>*Invasion starts* >Ukraine will loose within minutes, they are already loosing alot of ground *sob* >"uhm, actually i think those are just delaying actions by the hohols" >NOOOOO dont you see, they have already taken Mariupol on Day 1 and are threatening Kiev *cries* >"well, they haven't taken Mariupol yet, the units spotted in the city are most likely scouts or misidentified Ukrainians. Also the hohols have vast numerical superiority in Kiev" >but dont you see, they are pouring in troops via Chernobyl *malds* >"Which are being supplied via a single shitty road through fucking nowhere, they likely run into logistical problems soon" >OMG THE RUSSIANS ARE RUNNING OUT OF SUPPLY, they must be low IQ and stupid >"I don't think there entire logistics are like that ---" >*smacks* OMG THEY ARE RETROOOTING FROM DA NORTH >WOW TAKING SUCH A LONG TIME TO TAKE MARIUPOL UNLIKE GREAT AMERICANS AT FALLUJAH *grunts* >"Tbf, the Americans were only fighting a bunch of shitty militias who had occupied a couple of buildings, versus the Russians fighting a large professional force in a fortified city" >LE KHERSON OFFENSIVE WILL REACH THE DNIEPR *shits* >"Uhm, no?" >LE KHARKIV OFFENSIVE WILL GO TO BELGOROD *cums and pisses* >"No, in fact it stopped miles before the international border"
Except that most things Russia reports officially (not from Kadirov), is actually happening.
Isaac Parker
My point is not about what MSM is doing, but rather how outlets specialised in military affairs are coming to such illogical conclusions
Yes, notice how a lot of the talk on the media is about "Prestige" and "Facesaving" and "Publicity" instead of the actual, real military situation developing. When the Kharkov offensive happened, most media talked about how this was a huge Publicity Victory Royal for Zelensky, there was little talk about the actual effect this would have on the war.
No hate against Ukrainians lol, you guys have been doing well. I'm purely trying to criticise idiotic armchair generals.
Isaiah Garcia
didnt say otherwise. theres a difference between reports on an ongoing action and "welp. were at x. fait accompli" and then there are the experts analysis
theres a way of having a clearer image about whats happening in a warzone, and that is discarding propaganda
James White
its the same tier of information. heck, the articles are often built around "experts" opinion.
to have a more accurate image you have to go deeper information-wise, and make your own opinion.
Juan Martin
Don't you find it somewhat worrisome that it's these "experts" which are often formulating decisions for our governments :^)
it's more a symptom of western media being run entirely by jews and their pet glowies ukraine was khazaria and the jews really dont want to give it up so they went hard with the propaganda >but rather how outlets specialised in military affairs are coming to such illogical conclusions there's no such thing, only specialised propaganda units you've got it backwards, they dont formulate any decisions they simply try to make those decisions look good because the retarded governments are doing it on purpose, if they can't smooth it over with their media bs the people might actually work out whats going on and revolt
Blake Lee
>be stupid journalist >only thing you know about war is that its bad, the Eu has abolished it and something with nazis >every military vehicle you see is a tank because thats the only military vehicle you know >someone shows you a map with fancy lines across it >oh those are frontlines >you write an article about how horrible it is that ukraine will be crushed soon >newspapers give you money >next day you write about how russia is loosing hard >newspaper gives you money >repeat as long as the war is going on or another more interesting war starts
