is they dare to ask if it's even conceivable that Ukraine might win, and their answer is "maybe"
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/briefing/ukraine-counteroffensive-kharkiv-war.html

Some ending excerpts of the "Ukraine on the March" article above:

Frosted Flake posted:

That's what's blowing my loving mind here. It's a complete misunderstanding of Verdun (The French even then emphasized "spending steel and sparing flesh") and more to the point... the loving Ukrainians are outshot 20:1 by their own reporting. This is not how you fight a battle of attrition, and I'm sincerely struggling here because clearly either ideology or politics is overriding decision making. Which is to say, you would only embark on the dumbest possible course of action if you thought you were racially superior and heroism overcomes asiatic cowardice, or if your western allies told you to and you had no alternative.

Verdun, but without the firepower, good God.

Egg Moron posted:

neoidealism

sounds like thoughts and prayers to me bitch

"you go get immiserated and maimed and die for democracy and I will be over here feeling feelings about it"

gently caress off with that weak soft boy bullshit

CODChimera posted:

Russian losses: heavy
Ukraine losses: unknown

sum posted:

mlmp08 how exactly does 3 rehash articles prove your point that the NYT hasn't been heavily slanted towards the AFU? This is one of the stupidest loving takes you had

Ardennes posted:

(Even the NYT has pivoted from the pervious narrative "of endless defeat and slaughter for Russian forces" to "well...its like Verdun.")

mlmp08 posted:

You are making an attempt to reframe my point as one I never was making.

Danann posted:

sum posted:

Like imagine them writing an article this harshly negative about Ukrainian mobilization, or even writing one at all: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/16/world/europe/russia-draft-ukraine.html

sum posted:

You weren't making a point that the articles you referenced supported your argument? Why did you cite them then stupid?

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

The united front against the NYT grows

https://twitter.com/BMarchetich/status/1612458779815149573

mlmp08 posted:

You are addressing a point that neither I nor Ardennes were addressing. If you want to say that you think the NYT prefers Ukraine's goals over Russia's, you're right. You're also arguing against an argument no one made.

ModernMajorGeneral posted:

You tankies say Ukraine is full of nazis, but the nazis are all russians. Explain that

I know neo nazis need no ideological coherency, but how do Russian nazis justify fighting for Ukraine in this war? Have they twisted themselves into believing Putin is a Jewish homosexual? I hope they are having a bad time being surrounded by Ukrainian nazis who base their nazism on being anti-Russian, but they have probably developed some race science way around it

sum posted:

OK sure how about you make explicit the point you're trying to prove and how those articles you cited do that.

euphronius posted:

Nonsense posted:

Ukraine should lose territory just like the Finns did. The GOP in the House is too weak to cut off aid to Zelensky's miracle weapons

mlmp08 posted:

Ardennes made a claim with zero evidence that the NYT has been reporting a "narrative 'of endless defeat and slaughter for Russian forces.'" I think that either he has severely miscomprehended the reading, or maybe he hasn't read the NYT narrative and just is making an assumption that it's one of "of endless defeat and slaughter for Russian forces."

His claim is unsupported by any evidence. I provided counter-examples of how the NYT has been writing about the war over the span of several months, so as to make it clear that I wasn't cherry-picking one article. If you read them, you will see that they do not provide a narrative of endless defeat and slaughter of Russian forces. They provide a picture of a pretty uncertain and desperate fight, one in which Russia has many advantages over Ukraine and questions the idea that Ukraine could achieve a position of dominance, much less was on path to achieve such a position. You can read them yourself. They're not long-forms, so it's quick and easy. I linked them above.

quote:

Russia and Ukraine have kept their military casualties a closely guarded secret, though Western analysts believe both have sustained heavy losses.

Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, the top commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, said Monday that about 9,000 Ukrainians had been killed at the front. Speaking at a conference for veterans, he did not say whether that included all the branches of Ukraine’s military; the number could not be independently verified. In comparison, in the eight-year conflict between Ukraine and Russia-backed forces, around 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers and civilians were killed.

Russia last gave an official military toll in March, when it said that 1,351 of its troops had been killed. At the time, American officials estimated the figure to be around 5,000.

Four months later, the British military estimated that 25,000 Russians had been killed and tens of thousands more wounded. And this month, Pentagon officials estimated that 70,000 to
80,000 Russians had been killed or wounded; they put the number of deaths at 20,000. U.S. officials said their estimates were based on satellite imagery, communication intercepts, social media and on-the-ground media reports.

mlmp08 posted:

You don't need to convince me that Brett Stephens is a dumb opinion column writer. Well known.

Majorian posted:

Well they also like selling weapons to Ukraine and getting kickbacks too.

euphronius posted:

Nonsense posted:

That's to Saudi Arabia our stalwart ally! Not gangster Ukrainians that only democrats seem to like.

sum posted:

OK sure here's a quote from one of the articles you linked

For Ukraine's military casualties, they cite Zaluzhny uncritically. They don't bother asking an independent expert on what Ukraine's casualties actually are, presumably because they don't want to know. For Russia's casualties, they give a perfunctory reference to the Russian MoD and accuse them of lying in the very next sentence, and spend the entire next paragraph essentially saying that the Russian's have taken many times more casualties than Ukraine has. This directly contradicts your extremely stupid thesis that "they do not provide a narrative of endless defeat and slaughter of Russian forces."

euphronius posted:

more nyt



….



more

Throatwarbler posted:

https://dzen-ru.translate.goog/a/Y5rOghZEL3s1C5lV?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Remember Russia's single remaining aircraft carrier that's been sitting on cinderblocks in drydock for a decade because their single remaining ex-soviet floating dock that's big enough, sank because the doors got stuck open and also one of the cranes fell over onto the flight deck?

Well the new bigger floating dock arrived from China today, so they're getting it back into action soon!

*EDIT: hopefully the production line for the navalized Sukhois is still around and hasn't been sold for parts since they stopped making them 15 years ago!

Lostconfused posted:

It's been a while so I picked up some Riga gold today, and anyone who speaks poorly of Latvians should feel bad. Those sparts are so good, love them.

mlmp08 posted:

Why do you think that estimating 70k-80k casualties is the same as a narrative "of endless defeat and slaughter for Russian forces"? It's a number of casulaties, and Putin has signified that it is one he finds sustainable and will continue to fight his smaller opponent.