Apologies for the OT post, but I'm wondering if anyone else like me islatest-news-first-war-crimes-trial-to-begin-in-kyiv-amid-fears-for-azovstal-soldiers-live%3FfilterKeyEvents%3Dfalsepage%3Dwith%3Ablock-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7block-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7
trying to find *reliable* information about Ukraine. In general so far,
The Guardian live coverage pages seem pretty good, those of The
Independent occasionally covers interesting new angles but I have to
disable JavaScript to avoid various barriers, which means that I can't
see most of the pictures and have to keep refreshing the pages, while
BBC coverage is sketchy and lacking important detail. However, I have
one particular specific question I'd like help with ...
The UK MoD occasionally comes up with some rather startling tweets, for example this is today's not very startling one ...
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1526787550949548034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1526787550949548034%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2Flive%2F2022%2Fmay%2F18%2Frussia-ukraine-war-
... and/or The Guardian update covering it has a slightly shorter URL,
but still too long, and thereby you can avoid the necessity to enter the Shitter JavaScript jail ...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/may/18/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-first-war-crimes-trial-to-begin-in-kyiv-amid-fears-for-azovstal-soldiers-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7#block-62847d748f08261baccdc1e7
... but there was one a couple of days ago - I can't find it now
without logging in to Shitter - which claimed that the Russians had
lost about a third of the military capacity initially committed to
Ukraine. One would hope that a claim coming from our own military is
robust, but I'd be a lot happier if I could judge the evidence
supporting it for myself, so my question is: has anyone managed to find
on a normal website outside of social media JavaScript jails, preferably
an official government website, the original MoD analysis and the data supporting it? I have tried and failed. None of the links given in
Fuckbook or Shitter work in Pale Moon for someone not logged in, and a
search didn't find anything either.
I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable* information about Ukraine.
Java Jive wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable*
information about Ukraine.
The institute for the study of war, isn't bad ...
<https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates>
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Apologies for the OT post, but I'm wondering if anyone else like me is
trying to find *reliable* information about Ukraine. In general so far,
The Guardian live coverage pages seem pretty good, those of The
Independent occasionally covers interesting new angles but I have to
disable JavaScript to avoid various barriers, which means that I can't
see most of the pictures and have to keep refreshing the pages, while
BBC coverage is sketchy and lacking important detail. However, I have
one particular specific question I'd like help with ...
The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.
I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to see substantiation of
The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.
And, I'm afraid, they're becoming increasingly unreliable, second only to
the Daily Fail:
https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/
The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.
On 18/05/2022 19:04, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable*
information about Ukraine.
The institute for the study of war, isn't bad ...
<https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates>
Yes, I've been reading some of their analyses for some time now. ISTR there's an equivalent British organisation, but its name escapes my
ageing memory just now, and two different search terms didn't find it.
However, I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to see substantiation of:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/15/russia-likely-to-have-lost-third-of-its-ukraine-invasion-force-says-uk
Hopefully it's true, but I would like to understand how they've arrived
at their conclusions.
Java Jive wrote:
I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to see
substantiation of
By searching for distinctive phrases that every news outlet under the
sun attributes to MOD sources, it really does seem that the MOD or
Defence Intelligence doesn't have a press releases page hosted anywhere
under mod.uk or gov.uk, it really does just push stuff to twitter and facebook ... unbelievable really.
On 18/05/2022 20:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/05/2022 19:04, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable*
information about Ukraine.
The institute for the study of war, isn't bad ...
<https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates>
Yes, I've been reading some of their analyses for some time now. ISTR
there's an equivalent British organisation, but its name escapes my
ageing memory just now, and two different search terms didn't find it.
However, I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to see
substantiation of:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/15/russia-likely-to-have-lost-third-of-its-ukraine-invasion-force-says-uk
Hopefully it's true, but I would like to understand how they've
arrived at their conclusions.
I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis and
the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their conclusions".
At face value that includes what they've been told by which human
sources, and which of them they believe; plus what they've had from GCHQ
and others by way of intercepts. But you can't seriously expect that so what please do you think they could release without risk?
