A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Hmmm
This is a weird framing. The story's not wrong, I am sure, but it's just sort of askew.
I will make a maybe unwarranted prediction that I will find some other curious opinions being voiced by the specific journalist who wrote this story.
Brb
Edit: I am wrong. They're just reporting from inside Ukraine stuff that is happening and so this is a relevant story.
Yeah, there are a number of folks looking at this from the military side I've seen saying that they believe it to be better to be defending rather than attacking. Generally, a defender has the advantage, and Ukraine has pretty well-fortified stuff in the area, so they can leverage that advantage.
The Kursk offensive is embarrassing to Russia, but as far as I know, it doesn't have strategic implications. Russia capturing Pokrovsk would make defending some other areas in Ukraine difficult.
That being said, there are a lot of aspects to the conflict, so...shrugs
Ukraine have destroyed three bridges in Kursk, which will affect Russia's ability to get supplies to their invading forces, but they're also over rivers where it's fairly trivial to set up temporary bridges (unless they are destroyed by drones).
Defenders have advantage yes but there's basically noone defending Kursk. With Ukraine focussing on Kursk, Russia may even win as much territory in Ukraine as it's losing of its own.
Yet that's still bound to be a political win for Ukraine as every square metre of Kursk is worth a lot more in terms of negotiating position than a piece of the Donbas. And as we all know war is the continuation of politics with different means, that is, politics is all that it's about. Winning or losing a war is not decided by square metre of occupied territory, or kill count, or whatnot, but about making it politically advantageous for the enemy to withdraw.
it doesn’t have strategic implications.
It has two strategic implications:
one: the place where they stashed all the rich / important kids got fucked.
two: pressure on neighboring regions is drawing forces from elsewhere, even while RU tries to drive against Pokrovsk - but losing @1000-1300 people every fucking day and gaining little more than abandoned (and boobytrapped) trenches and shelled husks of the outlying neighborhoods.
If Ukrainian artillery starts operating inside Kursk in large scale, shit's gonna get REALLY fun quick.
“Hannibal’s advances in Italy prompt public criticism of Scipio’s Africa push”
Only that time more than half the cartaginian army was about to travel to Italy to follow Hannibal. If Scipios didn't crush them there, the world would be a very different one today.
Yeah honestly I don't really understand why Ukraine diverted forces to Kursk. They were dug into strong positions in Donetsk... Positions they've since had to give up as the Russian advance picks up pace.
Maybe Syrskyi saw the writing on the wall and went for a hail mary?
Commentators I've seen blame the lack of defence on incompetent commanders that aren't reporting losses, lack of construction equipment for preparing fallback lines and lack of communication between units. There are apparently many cases of electronic warfare units jamming Ukrainian drones because they don't know what the drone unit is doing. In short: doesn't sound like a problem that can be solved by just adding more bodies.
Disclaimer: fog of war, I'm reporting on what people have said about what people have said, this may not be accurate (but what source is perfectly accurate in the middle of a war?).
Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/30/ukraine-russian-advances-pokrovsk-kursk
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/