What's really going on?

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

To be honest, we are all clueless.

https://www.grid.news/story/global/2022/08/18/the-ukraine-wa….

Ukraine has raised its estimate of Russian soldiers killed in the conflict to 43,000, as Grid’s Josh Keating reported earlier this week. NATO has estimated Russian troop losses at between 7,000 and 15,000 (about what Ukraine and “Western military/security experts” claimed during the first few weeks of the conflict).

On June 10, top advisers to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy estimated that 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed since the war began. U.S. intelligence officials have put the number at 5,500 to 11,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed since the invasion. Also on June 10, an adviser to Zelenskyy said Ukraine was losing as many as 200 soldiers each day.

A retired Russian general was reportedly shot down over Luhansk in late May — by Ukrainian counts the 13th Russian general to be killed in Ukraine. Previously, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that eight to 10 Russian generals had been killed in Ukraine.

There are more than 6.4 million Ukrainian refugees reported in other European countries currently. United Nations data indicates more than 10 million Ukrainians have crossed the border since the start of the war, but millions have returned home, largely from Poland

The International Organization for Migration’s latest survey of internally displaced Ukrainians, in late June, found more Ukrainians returning home from within Ukraine, but more than 6 million remained displaced within their own country.

As Ukraine hits Russian supply line across the Ukraine/Russian border, Russia retaliates by lobing missiles into Odessa and other major cities outside of the direct conflict zone. Interestingly, we never hear about the Russians hitting military supply convoys bringing weapons and ammunition into Ukraine - something which is an obvious strategy.

The point of the above is that we are dependent on both Ukrainian sources as well as the US government (which has vested interests of its own) for war news - and both sources are cheerleading and spewing propaganda. We are only listening to one half of the story and it is deemed somehow unpatriotic to question it or look for “parallel” stories.

The US is making a HUGE investment in Ukraine of over $8 billion in military toys, as well as dipping deep into our stock of some of the weapons (without an easy/quick way to resupply our forces with them). Putting the moral/ethical reasons to participate aside, there are apparently vital reasons that the US, EU and UK (as well as NATO) feel it is imperative to have Ukraine use their manpower (and our equipment) neutralize Russia’s military ability to cause trouble in the near future.

Just be careful to carefully consider how to weigh the information you are given before jumping to conclusions about how the war is going and how long it will continue (and what would constitute an endpoint acceptable to both parties).

Jeff

13 Likes
2

I think the US and EU interest in the Ukraine is critical raw materials.

The Ukraine would be a very wealthy country but for the political and business corruption.

https://news.industriall-europe.eu/p/ukraine-monitor-raw-mat…

intercst

2 Likes
3

A tyrant says he wants to do A. But he promises to do B, which is totally incompatible with doing A.

He does A.

He comes back to the negotiating table and promises the world that he will do B.

Goes home and does A again.

Repeat a few more cycles.

And some people continue to trust that, if we just ask nice, he’ll do B.

This war will end either on the Ukraine-Russia border, or with battles inside several NATO countries.

1 Like
4

To be honest, we are all clueless.

At the same time, we’ve all seen pictures of the bridges over the Dnipro River holed by HIMARS artillery. That clearly presents major problems to the Russian forces west of the river.

In addition, the Russians report attacks on their bases behind their lines.

www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-calls-world-show-streng…
Russia reported fresh Ukrainian drone attacks on Friday evening, a day after explosions erupted near military bases in Russian-held areas of Ukraine and Russia itself…The latest incidents followed huge blasts last week at an air base in Russian-annexed Crimea…Russia has denied aircraft were damaged in what it called an accident, although satellite pictures showed at least eight burnt-out warplanes and several huge craters.

DB2

2 Likes
5

To be honest, we are all clueless.

The point of the above is that we are dependent on both Ukrainian sources as well as the US government (which has vested interests of its own) for war news - and both sources are cheerleading and spewing propaganda. We are only listening to one half of the story and it is deemed somehow unpatriotic to question it or look for “parallel” stories.

“Clueless” is a broad statement. There are other important avenues for news: The war is being covered on social media. If something significant is being blown up, somebody is capturing it on their phone and posting it to Telegram. Significant operations cannot be hidden or covered up.