On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2022 20:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/05/2022 19:04, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else like me is trying to find *reliable*
information about Ukraine.
The institute for the study of war, isn't bad ...
<https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates> >>>>
Yes, I've been reading some of their analyses for some time now.
ISTR there's an equivalent British organisation, but its name escapes
my ageing memory just now, and two different search terms didn't find
it.
However, I did find The Guardian's report of the claim I wanted to
see substantiation of:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/15/russia-likely-to-have-lost-third-of-its-ukraine-invasion-force-says-uk
Hopefully it's true, but I would like to understand how they've
arrived at their conclusions.
I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis and
the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their
conclusions". At face value that includes what they've been told by
which human sources, and which of them they believe; plus what they've
had from GCHQ and others by way of intercepts. But you can't
seriously expect that so what please do you think they could release
without risk?
In most cases, they could at least state the nature of their sources,
the number of them, and whether they are independent from each other;
eg: satellite imagery, how many destroyed tanks have been counted, etc.
On 18/05/2022 in message <t63k6p$4oe$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.
And, I'm afraid, they're becoming increasingly unreliable, second only
to the Daily Fail:
https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/
That's an old report reporting on older news.
The Daily Mail frequentlyThere's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.
gets information first and it is easily double checked a day or so
latter on the BBC news website. News is only news while it is new.
On 18/05/2022 23:00, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
and the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their
conclusions". At face value that includes what they've been told by
which human sources, and which of them they believe; plus what
they've had from GCHQ and others by way of intercepts. But you can't
seriously expect that so what please do you think they could release
without risk?
In most cases, they could at least state the nature of their sources,
the number of them, and whether they are independent from each other;
eg: satellite imagery, how many destroyed tanks have been counted, etc.
I do not agree there are no risks in stating the nature of their sources.
On 18/05/2022 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/05/2022 in message <t63k6p$4oe$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
[Quoting broken, I didn't say this, Tweed did:]
The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.
And, I'm afraid, they're becoming increasingly unreliable, second only to >>>the Daily Fail:
https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/
That's an old report reporting on older news.
Yes, because when I went to the IPSO website, I couldn't find the
equivalent 2021 report, but by all means see if you can do better, I'd be >delighted if someone else can succeed where I failed:
https://www.ipso.co.uk/
The Daily Mail frequently gets information first and it is easily double >>checked a day or so latter on the BBC news website. News is only news >>while it is new.There's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.
I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
On 18/05/2022 in message <t63r18$a5u$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 18/05/2022 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That's an old report reporting on older news.
Yes, because when I went to the IPSO website, I couldn't find the
equivalent 2021 report, but by all means see if you can do better, I'd
be delighted if someone else can succeed where I failed:
https://www.ipso.co.uk/
The Daily Mail frequently gets information first and it is easilyThere's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.
double checked a day or so latter on the BBC news website. News is
only news while it is new.
But it usually isn't, they're bound to get some things wrong when they
are quicker than anybody else but it's not usually of any consequence.
The Daily Mail frequently gets information first and it is easily >>>>double checked a day or so latter on the BBC news website. News is only >>>>news while it is new.There's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.
But it usually isn't, they're bound to get some things wrong when they
are quicker than anybody else but it's not usually of any consequence.
I suggest you reread the original link. The fact remains they have been >consistently over many years the most complained about British newspaper,
and there's a reason for that, because they are consistently the most >inaccurate.
On 18/05/2022 23:12, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2022 23:00, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
and the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their
conclusions". At face value that includes what they've been told
by which human sources, and which of them they believe; plus what
they've had from GCHQ and others by way of intercepts. But you
can't seriously expect that so what please do you think they could
release without risk?
In most cases, they could at least state the nature of their sources,
the number of them, and whether they are independent from each other;
eg: satellite imagery, how many destroyed tanks have been counted, etc.
I do not agree there are no risks in stating the nature of their sources.
Think: Weapons of Mass Destruction.
We need to be assured that we can believe what we are being told.