For example, this think tank provides a daily assessment of the war from open sources, including Russian General Staff and Russian social media.

https://www.understandingwar.org/

11 Likes
6

The point of the above is that we are dependent on both Ukrainian sources as well as the US government (which has vested interests of its own) for war news - and both sources are cheerleading and spewing propaganda. We are only listening to one half of the story and it is deemed somehow unpatriotic to question it or look for “parallel” stories.

=====================================================

Speak for yourself. In addition to US and Ukranian news reports, I read British, German and EU news reports. They provide good reporting without cheerleading and propaganda. I also like the Atlantic Council reports.

I never read biased garbage news sources.

Jaak

1 Like
7

Ditto what syke6 and Jaak said. BBC has printed numerous articles by reporters allowed to witness operations in action, video them, interview civilians and soldiers on the ground, etc.

Russia allows only state approved propaganda.

Of course both sides exaggerate successes. That happens in every war.

But we can be far from clueless if we vet our sources mindfully.

2 Likes
8

I wonder if ex politicians, generals, and think tanks have any benefit from the “investments” in weapons.

Either way, Zelensky is slowly not the flavor of the month amongst America’s ruling class.

Mind you, they got him to get into this war but seems they’ve now moved on to starting one with China and Taiwan.

I sure hope the armed forces stay volunteer. And I hope potential volunteers really think it thru.

I know what my advice would be.

9

Jaak,

The point I was making is supported by your statement. All the sources you mentioned (UK, German, EU) are aligned with those in Ukraine and the US and all support the same (likely coordinated) theme. I am not saying they are not truthful, but I am saying that it is a risk (in seeking information about what is going on) to only read one side of the story.

A simple example (which I mentioned in the OP) is that there are no stories about whether the Russians are successfully attacking military supplies flowing into Ukraine. They may not be, but that would fly in the face of any logical military strategy.

There also has been no printed correlation noticing the dates of Ukrainian attacks against areas the Russians deem on their side of the border and Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities outside of the war zone. It’s pretty obvious that this is taking place (as was the attack on Odessa after Ukraine sank one of Russia’s warships in the Black Sea).

The lack of these stories indicates that the news (including your “multiple” sources) is being modified for global consumption. My caution is simply to be careful about making assumptions solely on the news emanating from one side of a conflict (regardless of what the other side says and whether you trust them or not).

Jeff

5 Likes
10

My caution is simply to be careful about making assumptions solely on the news emanating from one side of a conflict (regardless of what the other side says and whether you trust them or not)

Jeff,

I never read or listen to anything pertaining to government spending or military activity without assuming that I am receiving some kind of “spin.” I don’t assume we’re getting the straight story from anyone in a position that benefits financially, politically, or reputationally by currying favor with one side or another in taxing, spending, defense, immigration, domestic or foreign policy matters.

For instance, on one of the “news/talk radio” stations, I heard that the US is spending about $1 Billion per week on the Russia/Ukraine war. The only similar round figure I was able to find was $54 Billion reported in May by the NY Times.

Four Ways to Understand the $54 Billion in U.S. Spending on Ukraine

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/20/upshot/ukrain…

A more recent comment I heard about US aid to Ukraine referred to a complete lack of transparency or accountability for the military hardware US taxpayers have been taxed and paid for (benefiting military contractors, Washington, D.C. lobbyists, and their elected officials/campaign finance beneficiaries).

Report: 70% of Western Weapons Sent to Ukraine Don’t Reach Troops

The report adds to ongoing rumors of waste, corruption, and black market profiteering…
An entire spectrum of equipment, from rifles and grenades to anti-tank missiles and multiple launch rocket systems have left the West’s armories for Ukraine…

“All of this stuff goes across the border, and… getting the weapons to the troops involves navigating a complex network of “power lords, oligarchs [and] political players”. “There is really no information as to where they’re going at all,” Donatella Rovera, a senior crisis adviser with Amnesty International, told CBS, adding, “What is really worrying is that some countries that are sending weapons do not seem to think that it is their responsibility to put in place a very robust oversight mechanism.” [Emphasis added.]

https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14010517000136/Repr-0-%D8%AF…

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-military-aid-weapons-fr…

I have not successfully located a truly reliable news aggregator or “neutral information processing service” that provides some sort of “impartial digest,” with services such as the following:

  1. Collecting and updating new stories from multiple sources.
  2. Providing a complete bullet-point list of the reported information, identifying the source.
  3. For each listed source, describing the “slant, bias, sources of economic support, and/or political allies or beneficiaries” of that source.
  4. Providing links to the underlying hard data, information, report, or announcement relied upon by the source.
  5. Posting daily “corrections, retractions, or revisions,” together with links to the earlier reports.