On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
Wouldn't you prefer to see actual intelligence hosted in text format somewhere under
<https://gov.uk/mod/>
rather than a GIF file at
<https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525704460214878208>
ISTR there's an equivalent British organisation,
On 19/05/2022 in message <t63uo8$g97$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The Daily Mail frequently gets information first and it is easilyThere's no point in being first if what you print is erroneous.
double checked a day or so latter on the BBC news website. News
is only news while it is new.
But it usually isn't, they're bound to get some things wrong when
they are quicker than anybody else but it's not usually of any
consequence.
I suggest you reread the original link. The fact remains they have
been consistently over many years the most complained about British
newspaper, and there's a reason for that, because they are
consistently the most inaccurate.
Usually for the reason I gave.
On 18/05/2022 23:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/05/2022 23:12, Robin wrote:
On 18/05/2022 23:00, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
and the data supporting it" and "how they've arrived at their
conclusions". At face value that includes what they've been told >>>>> by which human sources, and which of them they believe; plus what
they've had from GCHQ and others by way of intercepts. But you
can't seriously expect that so what please do you think they could
release without risk?
In most cases, they could at least state the nature of their
sources, the number of them, and whether they are independent from
each other; eg: satellite imagery, how many destroyed tanks have
been counted, etc.
I do not agree there are no risks in stating the nature of their
sources.
Think: Weapons of Mass Destruction.
We need to be assured that we can believe what we are being told.
No. You patently /want/ to be assured but I don't see you have any /need/.
And I see no meaningful parallels with the infamous dodgy dossier and
WMD claims. > First, no one is asking for decisions or support on the
basis of these briefings.
Second, they are the merest bits of froth skimmed from the top of the briefings DI will be serving up to those who do take decisions.
Third, they are clearly propaganda - and IMO part of a very effective propaganda campaign that the US and UK ran before the invasion (while
most EU States were in denial).
'“The extraordinary thing about this war is how we’ve dominated the information space right from the beginning. We’re doing it to crowd out
any propaganda from the Russians,” said Jonathan Eyal, associate
director at RUSI, a London-based defense think tank. And compared with
2014, when Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, “it’s 180 degrees difference from how Putin ran rings around us.”'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/22/how-uk-intelligence-came-tweet-lowdown-war-ukraine/
On 18/05/2022 20:52, Java Jive wrote:
ISTR there's an equivalent British organisation,
Are you thinking of RUSI (Royal United Services Instition)?
On 19/05/2022 00:46, Andy Burns wrote:
On 18/05/2022 22:16, Robin wrote:
I am struggling to see what you mean by "the original MoD analysis
Wouldn't you prefer to see actual intelligence hosted in text format
somewhere under
<https://gov.uk/mod/>
rather than a GIF file at
<https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525704460214878208>
I had thought JJ was concerned with the /content/ rather than the
/medium/ of communication.
On 19/05/2022 14:31, David Woolley wrote:
On 18/05/2022 20:52, Java Jive wrote:
ISTR there's an equivalent British organisation,
Are you thinking of RUSI (Royal United Services Instition)?
That did come up in one of the two searches I tried, and I read some of
their analyses, but it's not the institution I was thinking of.
On 18/05/2022 in message <t63k6p$4oe$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The Times is good, but you have to pay for it.
And, I'm afraid, they're becoming increasingly unreliable, second
only to the Daily Fail:
https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/
That's an old report reporting on older news. The Daily Mail
frequently gets information first and it is easily double checked a
day or so latter on the BBC news website. News is only news while it
is new.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 19/05/2022 14:31, David Woolley wrote:
On 18/05/2022 20:52, Java Jive wrote:
ISTR there's an equivalent British organisation,
Are you thinking of RUSI (Royal United Services Instition)?
That did come up in one of the two searches I tried, and I read some of
their analyses, but it's not the institution I was thinking of.
The detail you seek about the war is never going to come out whilst it
plays out. It will take decades for the true story to be revealed, as for example, official papers get declassified. Just like the NI protocol negotiations - what’s really happening and what gets presented in public are likely to be very different.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:30:46 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,028 |