In the past, I assumed that reports released by Associated Press or Reuters were always unbiased and accurate. Now… not so much.

A careful reading of almost any report reveals that “neutral” information sources can “spin” or present information in the light or sequence most supportive of “official” government or academic pronouncements. I have seen that official governmental or academic sources can be just as biased as lobbyists or politicians - especially when dealing with information that can affect ongoing or future financial, career, or funding decisions.

1 Like
11

Jeff,

It is not that anyone is “unpatriotic”. It is that most of us have a global agenda. We feel we are damned right in having that agenda.

Sometimes it feels like that agenda is being not just questioned but told to take a rest. Many of us are on alert to the outcomes of our actions as a nation and as the west. Most of us armchair warriors are not willing to back off that. While the chair seats are warm our tax dollars are hot. We pay a price we want to pay.

12

Let me start off with a confession. I’ll admit that I’m not following this story terribly closely any more. I’m making do with generally better quality US and international sources, figuring that the stories are, at best, incomplete. But I think I can still comment on a few concepts without getting bogged down in gory details.

All the sources you mentioned (UK, German, EU) are aligned with those in Ukraine and the US and all support the same (likely coordinated) theme. I am not saying they are not truthful, but I am saying that it is a risk (in seeking information about what is going on) to only read one side of the story.

I agree with this in principle, but there are problems with putting it into practice in the current situation. The biggest problem is that there is no reliable - or even sort of reliable - source from the Russian side. Russia itself is providing unreliable information, both because they are one of the belligerents in the conflict and because Russia has a long history of providing unreliable information.

I suppose reading Russian aligned sources does at least put some limits on data. For example, if they say there have been x number of casualties on the Russian side, you can be fairly certain there are at least that many.

A simple example (which I mentioned in the OP) is that there are no stories about whether the Russians are successfully attacking military supplies flowing into Ukraine. They may not be, but that would fly in the face of any logical military strategy.

There are other ways of getting into that information. Is Ukraine blaming supply losses on Russian attacks? Are Ukraine allies (like the US) holding Ukraine accountable for the use of military supplies? Are Russian sources claiming successful attacks? And we always need to consider the possibility (not a certainty, but a possibility) that despite the basic military logic of Russia attacking Ukraine supplies, perhaps Russia is incapable of doing so.

The lack of these stories indicates that the news (including your “multiple” sources) is being modified for global consumption.

I’d assume that as a given in any war time setting. Both sides have incentive to protect military operational news for at least the protection of their operational troops. Even if you consider your troops to be cannon fodder, you still want to protect them enough to be usable as fodder at the time and place of your choosing. But it’s a little harder to make assumptions about the lack of certain information. Is that information being withheld, or is it simply not happening?

This is all part of the fog of war, and notoriously difficult to suss out good information.

–Peter

1 Like
13

The lack of these stories indicates that the news (including your “multiple” sources) is being modified for global consumption. My caution is simply to be careful about making assumptions solely on the news emanating from one side of a conflict (regardless of what the other side says and whether you trust them or not).

Jeff

============================================

You forget that military leaders on both sides will not disclose their strategy and their damage. So we have news reporters who do try to give the world some alternative pictures. It is not all coordinated news.

Jaak

14

My caution is simply to be careful about making assumptions solely on the news emanating from one side of a conflict (regardless of what the other side says and whether you trust them or not).

Long ago someone who’s name you would recognize if I could remember it, said:
“Truth is the first casualty in any war.”

Still true.

1 Like
15

Long ago someone who’s name you would recognize if I could remember it, said:
“Truth is the first casualty in any war.”

“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” Winston Churchill

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/winston_churchill_111291

The Captain

2 Likes
16

Long ago someone who’s name you would recognize if I could remember it, said:

Hiram Johnson

“The first casualty when war comes is truth”.